19 research outputs found

    Unification of favourable intermediate‐, unfavourable intermediate‐, and very high‐risk stratification criteria for prostate cancer

    Full text link
    Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139069/1/bju13903.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139069/2/bju13903_am.pd

    Ten-Year Outcomes of High-Dose, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

    No full text
    BACKGROUND. The authors investigated long-term tumor control and toxicity outcomes after high-dose, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients who had clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS. Between April 1996 and January 1998, 170 patients received 81 gray (Gy) using a 5-field IMRT technique. Patients were classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined risk groups. Toxicity data were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0. Freedom from biochemical relapse, distant metastases, and cause-specific survival outcomes were calculated. The median follow-up was 99 months. RESULTS. The 10-year actuarial prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival rates were 81% for the low-risk group, 78% for the intermediate-risk group, and 62% for the high-risk group; the 10-year distant metastases-free rates were 100%, 94%, and 90%, respectively; and the 10-year cause-specific mortality rates were 0%, 3%, and 14%, respectively. The 10-year likelihood of developing grade 2 and 3 late genitourinary toxicity was 11% and 5%, respectively; and the 10-year likelihood of developing grade 2 and 3 late gastrointestinal toxicity was 2% and 1%, respectively. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS. To the authors' knowledge, this report represents the longest followed cohort of patients who received high-dose radiation levels of 81 Gy using IMRT for localized prostate cancer. The findings indicated that high-dose IMRT is well tolerated and is associated with excellent long-term tumor-control outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer Cancer 2011; 117: 1429-37. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society

    Complementary prognostic value of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the pretreatment assessment of patients with cervical cancer

    Full text link
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental prognostic value of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and whole-body F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) findings compared with clinical-histopathologic factors in patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer. METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study of 114 patients (median age, 40.6 years) with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I-IVB cervical cancer who underwent pretreatment MRI and PET/CT. All scans were reviewed for locoregional tumor extent, pelvic or/and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, and distant metastases. Univariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to evaluate associations between clinical-histopathologic factors, imaging findings, and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariate models were built using independent predictors for PFS. Harrell C was used to measure concordance (C index). RESULTS: Forty patients progressed within a median time of 10.4 months (range, 0.4-40.3 months). At univariate analysis, age, FIGO stage, tumor histology, tumor grade, and all MRI and PET/CT features were significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.0001 to P = 0.0474). A multivariate model including clinical and imaging parameters (parametrial invasion on MRI and para-aortic lymphadenopathy/distant metastases on PET/CT) had significantly higher concordance for predicting PFS than a model including clinical parameters only (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.68 [95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.78]; P < 0.001). The comparison of C indices for the combined clinical and imaging model approached significance when compared with a FIGO stage model (C index: 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87] vs 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.82]; P = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer, a prognostic model including combined MRI and PET/CT findings provides information that complements clinical and histopathologic factors
    corecore