International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 53, Issue 4 , Pages 898-903 , 15 July 2002

Using PSA, biopsy Gleason score, clinical stage, and the percentage of positive biopsies to identify optimal candidates for prostate-only radiation therapy

These findings were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in San Francisco, CA., November 2001.

  • Marshal E Lieberfarb, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr. Marshal E. Lieberfarb, Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, 5th floor, Boston, MA 02215 USA. Tel: (617) 632-7325
    • Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Delray Schultz, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Mathematics, University of Millersville, Millersville, PA, USA
    • ,
  • Richard Whittington, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Urology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
    • ,
  • Bruce Malkowicz, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Urology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
    • ,
  • John E Tomaszewski, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Urology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
    • ,
  • Michael Weinstein, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Radiation Oncology, Urology, and Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Alan Wein, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Urology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA
    • ,
  • Jerome P Richie, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Radiation Oncology, Urology, and Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Anthony V D’Amico, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Radiation Oncology, Urology, and Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Received 27 September 2001 ,Revised 13 February 2002 ,Accepted 27 February 2002.

References 

  1. Kattan MW, Eastman JA, Stapleton AMF, et al.  A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:766–771
  2. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Broderick GA, et al.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:969–974
  3. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.  Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1164–1172
  4. D’Amico AV, Schultz D, Silver B, et al.  The clinical utility of the percent of positive prostate biopsies in predicting biochemical outcome following external-beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:679–684
  5. Badalment RA, Miller MC, Peller PA, et al.  An algorithm for predicting non-organ confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol. 1996;156:1375–1380
  6. Borirakchanyavat S, Bhargava V, Shinohara K, et al.  Systematic sextant biopsies in the prediction of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1997;50:373–378
  7. Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, et al.  The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;163:174–178
  8. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.  A multi-variable analysis evaluating the role of the percent positive biopsies and endorectal coil MRI in predicting extraprostatic disease and time to postoperative PSA failure in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer J. 1996;2:343–350
  9. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al.  Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281:1591–1597
  10. Gleason DF  the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group . Histologic grading and staging of prostatic carcinoma. In:  Tannenbaum M editors. Urologic pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger; 1977;p. 171–187
  11. Osterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Klee GG, et al.  Free, complexed, and total serum prostate specific antigen (The establishment of appropriate reference ranges for their concentrations and ratios). J Urol. 1995;154:1090–1095
  12. Bearhs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP. American Joint Commission on Cancer, Manual for staging cancer. 4th ed.. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1997;
  13. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–500
  14. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al.  Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (Results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database). J Urol. 2001;165:851–856
  15. Lee AK, Schultz D, Renshaw AR, et al.  Optimizing patient selection for prostate monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:673–677

PII: S0360-3016(02)02812-2

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 53, Issue 4 , Pages 898-903 , 15 July 2002

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution