Purpose: Given the absence of standardized planning approach for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa), we collected data about the use of prophylactic pelvic irradiation and nodal boost. The aim of the present series is to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes after this approach to compare different multimodal treatment strategies in this scenario. Methods: Data from clinical records of patients affected by cN1 PCa and treated in six different Italian institutes with prophylactic pelvic irradiation and boost on pathologic pelvic lymph nodes detected with CT, MRI or choline PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed and collected. Clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were explored. The correlation between outcomes and baseline features (International Society of Urological Pathology-ISUP pattern, total dose to positive pelvic nodes ≤ / > 60 Gy, sequential or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) administration and definitive vs postoperative treatment) was explored. Results: ISUP pattern < 2 was a significant predictor of improved b-RFS (HR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1220–0.7647, P = 0.0113), while total dose < 60 Gy to positive pelvic nodes was associated with worse b-RFS (HR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.3245–9.741, P = 0.01). Conversely, treatment setting (postoperative vs definitive) and treatment delivery technique (SIB vs sequential boost) were not associated with significant differences in terms of b-RFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.338–2.169, P = 0.743, and HR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.93–6.111, P = 0.067, respectively). Conclusion: Results from the current analysis are in keeping with data from literature showing that pelvic irradiation and boost on positive nodes are effective approaches. Upfront surgical approach was not associated with better clinical outcomes.

Dose-escalated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer in definitive or postoperative setting

Ingrosso G.;Bellavita R.;Aristei C.;
2022

Abstract

Purpose: Given the absence of standardized planning approach for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer (PCa), we collected data about the use of prophylactic pelvic irradiation and nodal boost. The aim of the present series is to retrospectively assess clinical outcomes after this approach to compare different multimodal treatment strategies in this scenario. Methods: Data from clinical records of patients affected by cN1 PCa and treated in six different Italian institutes with prophylactic pelvic irradiation and boost on pathologic pelvic lymph nodes detected with CT, MRI or choline PET/CT were retrospectively reviewed and collected. Clinical outcomes in terms of overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS) were explored. The correlation between outcomes and baseline features (International Society of Urological Pathology-ISUP pattern, total dose to positive pelvic nodes ≤ / > 60 Gy, sequential or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) administration and definitive vs postoperative treatment) was explored. Results: ISUP pattern < 2 was a significant predictor of improved b-RFS (HR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1220–0.7647, P = 0.0113), while total dose < 60 Gy to positive pelvic nodes was associated with worse b-RFS (HR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.3245–9.741, P = 0.01). Conversely, treatment setting (postoperative vs definitive) and treatment delivery technique (SIB vs sequential boost) were not associated with significant differences in terms of b-RFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.338–2.169, P = 0.743, and HR = 2.39, 95% CI 0.93–6.111, P = 0.067, respectively). Conclusion: Results from the current analysis are in keeping with data from literature showing that pelvic irradiation and boost on positive nodes are effective approaches. Upfront surgical approach was not associated with better clinical outcomes.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11391/1526722
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact