Abstract
Purpose Two models for stratification of prostate cancer aggressiveness predominate for the purposes of daily treatment decision making. This study investigates the relationships between these two clinically popular models. Methods Both risk stratification models use the same definition for low risk: Gleason score (GS) ≤6, pretreatment initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≤10 ng/mL, and stage T1c-T2c. For the single factor high risk model (SF), intermediate risk (IR) is defined as the presence of GS 7 or PSA > 10-20 ng/mL, without the presence of any high-risk feature; high risk (HR) was defined as the presence of GS 8-10, iPSA >20, or palpation stage T3. For the double factor high risk (DF) model, IR and HR were defined as one and more than one of the following: GS ≥7, iPSA >10, or stage T3. Between April 1989 and October 2001, 1,597 patients were treated definitively with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) alone for prostate cancer at our institution. The main clinical endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF). Results The 5-year actuarial FFBF rate for the low-risk group was 83%. The SF model resulted in FFBF rates of 76% and 47% for IR and HR patients respectively. The DF model resulted in FFBF rates of 70% and 52% for IR and HR patients, respectively. The FFBF rate for patients defined as IR and HR by both models was 76% and 40%, respectively. Those classified as IR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 76% and 52% 5-year FFBF rate (p = 0.0004). Those classified as HR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 71% and 40% 5-year FFBF (p = 0.0014). Conclusions The SF model created prognostic groups with a greater internal consistency than the DF model. The SF was also better at identifying patients with high-risk prostate cancer who may benefit from a more aggressive approach.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 380-385 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 1 2004 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Prostate cancer
- Radiation therapy
- Risk models
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oncology
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Radiation
Cite this
A comparison of the single and double factor high-risk models for risk assignment of prostate cancer treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy. / Chism, Derek B.; Hanlon, Alexandra L.; Horwitz, Eric M.; Feigenberg, Steven J.; Pollack, Alan.
In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 59, No. 2, 01.06.2004, p. 380-385.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of the single and double factor high-risk models for risk assignment of prostate cancer treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy
AU - Chism, Derek B.
AU - Hanlon, Alexandra L.
AU - Horwitz, Eric M.
AU - Feigenberg, Steven J.
AU - Pollack, Alan
PY - 2004/6/1
Y1 - 2004/6/1
N2 - Purpose Two models for stratification of prostate cancer aggressiveness predominate for the purposes of daily treatment decision making. This study investigates the relationships between these two clinically popular models. Methods Both risk stratification models use the same definition for low risk: Gleason score (GS) ≤6, pretreatment initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≤10 ng/mL, and stage T1c-T2c. For the single factor high risk model (SF), intermediate risk (IR) is defined as the presence of GS 7 or PSA > 10-20 ng/mL, without the presence of any high-risk feature; high risk (HR) was defined as the presence of GS 8-10, iPSA >20, or palpation stage T3. For the double factor high risk (DF) model, IR and HR were defined as one and more than one of the following: GS ≥7, iPSA >10, or stage T3. Between April 1989 and October 2001, 1,597 patients were treated definitively with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) alone for prostate cancer at our institution. The main clinical endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF). Results The 5-year actuarial FFBF rate for the low-risk group was 83%. The SF model resulted in FFBF rates of 76% and 47% for IR and HR patients respectively. The DF model resulted in FFBF rates of 70% and 52% for IR and HR patients, respectively. The FFBF rate for patients defined as IR and HR by both models was 76% and 40%, respectively. Those classified as IR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 76% and 52% 5-year FFBF rate (p = 0.0004). Those classified as HR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 71% and 40% 5-year FFBF (p = 0.0014). Conclusions The SF model created prognostic groups with a greater internal consistency than the DF model. The SF was also better at identifying patients with high-risk prostate cancer who may benefit from a more aggressive approach.
AB - Purpose Two models for stratification of prostate cancer aggressiveness predominate for the purposes of daily treatment decision making. This study investigates the relationships between these two clinically popular models. Methods Both risk stratification models use the same definition for low risk: Gleason score (GS) ≤6, pretreatment initial prostate specific antigen (iPSA) ≤10 ng/mL, and stage T1c-T2c. For the single factor high risk model (SF), intermediate risk (IR) is defined as the presence of GS 7 or PSA > 10-20 ng/mL, without the presence of any high-risk feature; high risk (HR) was defined as the presence of GS 8-10, iPSA >20, or palpation stage T3. For the double factor high risk (DF) model, IR and HR were defined as one and more than one of the following: GS ≥7, iPSA >10, or stage T3. Between April 1989 and October 2001, 1,597 patients were treated definitively with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) alone for prostate cancer at our institution. The main clinical endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF). Results The 5-year actuarial FFBF rate for the low-risk group was 83%. The SF model resulted in FFBF rates of 76% and 47% for IR and HR patients respectively. The DF model resulted in FFBF rates of 70% and 52% for IR and HR patients, respectively. The FFBF rate for patients defined as IR and HR by both models was 76% and 40%, respectively. Those classified as IR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 76% and 52% 5-year FFBF rate (p = 0.0004). Those classified as HR by the DF model and then further subdivided into IR and HR by the SF model had a 71% and 40% 5-year FFBF (p = 0.0014). Conclusions The SF model created prognostic groups with a greater internal consistency than the DF model. The SF was also better at identifying patients with high-risk prostate cancer who may benefit from a more aggressive approach.
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Radiation therapy
KW - Risk models
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442510047&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442510047&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.059
DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.059
M3 - Article
C2 - 15145151
AN - SCOPUS:2442510047
VL - 59
SP - 380
EP - 385
JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
SN - 0360-3016
IS - 2
ER -