Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics

Treatment Failure, Androgen Antagonists, Societies, Medical, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reference Values, radiotherapy, drug therapy, blood, Prostatic Neoplasms, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Male, Humans, Combined Modality Therapy, therapeutic use

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

      In 1996 the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) sponsored a Consensus Conference to establish a definition of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The ASTRO definition defined prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure as occurring after three consecutive PSA rises after a nadir with the date of failure as the point halfway between the nadir date and the first rise or any rise great enough to provoke initiation of therapy. This definition was not linked to clinical progression or survival; it performed poorly in patients undergoing hormonal therapy (HT), and backdating biased the Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival. A second Consensus Conference was sponsored by ASTRO and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 21, 2005, to revise the ASTRO definition. The panel recommended: (1) a rise by 2 ng/mL or more above the nadir PSA be considered the standard definition for biochemical failure after EBRT with or without HT; (2) the date of failure be determined "at call" (not backdated). They recommended that investigators be allowed to use the ASTRO Consensus Definition after EBRT alone (no hormonal therapy) with strict adherence to guidelines as to "adequate follow-up." To avoid the artifacts resulting from short follow-up, the reported date of control should be listed as 2 years short of the median follow-up. For example, if the median follow-up is 5 years, control rates at 3 years should be cited. Retaining a strict version of the ASTRO definition would allow comparisons with a large existing body of literature.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Journal
      10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
      16798415

      Comments

      Comment on this article