EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,517,315
Abstracts:
29,339,501
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Neoadjuvant combined hormonal therapy and radiotherapy with external beam irradiation in prostatic carcinoma



Neoadjuvant combined hormonal therapy and radiotherapy with external beam irradiation in prostatic carcinoma



La Radiologia Medica 93(4): 446-450



From January, 1991, to December, 1995, forty-two patients with prostatic cancer (T2-T4: 40 patients) were treated with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog (2 administrations before and 3 during irradiation), Flutamide (1 month) and external beam radiation therapy (45 Gy to the whole pelvis and a 20 Gy boost). All patients completed the protocol and the LHRH analog was continued for 1-6 months in 5 patients with partial response at the end of radiotherapy. The incidence of acute toxicity was low according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer score (grades 1-2; 19% hematologic, 36% intestinal and 38% urological toxicity). At a median follow-up of 21 months (range: 1-60 months), one patient had local disease progression and lung metastases and two had bone metastases; the three relapsing patients were given the LHRH analog and exhibited partial response to rectal examination (1 case) and to bone scan (2 cases). Pain disappeared completely in both the patients with bone metastases. Overall 3-year survival and disease-free survival rates were 97% and 79%, respectively. Disease-free survival was significantly related to cT (at 3 years: cT2: 100%; cT3: 81.2%; log rank test: 0.0081). Late toxicity was observed in two patients: rectal bleeding in one case and chronic diarrhea in the other. The combined protocol used in this study was feasible and well tolerated. Our results seem to confirm the promising preliminary results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 8610 study.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 046772249

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 9244924



Related references

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and external-beam radiotherapy versus external-beam irradiation alone for prostate cancer. A quality-of-life analysis. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 185(2): 101-108, 2009

Combined treatment with temporary short-term high dose rate iridium-192 brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy for irradiation of localized prostatic carcinoma. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 44(3): 237-244, 1997

Prostate-specific antigen kinetics after brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy and neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Urology 69(1): 129-133, 2007

Circulating Cytokine Levels in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Effects of Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy and External-beam Radiotherapy. Anticancer Research 35(6): 3379-3383, 2015

Improving target volume geometry with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in prostate cancer patients treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Radiotherapy & Oncology 56(Supplement 1): S109, September, 2000

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy impairs sexual outcome among younger men who undergo external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 63(5): 946-950, 2004

Dose escalated external beam radiotherapy versus neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and conventional dose external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: do we need both?. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 183 Spec No 2: 26-28, 2008

Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy 72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy gtoreq 72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 54(2 Supplement): 38-39, 2002

Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy > or =72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 58(1): 25-33, 2003

Dose escalated external beam radiotherapy versus neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and conventional dose external beam radiotherapy. 2007

Whole-pelvis, "mini-pelvis," or prostate-only external beam radiotherapy after neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy in patients treated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 66(3): 647-653, 2006

Pelvic lymphadenectomy and transperineal interstitial implantation of IR 192 combined with external beam radiotherapy for bulky stage C prostatic carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 17(5): 1063-1066, 1989

External beam irradiation combined with the use of iridium 192 implants and radiofrequency induced hyperthermia in the treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Smith, P H And M Pavone-Macaluso (Ed ) Progress in Clinical And Biological Research, Vol 370 Eortc (European Organization For Research on The Treatment Of Cancer) Genitourinary Group Monograph, 10 Urological Oncology: Reconstructive Surgery, Organ Conservation, And Restoration Of Function; Sixth Course in Urological Oncology, Erice, Sicily, Italy, March 25-31, 1990 Xvii+418p Wiley-Liss, Inc : New York, New York, Usa; Chichester, England, Uk Illus 276-279, 1991

External beam irradiation combined with the use of 192-iridium implants and radiofrequency-induced hyperthermia in the treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research 370: 275-279, 1991

In regard to Kupelian et al.: Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy > or =72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seed/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:25-33). International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 61(2): 631-2; Author Reply 632, 2005