1,721,094 research outputs found

    Prostate cancer radiation therapy: A physician's perspective.

    No full text
    Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Ionizing radiation has played a substantial role in the curative treatment of this disease. The historical evolution of radiotherapy techniques through 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) has allowed more accurate and precise treatments toward significant improvements in the therapeutic ratio. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy has significantly improved overall survival becoming the standard therapy for intermediate- and high-risk disease. Many randomized controlled trials have shown improved local control with dose escalation, and hypofractionated RT has been consolidated with proven efficacy and safe clinical results. However, several questions remain open in the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients and hopefully ongoing studies will shed light on these uncertainties. More individualized approaches are essential through better prognostic and novel predictive biomarkers of prostate radiotherapy response. Clinicians should critically interpret the evolving technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy with important optimism but balancing the costs and the actual magnitude of clinical benefit. This article provides an overview of the basic aspects of radiotherapy treatment in localized prostate cancer from a physician's perspective

    ESTRO ACROP guideline on prostate bed delineation for postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer

    Full text link
    Purpose/Objective: Radiotherapy to the prostate bed is a potentially curative salvage option after radical prostatectomy. Although prostate bed contouring guidelines are available in the literature, important variabilities exist. The objective of this work is to provide a contemporary consensus guideline for prostate bed delineation for postoperative radiotherapy. Methods: An ESTRO-ACROP contouring consensus panel consisting of 11 radiation oncologists and one radiologist, all with known subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer, was established. Participants were asked to delineate the prostate bed clinical target volumes (CTVs) in 3 separate clinically relevant scenarios: adjuvant radiation, salvage radiation with PSA progression, and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA. These cases focused on the presence of positive surgical margin, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicles involvement. None of the cases had radiographic evidence of local recurrence on imaging. A single computed tomography (CT) dataset was shared via FALCON platform and contours were performed using EduCaseTM software. Contours were analyzed qualitatively using heatmaps which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients. Participants also answered case-specific questionnaires addressing detailed recommendations on target delineation. Discussions via electronic mails and videoconferences for final editing and consensus were performed. Results: The mean CTV for the adjuvant case was 76 cc (SD = 26.6), salvage radiation with PSA progression was 51.80 cc (SD = 22.7), and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA 57.63 cc (SD = 25.2). Compared to the median, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the adjuvant case was 0.60 (SD 0.10), salvage radiation with PSA progression was 0.58 (SD = 0.12), and salvage radiation with persistently elevated PSA 0.60 (SD = 0.11). A heatmap for each clinical scenario was generated. The group agreed to proceed with a uniform recommendation for all cases, independent of the radiotherapy timing. Several controversial areas of the prostate bed CTV were identified based on both heatmaps and questionnaires. This formed the basis for discussions via videoconferences where the panel achieved consensus on the prostate bed CTV to be used as a novel guideline for postoperative prostate cancer radiotherapy. Conclusion: Variability was observed in a group formed by experienced genitourinary radiation oncologists and a radiologist. A single contemporary ESTRO-ACROP consensus guideline was developed to address areas of dissonance and improve consistency in prostate bed delineation, independent of the indication.There is important variability in existing contouring guidelines for postoperative prostate bed (PB) radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy. This work aimed at providing a contemporary consensus guideline for PB delineation. An ESTRO ACROP consensus panel including radiation oncologists and a radiologist, all with known subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer, delineated the PB CTV in 3 scenarios: adjuvant RT, salvage RT with PSA progression, and salvage RT with persistently elevated PSA. None of the cases had evidence of local recurrence. Contours were analysed qualitatively using heatmaps for visual assessment of controversial regions and quantitatively using Sorensen-Dice coefficient. Case-specific questionnaires were also discussed via e-mails and videoconferences for consensus. Several controversial areas of the PB CTV were identified based on both heatmaps and questionnaires. This formed the basis for discussions via videoconferences. Finally, a contemporary ESTRO-ACROP consensus guideline was developed to address areas of dissonance and improve consistency in PB delineation, independent of the indication

    Prognostic value of biochemical response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation before external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature.

    No full text
    External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered a standard treatment option for patients with aggressive localized and locally-advanced prostate cancer. Randomized phase III trials have provided evidence for combining EBRT to short-term ADT for intermediate-risk disease and to long-term ADT for patients harboring high-risk tumors. Even if several improvements and developments have been made in the last years in terms of radiotherapy delivery techniques, image-guided radiotherapy, and better sparing of the organs at risk the current use of ADT remains still linked to a therapeutic algorithm based on the prostate cancer risk classification as proposed by clinical trials. Emerging literature has recently shown that the biochemical response to a course of neoadjuvant ADT before EBRT, called the "prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir" (lowest value after treatment), may influence the long-term biochemical tumor-control outcomes of prostate cancer patients. An individualized approach adapting the duration of hormonal treatment according to the PSA response during the neoadjuvant phase, as well using new generation hormonal agents, may represent a new therapeutic strategy and a future way to improve the therapeutic ratio for prostate cancer patients. In this systematic review of the literature we explored the prognostic value of the PSA response to the neoadjuvant ADT phase and the rationale to adjust the use of ADT and EBRT in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer based on the biochemical response to the neoadjuvant androgen ablation phase

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed

    ESTRO ACROP consensus recommendation on the target volume definition for radiation therapy of macroscopic prostate cancer recurrences after radical prostatectomy

    Full text link
    Background: The European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) panel on prostate bed delineation reflected on macroscopic local recurrences in patients referred for postoperative radiotherapy (PORT), a challenging situation without standardized approach, and decided to propose a consensus recommendation on target volume selection and definition. Methods: An ESTRO ACROP contouring consensus panel consisting of 12 radiation oncologists and one radiologist, all with subspecialty expertise in prostate cancer, was established. Participants were asked to delineate the prostate bed clinical target volumes (CTVs) in two separate clinically relevant scenarios: a local recurrence at the seminal vesicle bed and one apically at the level of the anastomosis. Both recurrences were prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-avid and had an anatomical correlate on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Participants also answered case-specific questionnaires addressing detailed recommendations on target delineation. Discussions via electronic mails and videoconferences for final editing and consensus were performed. Results: Contouring of the two cases confirmed considerable variation among the panelists. Finally, however, a consensus recommendation could be agreed upon. Firstly, it was proposed to always delineate the entire prostate bed as clinical target volume and not the local recurrence alone. The panel judged the risk of further microscopic disease outside of the visible recurrence too high to safely exclude the rest of the prostate bed from the CTV. A focused, “stereotactic” approach should be reserved for re-irradiation after previous PORT. Secondly, the option of a focal boost on the recurrence was discussed. Conclusion: Radiation oncologists are increasingly confronted with macroscopic local recurrences visible on imaging in patients referred for postoperative radiotherapy. It was recommended to always delineate and irradiate the entire prostate bed, and not the local recurrence alone, whatever the exact location of that recurrence. Secondly, specific dose-escalation on the macroscopic recurrence should only be considered if an anatomic correlate is visible. Such a focal boost is probably feasible, provided that OAR constraints are prioritized. Possible dose is also dependent on the location of the recurrence. Its potential benefit should urgently be investigated in prospective clinical trials
    corecore