The case for dose escalation versus adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Tom Pickles, Alan Pollack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer have a significant risk of biochemical failure after treatment with external beam radiation therapy. Two strategies to improve outcomes are radiation dose escalation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This article discusses the evidence in favor of dose escalation. The case for radiation dose escalation has been established by several randomized studies, which show improved biochemical control (bNED) rates. Although late toxicity was also increased, it remains at clinically acceptable levels. The use of more focal methods of radiation, such as proton therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), allows safe dose escalation to 80 Gy. The role of adjuvant ADT is most clearly established in high-risk disease. Advantages in the intermediate-risk group are less pronounced. It is probable that therapeutic gain seen from dose escalation in intermediate-risk patients might allow them to be spared the toxicity of ADT and yet achieve good PSA and clinical control rates. Further randomized trials comparing and or combining the two treatment strategies are required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)68-71
Number of pages4
JournalThe Canadian journal of urology.
Volume13 Suppl 2
StatePublished - Apr 1 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Androgens
Prostatic Neoplasms
Radiation
Radiotherapy
Proton Therapy
Therapeutics
Treatment Failure

Cite this

The case for dose escalation versus adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer. / Pickles, Tom; Pollack, Alan.

In: The Canadian journal of urology., Vol. 13 Suppl 2, 01.04.2006, p. 68-71.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ea0fcef0500b448599b4d963ec3f96c8,
title = "The case for dose escalation versus adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer.",
abstract = "Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer have a significant risk of biochemical failure after treatment with external beam radiation therapy. Two strategies to improve outcomes are radiation dose escalation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This article discusses the evidence in favor of dose escalation. The case for radiation dose escalation has been established by several randomized studies, which show improved biochemical control (bNED) rates. Although late toxicity was also increased, it remains at clinically acceptable levels. The use of more focal methods of radiation, such as proton therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), allows safe dose escalation to 80 Gy. The role of adjuvant ADT is most clearly established in high-risk disease. Advantages in the intermediate-risk group are less pronounced. It is probable that therapeutic gain seen from dose escalation in intermediate-risk patients might allow them to be spared the toxicity of ADT and yet achieve good PSA and clinical control rates. Further randomized trials comparing and or combining the two treatment strategies are required.",
author = "Tom Pickles and Alan Pollack",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "13 Suppl 2",
pages = "68--71",
journal = "The Canadian journal of urology",
issn = "1195-9479",
publisher = "Canadian Journal of Urology",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case for dose escalation versus adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer.

AU - Pickles, Tom

AU - Pollack, Alan

PY - 2006/4/1

Y1 - 2006/4/1

N2 - Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer have a significant risk of biochemical failure after treatment with external beam radiation therapy. Two strategies to improve outcomes are radiation dose escalation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This article discusses the evidence in favor of dose escalation. The case for radiation dose escalation has been established by several randomized studies, which show improved biochemical control (bNED) rates. Although late toxicity was also increased, it remains at clinically acceptable levels. The use of more focal methods of radiation, such as proton therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), allows safe dose escalation to 80 Gy. The role of adjuvant ADT is most clearly established in high-risk disease. Advantages in the intermediate-risk group are less pronounced. It is probable that therapeutic gain seen from dose escalation in intermediate-risk patients might allow them to be spared the toxicity of ADT and yet achieve good PSA and clinical control rates. Further randomized trials comparing and or combining the two treatment strategies are required.

AB - Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer have a significant risk of biochemical failure after treatment with external beam radiation therapy. Two strategies to improve outcomes are radiation dose escalation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This article discusses the evidence in favor of dose escalation. The case for radiation dose escalation has been established by several randomized studies, which show improved biochemical control (bNED) rates. Although late toxicity was also increased, it remains at clinically acceptable levels. The use of more focal methods of radiation, such as proton therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), allows safe dose escalation to 80 Gy. The role of adjuvant ADT is most clearly established in high-risk disease. Advantages in the intermediate-risk group are less pronounced. It is probable that therapeutic gain seen from dose escalation in intermediate-risk patients might allow them to be spared the toxicity of ADT and yet achieve good PSA and clinical control rates. Further randomized trials comparing and or combining the two treatment strategies are required.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747110728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33747110728&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13 Suppl 2

SP - 68

EP - 71

JO - The Canadian journal of urology

JF - The Canadian journal of urology

SN - 1195-9479

ER -