Display options
Share it on

PeerJ. 2019 Jul 01;7:e7172. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7172. eCollection 2019.

Radiation dose-response (a Bayesian model) in the radiotherapy of the localized prostatic adenocarcinoma: the reliability of PSA slope changes as a response surrogate endpoint.

PeerJ

Reza Ali Mohammadpour, Jamshid Yazdani-Charati, SZahra Faghani, Ahad Alizadeh, Mohammadreza Barzegartahamtan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
  2. Department of Epidemiology and Reproductive Health, Reproductive Epidemiology Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 31304057 PMCID: PMC6610535 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7172

Abstract

PURPOSE: One of the characteristics of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) is PSA slope. It is the rate of diminishing PSA marker over time after radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PC) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between increasing RT doses and PSA slope as a potential surrogate for PC recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on PC patients who were treated by radiotherapy in the Cancer Institute of Iran during 2007-2012. By reviewing the records of these patients, the baseline PSA measurement before treatment (iPSA), Gleason score (GS), clinical T stage (T. stage), and periodic PSA measurements after RT and the total radiation dose received were extracted for each patient separately. We used a Bayesian dose-response model, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, Kaplan-Meier product-limit method for analysis. Probability values less 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: Based on the D'Amico risk assessment system, 13.34% of patients were classified as "Low Risk", 51.79% were "Intermediate Risk", and 34.87% were "High Risk". In terms of radiation doses, 12.31% of the patients received fewer than 50 Gy, 15.38% received 50 to 69 Gy, 61.03% received 70 Gy, and 11.28% received more than 70 Gy. The PSA values decreased after RT for all dose levels. The slope of PSA changes was negative for 176 of 195 patients. By increasing the dosage of radiation, the PSA decreased but these changes were not statistically significant (

CONCLUSION: Significant changes in the dose-response relationship were not observed when the PSA slope was considered as the response criterion. Therefore, although the absolute value of the PSA decreased with increasing doses of RT, the relationship between PSA slope changes and increasing doses was not clear and cannot be used as a reliable response surrogate endpoint.

Keywords: Bayesian dose-response; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific antigen slope; Radiotherapy

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

References

  1. Clin Cancer Res. 1999 Dec;5(12):4119-25 - PubMed
  2. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1097-105 - PubMed
  3. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Dec;23(6):607-25 - PubMed
  4. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Dec;23(6):626-34 - PubMed
  5. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 15;56(4):1073-8 - PubMed
  6. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 17;95(18):1376-83 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 1992 Aug;10(8):1208-17 - PubMed
  8. J Urol. 2004 Mar;171(3):1132-6 - PubMed
  9. JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1233-9 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):1990-6 - PubMed
  11. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 15;66(4):1064-71 - PubMed
  12. Cancer. 1991 Jul 15;68(2):400-5 - PubMed
  13. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jan 1;70(1):67-74 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 10;25(35):5673-4; author reply 5674 - PubMed
  15. Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;18(4):270-82 - PubMed
  16. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):980-8 - PubMed
  17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 1;72(3):782-91 - PubMed
  18. Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):226-33 - PubMed
  19. Eur Urol. 2011 Dec;60(6):1133-9 - PubMed
  20. Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;118(6):1533-42 - PubMed
  21. Eur Urol. 2012 Jan;61(1):112-27 - PubMed
  22. Can Urol Assoc J. 2012 Apr;6(2):121-7 - PubMed
  23. BMJ. 2013 Jan 29;346:f325 - PubMed
  24. Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Apr;42(2):627-34 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3944-50 - PubMed
  26. Rev Urol. 2013;15(3):97-107 - PubMed
  27. Radiat Oncol. 2013 Nov 27;8:276 - PubMed
  28. Radiat Oncol. 2014 Feb 02;9:42 - PubMed
  29. Radiat Oncol. 2014 Feb 05;9:47 - PubMed
  30. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6121-5 - PubMed
  31. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015 Mar;18(1):49-55 - PubMed
  32. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(7):2601-11 - PubMed
  33. Radiat Oncol. 2015 May 21;10:115 - PubMed
  34. Ann Oncol. 2015 Oct;26(10):2012-6 - PubMed
  35. Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):431-40 - PubMed
  36. J Clin Oncol. 1994 Jul;12(7):1402-7 - PubMed
  37. Cancer. 1993 Aug 1;72(3):832-42 - PubMed
  38. Radiother Oncol. 1997 Sep;44(3):213-21 - PubMed
  39. JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74 - PubMed

Publication Types