The 5-year outcomes of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (66 Gy in 22 fractions, 3 fractions per week) for localized prostate cancer: a retrospective study

Hashimoto, Y.; Motegi, Atsushi; Akimoto, Tetsuo; Mitsuhashi, Norio; Iizuka, Junpei; Tanabe, Kazunari; Ishii, Y.; Sawa, Kôichiro; Karasawa, Kumiko

doi:10.1007/s10147-017-1175-1

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most patients survive within 10 years follow up despite in prostatectomy group or observation group, the effects of prostatectomy may not exhibit. The 5-year overall survival rate and no biological evidence of disease rate for localized prostate cancer patients were 97.7% and 92.4%, respectively [20] . Thus, enough time for follow up was necessary to compare the prostatectomy group and observation group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Do prostatectomy suitable for localized prostate cancer patient: evidence from meta-analysis

Luo¹,

Yi²,

Hu³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the role of prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patient. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, and Web of Science through March 22, 2019 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify studies reporting on prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patient. Results: Of a total of 1827 studies, 6 were considered for evidence synthesis. A total of 4476 patients in 4 studies were included for survival analysis, 2,779 patients received prostatectomy and 1,697 patients were received no treatment but regularly followed up. Two other studies were included for adverse effects analysis. Prostatectomy displayed a significantly decreased risk of death of 35% compared with observation (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.81, P<0.0001). Pooled data indicated prostatectomy reduced 55% risk of disease progression (OR=0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.60, P<0.00001). Anxiety, depressed mode, wellbeing, and sense of meaningfulness for patients were no difference between prostatectomy and observation group. However, prostatectomy increased 2.77 folds risk of erection dysfunction (OR=2.77, 95% CI, 1.60–4.81, P=0.0003 Conclusion: Prostatectomy prolonged survival and deferred disease progression compared to observation for localized prostate cancer patients. Symptoms between two groups were not significant difference except for erection function. Patients should decide prostatectomy or not after balancing the survival benefit and erection dysfunction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Do prostatectomy suitable for localized prostate cancer patient: evidence from meta-analysis

Luo¹,

Yi²,

Hu³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most patients survive within 10 years of follow-up despite prostatectomy or observation, and the effects of prostatectomy may not be observed. The 5-year overall survival rate and no biological evidence of disease rate for localized prostate cancer patients were 97.7% for patients undergoing prostatectomy and 92.4% for patient with observation (24). Thus, enough time for follow-up was necessary to compare the prostatectomy group and observation group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prostatectomy Versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Luo¹,

Yi²,

Hu³

et al. 2019

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Controversy exists regarding whether prostatectomy benefits localized prostate cancer patients; the aim of our study was to evaluate the role of prostatectomy in localized prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science through March 22, 2019, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify randomized studies reporting on prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer patients. Results: Of a total of 1827 studies, six were considered for evidence synthesis. A total of 2524 patients in 3 studies were included for survival analysis, where 1256 patients received prostatectomy and 1268 patients received no treatment but were regularly followed up. Three other studies were included for adverse effects analysis. Prostatectomy displayed a significantly decreased risk of death of 9% compared with that of observation for patients with localized prostate cancer (risk ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–0.97; p = 0.007). Pooled data indicated that prostatectomy reduced the risk of disease progression by 43% (risk ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.70; p < 0.00001). Anxiety, depressed mood, well-being, and sense of meaningfulness for patients were not different between the prostatectomy and observation groups. However, prostatectomy increased the risk of erectile dysfunction by 2.10-fold (risk ratio = 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.36–3.26; p = 0.0009) and the risk of urinary function problems by 2.02-fold (risk ratio = 2.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–3.54; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Prostatectomy prolonged survival and deferred disease progression compared to observation for patients with localized prostate cancer. Symptoms between the two groups were not significantly different except for erectile and urinary function. Patients should decide on prostatectomy after balancing the survival benefit and risk of erectile dysfunction.

show abstract

“…The EPIC comprises four separate domains (urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domains) [14]; however, we mainly focused on the relationship between changes in the urinary domain, including its subscales, and grading of GU toxicities after PPB. We previously reported on the relationship between changes in the disease-speci c QOL score, as assessed with the EPIC, and the grading of GU toxicity after high-dose rate brachytherapy with EBRT [15] and intermediate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (66 Gy in 22 fractions, 3 fractions per week) [16] for localised prostate cancer. Herein, we evaluated the relationship between changes in disease-speci c QOL scores and grading of GU toxicities after PPB using I-125 alone for localised prostate cancer to clarify the usefulness of the disease-speci c QOL in assessing treatment-related toxicity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Between Changes in Quality of Life and Grading of Genitourinary Toxicity After Brachytherapy with I-125 Alone for Localised Prostate Cancer

Hashimoto¹,

Motegi²,

Akimoto³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A rapid increase in human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is a global trend. Although HPV-positive patients have a more favorable prognosis, distant metastases occur, warranting new, systemic treatment options. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of combining proteasome or MDM2 inhibitors with cisplatin on an HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma cell line (LU-HNSCC-26).Methods The LU-HNSCC-26 cells were treated with proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib, carfilzomib or ixazomib) or MDM2 inhibitor (RG7112) in combination with cisplatin. Combinatorial effects were analyzed by isobolograms. Protein expression was investigated by Western blotting and cell cycle phase distribution by flow cytometry. Results There was no synergy between the substances and cisplatin. All proteasome inhibitors displayed antagonistic effects while the MDM2 inhibitor was additive in combination with cisplatin. The expression of p53 was only marginally affected and apoptosis was not detected. The cell cycle progression was halted in G0/G1 with all inhibitors and in S phase with cisplatin. The expression of p21 increased by bortezomib or carfilzomib, ixazomib increased p21 in combination with cisplatin while RG7112 did not affect p21. There was no effect on ERCC1 with any of the substances.Conclusions In the investigated HPV16-positive OPSCC cell line, proteasome inhibition decreased the effect of cisplatin. A possible mechanism for this includes low effects on p53 expression with concomitant increase in p21 expression and blocking of cell cycle progression in G0/G1 with preserved DNA damage repair. The combination of proteasome inhibition with ordinary cytotoxic treatment for HPV-positive OPSCC patients is thus questionable, and clinical trials should be preceded by thorough testing in adequate models.

show abstract

The 5-year outcomes of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (66 Gy in 22 fractions, 3 fractions per week) for localized prostate cancer: a retrospective study

Abstract: The moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy protocol yielded short-term satisfactory clinical outcomes with acceptable toxicity.

Cited by 12 publications

References 26 publications

Do prostatectomy suitable for localized prostate cancer patient: evidence from meta-analysis

Do prostatectomy suitable for localized prostate cancer patient: evidence from meta-analysis

Prostatectomy Versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Relationship Between Changes in Quality of Life and Grading of Genitourinary Toxicity After Brachytherapy with I-125 Alone for Localised Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About