Home > Riviste > Panminerva Medica > Fascicoli precedenti > Panminerva Medica 2017 September;59(3) > Panminerva Medica 2017 September;59(3):210-20

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Panminerva Medica 2017 September;59(3):210-20

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.17.03232-3

Copyright © 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Prognostic factors in prostate cancer patients treated by radical external beam radiotherapy

Elisabetta GARIBALDI 1 , Domenico GABRIELE 2, Angelo MAGGIO 3, Elena DELMASTRO 1, Monica GARIBALDI 2, Filippo RUSSO 4, Sara BRESCIANI 3, Michele STASI 3, Pietro GABRIELE 1

1 Radiotherapy Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Turin, Italy; 2 Department of Radiotherapy, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; 3 Medical Physics Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Turin, Italy; 4 Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Turin, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to analyze, retrospectively, in prostate cancer patients treated in our Centre with external beam radiotherapy, the prognostic factors and their impact on the outcome in terms of cancer-specific survival (CSS), biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) and clinical disease-free survival (CDFS).
METHODS: From October 1999 and March 2012, 1080 patients were treated with radiotherapy at our Institution: 87% of them were classified as ≤cT2, 83% had a Gleason Score (GS) ≤7, their mean of iPSA was 18 ng/mL, and the rate of clinical positive nodes was 1%. The mean follow-up was 81 months.
RESULTS: The statistically significant prognostic factors for all groups of patients at both, univariate and multivariate analysis, were the GS and the iPSA. In intermediate- and high- or very-high-risk patients at multivariate analysis other prognostic factors for CSS were positive nodes on computed tomography (CT) scan and rectal preparation during the treatment; for BDFS, the prognostic factors were patient risk classification, positive lymph nodes on CT scan and rectal/bladder preparation; for CDFS, the prognostic factors were the number of positive core on biopsy (P=0.003), positive lymph nodes on CT scan, and radiotherapy (RT) dose. In high/very-high risk patient group at multivariate analysis other prognostic factors for CSS were clinical/radiological stage and RT dose, for BDFS they were adjuvant hormone therapy, clinical/radiological stage, and RT dose >77.7 Gy, and for CDFS they were clinical/radiological stage and RT dose >77.7 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the prognostic factors described in the recent literature, with the addition of rectal/bladder preparation, generally known for its effect on toxicity but not yet on outcome.


KEY WORDS: Prostatic neoplasms - Radiotherapy - Radiotherapy dosage - Prognosis - Treatment outcome

inizio pagina