Display options
Cite
Nieder C, Marienhagen K, Kristensen RM, et al. Continuous prostate-specific antigen rise despite salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Pattern of clinical relapse and predictive factors. Oncol Lett. 2015;11(2):1138-1142doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.4005.
Nieder, C., Marienhagen, K., Kristensen, R. M., Sørbye, T., & Hoem, L. (2016). Continuous prostate-specific antigen rise despite salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Pattern of clinical relapse and predictive factors. Oncology letters, 11(2), 1138-1142. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.4005
Nieder, Carsten, et al. "Continuous prostate-specific antigen rise despite salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Pattern of clinical relapse and predictive factors." Oncology letters vol. 11,2 (2016): 1138-1142. doi: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.4005
Nieder C, Marienhagen K, Kristensen RM, Sørbye T, Hoem L. Continuous prostate-specific antigen rise despite salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Pattern of clinical relapse and predictive factors. Oncol Lett. 2016 Feb;11(2):1138-1142. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.4005. Epub 2015 Dec 04. PMID: 26893707; PMCID: PMC4734180.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Oncol Lett. 2016 Feb;11(2):1138-1142. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.4005. Epub 2015 Dec 04.

Continuous prostate-specific antigen rise despite salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Pattern of clinical relapse and predictive factors.

Oncology letters

Carsten Nieder, Kirsten Marienhagen, Roy M Kristensen, Torbjørn Sørbye, Lars Hoem

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, Bodø 8092, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø 6038, Norway.
  2. Department of Oncology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø 9038, Norway.
  3. Department of Urology, Nordland Hospital, Bodø 8092, Norway.

PMID: 26893707 PMCID: PMC4734180 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2015.4005

Abstract

Salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence does not always control the disease. It would be useful to identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy to the prostate bed prior to making treatment recommendations. One such group of patients is those who experience continuously rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) despite radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for continuous PSA increase and the pattern of radiological relapse during follow-up. We performed a retrospective comparison of two patient groups with PSA decline or continuous increase following salvage radiotherapy to the prostate bed. All patients received 3-D conformal radiotherapy (35 fractions of 2 Gy). Patients with continuous PSA increase were more likely to have had complete surgical resection (negative margins) and a shorter interval to radiotherapy (<24 months). However, the only statistically significant risk factor was Gleason score. Sixty-four percent of patients with a Gleason score of 9 developed continuously increasing PSA, indicating that residual subclinical cancer was not located in the prostate bed. The median time to radiological recurrence was 43 months. Isolated pelvic nodal recurrence was uncommon. Almost all patients with radiological recurrence had high-risk disease, in particular stage pT3. In conclusion, the majority of patients with biologically aggressive tumors with Gleason score 9 were not adequately treated with prostate bed radiotherapy alone. The predominant pattern of radiological recurrence was outside of the pelvis. Therefore, the problem of distant micrometastases has to be addressed.

Keywords: prostate cancer; prostate-specific antigen; radiation oncology; radiotherapy; salvage treatment

References

  1. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Aug;190(8):727-31 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 2008 Jun 18;299(23):2760-9 - PubMed
  3. Radiother Oncol. 2008 Nov;89(2):205-13 - PubMed
  4. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3):735-40 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Nov 15;75(4):983-9 - PubMed
  6. Oncol Rep. 2014 Mar;31(3):1067-78 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 20;27(18):2924-30 - PubMed
  8. J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25(15):2035-41 - PubMed
  9. Urol Oncol. 2008 May-Jun;26(3):271-5 - PubMed
  10. Can J Urol. 2009 Apr;16(2):4541-52 - PubMed
  11. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Aug 1;86(5):822-8 - PubMed
  12. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 15;73(4):1009-16 - PubMed
  13. Radiat Oncol. 2013 Nov 27;8:276 - PubMed
  14. BJU Int. 2009 Nov;104(10):1452-6 - PubMed
  15. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010 Feb;22(1):46-55 - PubMed
  16. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Apr 1;82(5):1930-7 - PubMed
  17. Radiat Oncol. 2012 Oct 31;7:185 - PubMed
  18. Radiat Oncol. 2014 Oct 20;9:208 - PubMed
  19. Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan 14;9:24 - PubMed
  20. Oncol Rep. 2014 Jan;31(1):428-34 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2005 Aug 13-19;366(9485):572-8 - PubMed
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 May 1;74(1):115-25 - PubMed
  23. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Oct 1;90(2):296-302 - PubMed
  24. JAMA. 2006 Nov 15;296(19):2329-35 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Dec;41(12 ):2222-31 - PubMed

Publication Types