19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Phase III trial comparing whole-pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413.

      Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
      Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Androgen Antagonists, administration & dosage, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal, California, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Combined Modality Therapy, Disease-Free Survival, Drug Administration Schedule, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Massachusetts, Michigan, Middle Aged, Neoadjuvant Therapy, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Proportional Hazards Models, Prospective Studies, Prostate-Specific Antigen, blood, Prostatic Neoplasms, drug therapy, mortality, pathology, radiotherapy, Radiotherapy, Conformal, Texas, Treatment Outcome, Wisconsin

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This trial tested the hypothesis that combined androgen suppression (CAS) and whole-pelvic (WP) radiotherapy (RT) followed by a boost to the prostate improves progression-free survival (PFS) by 10% compared with CAS and prostate-only (PO) RT. This trial also tested the hypothesis that neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy (NCHT) improves PFS compared with adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) by 10%. Eligibility included localized prostate cancer with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < or = 100 ng/mL and an estimated risk of lymph node (LN) involvement of 15%. Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1,323 patients were accrued. Patients were randomly assigned to WP + NCHT, PO + NCHT, WP + AHT, or PO + AHT. Failure for PFS was defined as the first occurrence of local, regional, or distant disease; PSA failure; or death for any cause. With a median follow-up of 59.5 months, WP RT was associated with a 4-year PFS of 54% compared with 47% in patients treated with PO RT (P =.022). Patients treated with NCHT experienced a 4-year PFS of 52% versus 49% for AHT (P =.56). When comparing all four arms, there was a progression-free difference among WP RT + NCHT, PO RT + NCHT, WP RT + AHT, and PO RT + AHT (60% v 44% v 49% v 50%, respectively; P =.008). No survival advantage has yet been seen. WP RT + NCHT improves PFS compared with PO RT and NCHT or PO RT and AHT, and compared with WP RT + AHT in patients with a risk of LN involvement of 15%.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article