Context.-Interstitial radiation (implant) therapy is used to treat clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate, but how it compares with other treatments is not known. Objective.-To estimate control of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation (RT), or implant with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Design.-Retrospective cohort study of outcome data compared using Cox regression multivariable analyses. Setting and Patients.-A total of 1872 men treated between January 1989 and October 1997 with an RP (n = 888) or implant with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (n = 218) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, or RT (n = 766) at the Joint Center for Radiation Therapy, Boston, Mass, were enrolled. Main Outcome Measure.-Actuarial freedom from PSA failure (defined as PSA outcome). Results.-The relative risk (RR) of PSA failure in low-risk patients (stage T1c, T2a and PSA level Յ10 ng/mL and Gleason score Յ6) treated using RT, implant plus androgen deprivation therapy, or implant therapy was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.7), 0.5 (95% CI, 0.1-1.9), and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.3-3.6), respectively, compared with those patients treated with RP. The RRs of PSA failure in the intermediate-risk patients (stage T2b or Gleason score of 7 or PSA level Ͼ10 and Յ20 ng/mL) and high-risk patients (stage T2c or PSA level Ͼ20 ng/mL or Gleason score Ն8) treated with implant compared with RP were 3.1 (95% CI, 1.5-6.1) and 3.0 (95% CI, 1.8-5.0), respectively. The addition of androgen deprivation to implant therapy did not improve PSA outcome in high-risk patients but resulted in a PSA outcome that was not statistically different compared with the results obtained using RP or RT in intermediate-risk patients. These results were unchanged when patients were stratified using the traditional rankings of biopsy Gleason scores of 2 through 4 vs 5 through 6 vs 7 vs 8 through 10. Conclusions.-Low-risk patients had estimates of 5-year PSA outcome after treatment with RP, RT, or implant with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation that were not statistically different, whereas intermediate-and high-risk patients treated with RP or RT did better then those treated by implant. Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify these findings.

No abstract

Insured men with prostate cancer are less likely to present with metastatic disease, more likely to be treated if they develop high-risk disease and are more likely to survive their cancer, suggesting that expanding health coverage under the ACA may significantly improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer who are not yet eligible for Medicare.

Background. This study was undertaken to calculate the prostate‐specific antigen doubling time (PSA‐DT) of prostate cancers recurrent after external beam radiation therapy and to investigate if a correlation exists between the PSA‐DT and the clinical behavior of prostate cancer as a possible reflection of the tumor doubling time. Methods. Twenty‐two patients treated with external beam radiation between October 1985 and October 1990 for clinical stages B1, B2, and C (T2a, T2b, T3) prostate cancer experienced PSA elevation as their only sign of failure. Serial PSA determinations are available before initiation of any secondary treatment and these have been used to calculate PSA‐DT. Results. The results of this study reveal that the PSA‐DT is a constant (r ± 0.98). Mathematically, this means the PSA value is growing exponentially and may represent tumor growth in the exponential phase. Second, the PSA‐DT was found to be linearly correlated (r = 0.86) with the interval to clinical relapse after PSA failure. Graphically, the slope of this correlation is equal to the number of PSA‐DT (4.5 with 95% confidence interval [3.6]) required before clinical disease manifests after PSA failure. Using this relationship, one can delineate those patients with aggressive tumor biology (PSA‐DT < 3.8 months) who require immediate therapeutic intervention versus a relatively indolent tumor biology (PSA‐DT ± 3.8 months) who can be spared the morbidity and expense of androgen deprivation therapy until clinical recurrence manifests. Furthermore, in the pretreatment setting, observation rather than treatment may be indicated for patients with PSA‐DT for 18 months or more, because the disease may not become clinically apparent during the patient's lifetime. Conclusion. PSA‐DT after radiation therapy may reflect the tumor doubling time and has implications in the posttherapy setting regarding the optimal time of intervention with androgen deprivation and in the pretreatment setting regarding the necessity for treatment rather than observation.

Prostate cancer patients with pathologically organ-confined and margin-negative disease and a preoperative PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL or a pathologic Gleason score > or = 7 have significant decrements in short-term PSA-failure-free survival. Therefore, these patients should be considered for adjuvant therapy in the setting of a phase III clinical trial.

A cV(Ca) greater than 4.0 cm3 identified patients with T1c.2 disease whose bNED survival was poor after RT or RP despite pathologic T2 disease that suggests the presence of occult micrometastatic disease in many of these patients. Prospective randomized trials to evaluate the impact on survival of adjuvant systemic therapy in these high-risk patients are justified.

With CT, radiation can be delivered to the renal bed safely and without undue morbidity. Given the lack of chronic complications associated with the side effects of radiation therapy and uniform local control of cancer in these patients, the role of radiation therapy in patients at high risk for local failure may be reconsidered.

BACKGROUND To examine the impact of race on treatment regret among men with recurrent prostate cancer after surgery or radiation. METHODS The prospective Comprehensive, Observational, Multicenter, Prostate Adenocarcinoma (COMPARE) registry was used to study a cohort of 484 men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation or brachytherapy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association between race and treatment regret and to determine whether there was an interaction between race and sexual problems after treatment with regards to treatment regret. RESULTS Black men (N = 78) were significantly more likely to have treatment regret when compared with non-black men (N = 406; 21.8% versus 12.6%) on univariable analysis (odds ratio (OR) 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.05–3.56; P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, black race trended towards but was no longer significantly associated with an increase in treatment regret (adjusted OR (AOR) 1.84 (0.95–3.58); P = 0.071). There was an interaction between race and sexual problems after treatment (Pinteraction = 0.02) such that among those without sexual problems, black men had more treatment regret than non-black men (26.7% versus 8.4%: AOR 4.68 (1.73–12.63); P = 0.002), whereas among those with sexual problems, there was no difference in treatment regret between black and non-black men (18.8% versus 17.3%: AOR 1.04 (0.44–2.46); P = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS Among men with recurrent prostate cancer after surgery or radiation, black men were nearly twice as likely to experience treatment regret. Treating physicians should ensure that patients are fully apprised of the pros and cons of all treatment options to reduce the risk of subsequent regret.