There appears to be a higher cancer control success rate for Brachy over EBRT and Surgery for all groups. Patients are encouraged to look at graphs and determine for themselves
This document summarizes a study comparing the results of different treatments for prostate cancer. A group of experts assembled to conduct a comprehensive review of over 25,000 prostate studies published between 2000-2012. They identified 218 studies that met their criteria for comparing cancer control rates of treatments including surgery, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, high intensity focused ultrasound, and proton beam therapy. The group analyzed success rates for each treatment based on patients' prostate-specific antigen levels as an indicator of cancer progression over time.
This document summarizes a review study comparing treatment results for prostate cancer. Over 21,000 prostate studies published between 2000-2011 were reviewed, with 145 meeting criteria for inclusion. Experts from various treatment disciplines (e.g. surgery, radiation) assembled to conduct a complete literature review on prostate cancer treatment success rates based on PSA levels. Results are presented separating patients into low, intermediate, and high risk groups.
Problem: Patients, physicians and carriers need a simple, unbiased means to compare the cancer control rates of modern prostate cancer treatment methods. To solve this problem, we have assembled experts from key treating disciplines: Surgery, External Radiation, Internal (or Brachytherapy), High Frequency Ultrasound, and Proton Therapy to do a complete review study of the current literature on prostate cancer treatment.
- The study examined patients removed from liver transplant waitlists for "other" reasons at two large transplant centers to determine the accuracy of their classification.
- They found that 28.1% of patients classified as removed for "other" reasons were actually misclassified - their true reason for removal was death or clinical deterioration.
- Misclassification of outcomes could bias results of research using transplant waitlist data and underestimate the sensitivity of classifying patients as removed due to death or deterioration.
Nomograms provide more accurate predictions of patient outcomes than alternative approaches and should be used to inform treatment decisions. Nomograms discriminate better than risk groups by accounting for individual patient characteristics. Studies show nomograms make more accurate predictions than clinicians. Not using nomograms risks inferior decision making and can be unethical by not providing patients with personalized outcome estimates.
This document discusses the presentation, testing, and management of pituitary adenomas and hypothalamic syndromes. It provides guidance on testing a 66-year-old man with a confirmed pituitary adenoma discovered on MRI after presenting with stroke symptoms. Testing strategies and their limitations are reviewed. Factors affecting decisions around intervention and appropriate follow-up strategies are also discussed, drawing on literature to support recommendations. Long-term management of patients with prolactinomas on dopamine agonists is explored, including monitoring, treatment withdrawal, and surveillance of side effects.
Critical Care Research: Connection to PracticeAllina Health
1) The document discusses a critical care research program at Abbott Northwestern Hospital with the goals of conducting studies to improve patient outcomes, enhance quality of care, and reduce costs.
2) The program involves intensivists, hospitalists, and other clinical specialties conducting studies and presenting findings to improve practice.
3) Several ongoing studies are summarized that examine issues like postoperative monitoring, pulmonary ultrasound scoring, infection risks, and outcomes after procedures.
The document discusses different treatment options for Graves' disease, including antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine (RAI), and surgery. [1] It finds that while antithyroid drugs and RAI have similar long-term efficacy, RAI is more cost-effective. [2] Carbimazole is preferred over propylthiouracil as it has a more favorable side effect profile and can be taken once daily. [3] Dose titration and block-and-replace regimens have similar efficacy and side effects, though dose titration requires fewer blood tests.
This document summarizes a study comparing the results of different treatments for prostate cancer. A group of experts assembled to conduct a comprehensive review of over 25,000 prostate studies published between 2000-2012. They identified 218 studies that met their criteria for comparing cancer control rates of treatments including surgery, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, high intensity focused ultrasound, and proton beam therapy. The group analyzed success rates for each treatment based on patients' prostate-specific antigen levels as an indicator of cancer progression over time.
This document summarizes a review study comparing treatment results for prostate cancer. Over 21,000 prostate studies published between 2000-2011 were reviewed, with 145 meeting criteria for inclusion. Experts from various treatment disciplines (e.g. surgery, radiation) assembled to conduct a complete literature review on prostate cancer treatment success rates based on PSA levels. Results are presented separating patients into low, intermediate, and high risk groups.
Problem: Patients, physicians and carriers need a simple, unbiased means to compare the cancer control rates of modern prostate cancer treatment methods. To solve this problem, we have assembled experts from key treating disciplines: Surgery, External Radiation, Internal (or Brachytherapy), High Frequency Ultrasound, and Proton Therapy to do a complete review study of the current literature on prostate cancer treatment.
- The study examined patients removed from liver transplant waitlists for "other" reasons at two large transplant centers to determine the accuracy of their classification.
- They found that 28.1% of patients classified as removed for "other" reasons were actually misclassified - their true reason for removal was death or clinical deterioration.
- Misclassification of outcomes could bias results of research using transplant waitlist data and underestimate the sensitivity of classifying patients as removed due to death or deterioration.
Nomograms provide more accurate predictions of patient outcomes than alternative approaches and should be used to inform treatment decisions. Nomograms discriminate better than risk groups by accounting for individual patient characteristics. Studies show nomograms make more accurate predictions than clinicians. Not using nomograms risks inferior decision making and can be unethical by not providing patients with personalized outcome estimates.
This document discusses the presentation, testing, and management of pituitary adenomas and hypothalamic syndromes. It provides guidance on testing a 66-year-old man with a confirmed pituitary adenoma discovered on MRI after presenting with stroke symptoms. Testing strategies and their limitations are reviewed. Factors affecting decisions around intervention and appropriate follow-up strategies are also discussed, drawing on literature to support recommendations. Long-term management of patients with prolactinomas on dopamine agonists is explored, including monitoring, treatment withdrawal, and surveillance of side effects.
Critical Care Research: Connection to PracticeAllina Health
1) The document discusses a critical care research program at Abbott Northwestern Hospital with the goals of conducting studies to improve patient outcomes, enhance quality of care, and reduce costs.
2) The program involves intensivists, hospitalists, and other clinical specialties conducting studies and presenting findings to improve practice.
3) Several ongoing studies are summarized that examine issues like postoperative monitoring, pulmonary ultrasound scoring, infection risks, and outcomes after procedures.
The document discusses different treatment options for Graves' disease, including antithyroid drugs, radioactive iodine (RAI), and surgery. [1] It finds that while antithyroid drugs and RAI have similar long-term efficacy, RAI is more cost-effective. [2] Carbimazole is preferred over propylthiouracil as it has a more favorable side effect profile and can be taken once daily. [3] Dose titration and block-and-replace regimens have similar efficacy and side effects, though dose titration requires fewer blood tests.
This document summarizes evidence from several randomized controlled trials investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules for early breast cancer. It discusses the START trials which established 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks as a standard schedule. It then summarizes the recent FAST Forward trial which investigated a shorter 1-week schedule of 26 Gy in 5 fractions. While FAST Forward found this ultra-hypofractionated schedule non-inferior to 40 Gy in terms of tumor control and toxicity based on 5-year follow-up, it notes limitations like the lack of subgroup analyses, longer follow-up, and smaller number of centers compared to START trials. The document concludes that 26 Gy in 5 fractions may be adopted as a new standard but that further evidence
POC Breast 1 | 2007 - Adjuvant Endocrine Therapyrtp
- The document discusses treatment recommendations and patterns of care for adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer based on surveys of clinical investigators and practicing oncologists from 2007-2005.
- It presents results on recommended endocrine therapies for different patient profiles including aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, ovarian suppression, and considerations for managing side effects.
1. This meta-analysis included 7 studies comparing outcomes for GBM patients receiving extended adjuvant temozolomide (more than 6 cycles) versus standard 6 cycles.
2. The results showed that overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly higher in patients receiving more than 6 cycles of temozolomide compared to 6 cycles.
3. However, there was high heterogeneity between the studies. The meta-analysis concluded that regimens aiming to prolong temozolomide exposure or increase cumulative dose cannot replace the standard 5-day regimen in clinical practice.
This single-center randomized controlled trial compared outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bivalirudin (n=907) versus unfractionated heparin (n=905) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). At 28 days, the primary efficacy outcome (composite of death, stroke, reinfarction, unplanned revascularization) occurred more frequently in the bivalirudin group (8.7% vs 5.7%, p=0.01). The increased risk was driven by a higher rate of stent thrombosis with bivalirudin (3.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Major bleeding rates were similar between groups (3.5% vs
This study analyzed outcomes of twin reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP) sequence cases managed expectantly or with intrafetal laser therapy. It found that intrafetal laser treatment significantly improved outcomes compared to expectant management, with a fetal survival rate of 82% versus 0%. A systematic review of 10 studies found an overall neonatal survival rate of 80% following laser therapy. Adverse outcomes were significantly lower when treatment occurred before 16 weeks of gestation. The study concluded that intrafetal laser therapy, especially before 16 weeks, can improve pregnancy outcomes in TRAP sequences compared to expectant management alone.
The objective of this study was to observe the 1-year and 2-year pressure reduction in an active population of glaucoma patients treated by selective laser trabeculoplasty. We carried out a retrospective study of all patients treated in our department between January 2015 and March 2016. Patients who had already undergone Laser Trabeculoplasty (ALT or SLT) in the past were excluded from the study. Treatment was performed with a Q-Switched, frequency doubled Nd: YAG laser (Solutis - Quantel Medical, France), over 180° or 360° of the trabecular meshwork. The mean decrease in intraocular pressure and the success zrate, defi ned as a decrease in intraocular pressure superior to 20% without increasing the medical treatment, were calculated. The impact of the different clinical and technical characteristics on the decrease in pressure was also studied by multivariate analysis. One hundred and seventeen eyes, in 74 patients, were included. The mean decrease in IOP from baseline was 4.35 mmHg (20.6%) at 1 year and 3.74 mmHg (16.7%) at 2 years. The success rate was 49% at 1 year and 33.3% at 2 years. Selective trabeculoplasty is currently a therapeutic option called-upon at different stages in the progression of glaucoma. The duration of effi cacy of this laser therapy, and the retreatment frequency are yet to be defined.
Adjusting for Differential Item Functioning in the EQ-5D-5L Using Externally-...Office of Health Economics
Paula and Rachel's presentation on adjusting for differential item functioning in the EQ-5Q-5L using externally-collected vignettes given at the 2017 iHEA World Conference in Boston.
The document discusses survey results from clinical investigators and practicing oncologists on their use of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer patients. The most common regimens used were anthracycline-containing regimens like AC for node-negative patients and TAC for node-positive patients. More clinicians were using taxane-containing regimens like AC followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel-cyclophosphamide over time. Many clinicians had information on or used gene expression assays like Oncotype DX or MammaPrint to guide chemotherapy decisions.
The document summarizes new cardiac surgery programs at the University of Arizona Medical Center (UAMC) including minimally invasive and robotic techniques. It discusses implementation frameworks focusing on team development and metrics of success. Outcomes data shows the new programs achieved lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to national benchmarks. The programs increased hospital volume and referrals while improving patient satisfaction. The summary focuses on the high level information around new programs, implementation strategies, outcomes data, and business impacts.
The document discusses missed and delayed diagnosis claims, which are the most expensive malpractice cases. It focuses on closing the referral loop as a way to address these issues. Two main contributing factors are identified: cognitive factors like clinical judgment; and systems factors like following up on test results and referrals. While cognitive factors require multipronged strategies, opportunities to improve systems like closing the referral loop are described as "low hanging fruit." The document outlines a referral management workgroup and technology solutions to help address gaps, though further work is still needed.
This document provides an overview of the phases of clinical trials and accelerated drug approval processes. It discusses the various stages of drug development from pre-clinical testing through the different phases of clinical trials. Key points include: pre-clinical testing involves testing compounds on animals; Phase 1 trials establish safety and dosing in small patient groups; Phase 2 trials provide preliminary efficacy data; Phase 3 trials compare the new drug to standard treatment in large patient groups; successful Phase 3 trials can lead to approval and marketing of the drug; post-marketing Phase 4 trials further monitor safety and efficacy. The document also discusses regulatory review and approval pathways, including expedited approval for promising cancer drugs.
1) The study evaluated 565 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention to compare the diameters of the radial and ulnar arteries using intraprocedural ultrasound.
2) The radial artery was found to be larger in 37.1% of patients, while the ulnar artery was larger in 6.5% of patients. A dual radial artery was present in 4.4% of patients.
3) In some cases where the radial artery diameter was very small (<2mm), the ulnar artery was significantly larger and may be a better access site. Evaluating both arteries ultrasonographically can help determine the best access site.
Three recent studies published over the past four months involving nearly 200 patients in total provide additional evidence of the positive outcomes of transoral fundoplication (TIF) for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The studies demonstrated a high therapeutic response rate with patients getting off daily proton pump inhibitors, significant response to objective reflux measurements, and a low complication rate of around 2%. The largest study to date involving 124 patients showed 75-80% of patients had normalized symptom scores and 97% were off daily PPI medications post-TIF. The growing body of clinical evidence supports TIF as a safe and effective alternative to traditional anti-reflux surgeries for appropriately selected GERD patients.
This document reviews treatments for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), including peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). It summarizes the evidence for various NET treatment options such as surgery, somatostatin analogs, PRRT, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. It also provides an overview of a PRRT treatment day and integrates PRRT with other NET therapies. Clinical trial data is presented demonstrating the efficacy of PRRT and targeted therapies such as everolimus and sunitinib in extending progression-free survival for NETs. The conclusion emphasizes treating NETs only when necessary and considering surgery first followed by somatostatin analogs, PRRT, intra-arterial therapies,
This document provides a summary of a project to analyze factors related to readmission of diabetes patients using a dataset from 130 US hospitals. The team cleaned the data by removing attributes with high percentages of missing values, irrelevant attributes, and instances of deceased patients. They applied the SMOTE technique to address data imbalance, oversampling the minority readmission class by 200%. Three classifiers - J48 decision tree, Naive Bayes, and Bayes Net - were selected for experiments to predict patient readmission.
This document discusses various quantitative measures used in therapy articles, including p-value, confidence interval, event rates, relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat or harm. It provides examples and formulas for calculating each measure. The document aims to help readers understand how to interpret results reported in therapy studies.
Classifying Readmissions of Diabetic Patient EncountersMayur Srinivasan
Readmission rates in hospitals are a key indicator on quality of patient care and a clear indication of total cost or inconvenience related to the treatment. Patients with serious medical
conditions such as diabetes mellitus are key drivers of readmission rates owing to the complexity of their illness. Therefore, being able to predict based on certain features whether or not a patient
will need readmission can help doctors and hospitals provide better care initially and not get financially penalized under Obamacare’s readmission policy
This document summarizes the results of the DRAGON trial which compared the radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in over 1,700 patients. The trial found that the radial approach (TRI) was non-inferior to the femoral approach (TFI) for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. TRI also had significantly less major bleeding complications at 7 days compared to TFI, meeting the secondary endpoint for superiority. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline differences between the groups. The trial demonstrated that an ad-hoc radial approach strategy can provide similar clinical outcomes to femoral approach with less bleeding risks.
Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Breast CancerDr.Ram Madhavan
This document discusses hypofractionation in breast cancer radiotherapy. It provides rationale for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery based on evidence from clinical trials. It reviews current evidence from trials comparing conventional fractionation to hypofractionated schedules, which found no disadvantage to hypofractionation in terms of safety and efficacy. The document discusses implications of breast cancer's low alpha-beta ratio for sensitivity to high dose per fraction. It reviews patient factors, outcomes, and guidelines for suitable patients for hypofractionation based on the evidence. The author's own experience at their institution adopting hypofractionation is presented, showing comparable results to trials.
Noa Efrat Ben Baruch : Oncotype Dx Breast Cancer Assay and impact on treatmen...breastcancerupdatecongress
This document discusses the impact and utility of the Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Assay for treatment decision making in early-stage breast cancer patients. It provides data on:
1) Changes in treatment recommendations pre- and post-Oncotype DX results, with about 30% of patients being spared chemotherapy based on their Recurrence Score.
2) Increased confidence in treatment decisions reported by both physicians and patients after receiving Recurrence Score results.
3) Preliminary data suggesting Recurrence Score results may impact patient outcomes, though long-term data is still needed.
4) Evidence that the assay provides good value and cost-effectiveness for healthcare systems.
Leveraging the Growing Arsenal of Adjuvant Therapies for Early-Stage NSCLCi3 Health
3 Health is pleased to make the speaker slides from this activity available for use as a non-accredited self-study or teaching resource.
This slide deck presented by, Dr. Helena A. Yu, Associate Attending Physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, will provide insights into strategies for leveraging the growing arsenal of adjuvant therapies for early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including treatment selection and adverse event management.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of death for men and women worldwide. In the United States, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 81% of all lung cancer diagnoses (Cancer.net, 2023). Therapeutic options, survival rates, and outcomes for NSCLC are dramatically impacted by disease stage. For patients with early-stage disease, radical surgery is the mainstay of treatment; however, patients have a significant risk of relapse following surgery and local treatment. Numerous novel therapeutic approaches, including the use of molecular biomarkers and the development of targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, are under investigation for early-stage NSCLC, contributing to a growing arsenal of treatment options for this disease (Indini et al, 2020). In this visiting faculty meeting series chaired by Helena A. Yu, MD, Associate Attending Physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, speakers will provide expert perspectives on diagnosis, identification of biomarkers, and efficacy and safety data of novel adjuvant therapies to improve survival outcomes for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
TARGET AUDIENCE
Medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, pulmonologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, oncology nurses, and other health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to
Identify the correct tumor stage and appropriate management approach for NSCLC based on the latest evidence
Distinguish biomarkers for early-stage NSCLC that can inform individualized treatment strategies
Appraise efficacy and safety data of novel adjuvant therapies for patients with NSCLC as elucidated by recent clinical trials
Apply strategies to prevent and mitigate adverse events associated with novel adjuvant therapies for early-stage NSCLC
1 of 71
Download Now
Download to read offline
Leveraging the Growing Arsenal of Adjuvant
Therapies for Early-Stage NSCLC
Helena A. Yu, MD
Associate Attending Physician
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
The video player is currently playing an ad.
Disclosures
Advisory board/panel: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Black Diamond,
Blueprint, C4 Therapeutics, Cullinan, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Taiho,
Takeda
Grants/research support: AstraZeneca, Black Diamond, Blueprint,
Cullinan, Daiichi Sankyo, Erasca, Janssen, Novartis, Pfize
This document summarizes evidence from several randomized controlled trials investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules for early breast cancer. It discusses the START trials which established 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks as a standard schedule. It then summarizes the recent FAST Forward trial which investigated a shorter 1-week schedule of 26 Gy in 5 fractions. While FAST Forward found this ultra-hypofractionated schedule non-inferior to 40 Gy in terms of tumor control and toxicity based on 5-year follow-up, it notes limitations like the lack of subgroup analyses, longer follow-up, and smaller number of centers compared to START trials. The document concludes that 26 Gy in 5 fractions may be adopted as a new standard but that further evidence
POC Breast 1 | 2007 - Adjuvant Endocrine Therapyrtp
- The document discusses treatment recommendations and patterns of care for adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer based on surveys of clinical investigators and practicing oncologists from 2007-2005.
- It presents results on recommended endocrine therapies for different patient profiles including aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, ovarian suppression, and considerations for managing side effects.
1. This meta-analysis included 7 studies comparing outcomes for GBM patients receiving extended adjuvant temozolomide (more than 6 cycles) versus standard 6 cycles.
2. The results showed that overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly higher in patients receiving more than 6 cycles of temozolomide compared to 6 cycles.
3. However, there was high heterogeneity between the studies. The meta-analysis concluded that regimens aiming to prolong temozolomide exposure or increase cumulative dose cannot replace the standard 5-day regimen in clinical practice.
This single-center randomized controlled trial compared outcomes of STEMI patients treated with bivalirudin (n=907) versus unfractionated heparin (n=905) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). At 28 days, the primary efficacy outcome (composite of death, stroke, reinfarction, unplanned revascularization) occurred more frequently in the bivalirudin group (8.7% vs 5.7%, p=0.01). The increased risk was driven by a higher rate of stent thrombosis with bivalirudin (3.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.001). Major bleeding rates were similar between groups (3.5% vs
This study analyzed outcomes of twin reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP) sequence cases managed expectantly or with intrafetal laser therapy. It found that intrafetal laser treatment significantly improved outcomes compared to expectant management, with a fetal survival rate of 82% versus 0%. A systematic review of 10 studies found an overall neonatal survival rate of 80% following laser therapy. Adverse outcomes were significantly lower when treatment occurred before 16 weeks of gestation. The study concluded that intrafetal laser therapy, especially before 16 weeks, can improve pregnancy outcomes in TRAP sequences compared to expectant management alone.
The objective of this study was to observe the 1-year and 2-year pressure reduction in an active population of glaucoma patients treated by selective laser trabeculoplasty. We carried out a retrospective study of all patients treated in our department between January 2015 and March 2016. Patients who had already undergone Laser Trabeculoplasty (ALT or SLT) in the past were excluded from the study. Treatment was performed with a Q-Switched, frequency doubled Nd: YAG laser (Solutis - Quantel Medical, France), over 180° or 360° of the trabecular meshwork. The mean decrease in intraocular pressure and the success zrate, defi ned as a decrease in intraocular pressure superior to 20% without increasing the medical treatment, were calculated. The impact of the different clinical and technical characteristics on the decrease in pressure was also studied by multivariate analysis. One hundred and seventeen eyes, in 74 patients, were included. The mean decrease in IOP from baseline was 4.35 mmHg (20.6%) at 1 year and 3.74 mmHg (16.7%) at 2 years. The success rate was 49% at 1 year and 33.3% at 2 years. Selective trabeculoplasty is currently a therapeutic option called-upon at different stages in the progression of glaucoma. The duration of effi cacy of this laser therapy, and the retreatment frequency are yet to be defined.
Adjusting for Differential Item Functioning in the EQ-5D-5L Using Externally-...Office of Health Economics
Paula and Rachel's presentation on adjusting for differential item functioning in the EQ-5Q-5L using externally-collected vignettes given at the 2017 iHEA World Conference in Boston.
The document discusses survey results from clinical investigators and practicing oncologists on their use of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer patients. The most common regimens used were anthracycline-containing regimens like AC for node-negative patients and TAC for node-positive patients. More clinicians were using taxane-containing regimens like AC followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel-cyclophosphamide over time. Many clinicians had information on or used gene expression assays like Oncotype DX or MammaPrint to guide chemotherapy decisions.
The document summarizes new cardiac surgery programs at the University of Arizona Medical Center (UAMC) including minimally invasive and robotic techniques. It discusses implementation frameworks focusing on team development and metrics of success. Outcomes data shows the new programs achieved lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to national benchmarks. The programs increased hospital volume and referrals while improving patient satisfaction. The summary focuses on the high level information around new programs, implementation strategies, outcomes data, and business impacts.
The document discusses missed and delayed diagnosis claims, which are the most expensive malpractice cases. It focuses on closing the referral loop as a way to address these issues. Two main contributing factors are identified: cognitive factors like clinical judgment; and systems factors like following up on test results and referrals. While cognitive factors require multipronged strategies, opportunities to improve systems like closing the referral loop are described as "low hanging fruit." The document outlines a referral management workgroup and technology solutions to help address gaps, though further work is still needed.
This document provides an overview of the phases of clinical trials and accelerated drug approval processes. It discusses the various stages of drug development from pre-clinical testing through the different phases of clinical trials. Key points include: pre-clinical testing involves testing compounds on animals; Phase 1 trials establish safety and dosing in small patient groups; Phase 2 trials provide preliminary efficacy data; Phase 3 trials compare the new drug to standard treatment in large patient groups; successful Phase 3 trials can lead to approval and marketing of the drug; post-marketing Phase 4 trials further monitor safety and efficacy. The document also discusses regulatory review and approval pathways, including expedited approval for promising cancer drugs.
1) The study evaluated 565 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention to compare the diameters of the radial and ulnar arteries using intraprocedural ultrasound.
2) The radial artery was found to be larger in 37.1% of patients, while the ulnar artery was larger in 6.5% of patients. A dual radial artery was present in 4.4% of patients.
3) In some cases where the radial artery diameter was very small (<2mm), the ulnar artery was significantly larger and may be a better access site. Evaluating both arteries ultrasonographically can help determine the best access site.
Three recent studies published over the past four months involving nearly 200 patients in total provide additional evidence of the positive outcomes of transoral fundoplication (TIF) for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The studies demonstrated a high therapeutic response rate with patients getting off daily proton pump inhibitors, significant response to objective reflux measurements, and a low complication rate of around 2%. The largest study to date involving 124 patients showed 75-80% of patients had normalized symptom scores and 97% were off daily PPI medications post-TIF. The growing body of clinical evidence supports TIF as a safe and effective alternative to traditional anti-reflux surgeries for appropriately selected GERD patients.
This document reviews treatments for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), including peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). It summarizes the evidence for various NET treatment options such as surgery, somatostatin analogs, PRRT, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. It also provides an overview of a PRRT treatment day and integrates PRRT with other NET therapies. Clinical trial data is presented demonstrating the efficacy of PRRT and targeted therapies such as everolimus and sunitinib in extending progression-free survival for NETs. The conclusion emphasizes treating NETs only when necessary and considering surgery first followed by somatostatin analogs, PRRT, intra-arterial therapies,
This document provides a summary of a project to analyze factors related to readmission of diabetes patients using a dataset from 130 US hospitals. The team cleaned the data by removing attributes with high percentages of missing values, irrelevant attributes, and instances of deceased patients. They applied the SMOTE technique to address data imbalance, oversampling the minority readmission class by 200%. Three classifiers - J48 decision tree, Naive Bayes, and Bayes Net - were selected for experiments to predict patient readmission.
This document discusses various quantitative measures used in therapy articles, including p-value, confidence interval, event rates, relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat or harm. It provides examples and formulas for calculating each measure. The document aims to help readers understand how to interpret results reported in therapy studies.
Classifying Readmissions of Diabetic Patient EncountersMayur Srinivasan
Readmission rates in hospitals are a key indicator on quality of patient care and a clear indication of total cost or inconvenience related to the treatment. Patients with serious medical
conditions such as diabetes mellitus are key drivers of readmission rates owing to the complexity of their illness. Therefore, being able to predict based on certain features whether or not a patient
will need readmission can help doctors and hospitals provide better care initially and not get financially penalized under Obamacare’s readmission policy
This document summarizes the results of the DRAGON trial which compared the radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in over 1,700 patients. The trial found that the radial approach (TRI) was non-inferior to the femoral approach (TFI) for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. TRI also had significantly less major bleeding complications at 7 days compared to TFI, meeting the secondary endpoint for superiority. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline differences between the groups. The trial demonstrated that an ad-hoc radial approach strategy can provide similar clinical outcomes to femoral approach with less bleeding risks.
Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy in Breast CancerDr.Ram Madhavan
This document discusses hypofractionation in breast cancer radiotherapy. It provides rationale for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery based on evidence from clinical trials. It reviews current evidence from trials comparing conventional fractionation to hypofractionated schedules, which found no disadvantage to hypofractionation in terms of safety and efficacy. The document discusses implications of breast cancer's low alpha-beta ratio for sensitivity to high dose per fraction. It reviews patient factors, outcomes, and guidelines for suitable patients for hypofractionation based on the evidence. The author's own experience at their institution adopting hypofractionation is presented, showing comparable results to trials.
Noa Efrat Ben Baruch : Oncotype Dx Breast Cancer Assay and impact on treatmen...breastcancerupdatecongress
This document discusses the impact and utility of the Oncotype DX Breast Cancer Assay for treatment decision making in early-stage breast cancer patients. It provides data on:
1) Changes in treatment recommendations pre- and post-Oncotype DX results, with about 30% of patients being spared chemotherapy based on their Recurrence Score.
2) Increased confidence in treatment decisions reported by both physicians and patients after receiving Recurrence Score results.
3) Preliminary data suggesting Recurrence Score results may impact patient outcomes, though long-term data is still needed.
4) Evidence that the assay provides good value and cost-effectiveness for healthcare systems.
Leveraging the Growing Arsenal of Adjuvant Therapies for Early-Stage NSCLCi3 Health
3 Health is pleased to make the speaker slides from this activity available for use as a non-accredited self-study or teaching resource.
This slide deck presented by, Dr. Helena A. Yu, Associate Attending Physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, will provide insights into strategies for leveraging the growing arsenal of adjuvant therapies for early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including treatment selection and adverse event management.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of death for men and women worldwide. In the United States, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 81% of all lung cancer diagnoses (Cancer.net, 2023). Therapeutic options, survival rates, and outcomes for NSCLC are dramatically impacted by disease stage. For patients with early-stage disease, radical surgery is the mainstay of treatment; however, patients have a significant risk of relapse following surgery and local treatment. Numerous novel therapeutic approaches, including the use of molecular biomarkers and the development of targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, are under investigation for early-stage NSCLC, contributing to a growing arsenal of treatment options for this disease (Indini et al, 2020). In this visiting faculty meeting series chaired by Helena A. Yu, MD, Associate Attending Physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, speakers will provide expert perspectives on diagnosis, identification of biomarkers, and efficacy and safety data of novel adjuvant therapies to improve survival outcomes for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
TARGET AUDIENCE
Medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, pulmonologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, oncology nurses, and other health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to
Identify the correct tumor stage and appropriate management approach for NSCLC based on the latest evidence
Distinguish biomarkers for early-stage NSCLC that can inform individualized treatment strategies
Appraise efficacy and safety data of novel adjuvant therapies for patients with NSCLC as elucidated by recent clinical trials
Apply strategies to prevent and mitigate adverse events associated with novel adjuvant therapies for early-stage NSCLC
1 of 71
Download Now
Download to read offline
Leveraging the Growing Arsenal of Adjuvant
Therapies for Early-Stage NSCLC
Helena A. Yu, MD
Associate Attending Physician
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
The video player is currently playing an ad.
Disclosures
Advisory board/panel: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Black Diamond,
Blueprint, C4 Therapeutics, Cullinan, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Taiho,
Takeda
Grants/research support: AstraZeneca, Black Diamond, Blueprint,
Cullinan, Daiichi Sankyo, Erasca, Janssen, Novartis, Pfize
1. This document discusses erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy. It addresses factors such as who is a candidate for nerve-sparing surgery, why rates of post-surgery erectile dysfunction vary, and how erectile function should be defined.
2. The document focuses on rehabilitation protocols to preserve erectile function after surgery. It examines questions such as where and when rehabilitation should be used, what protocols should be considered, and when rehabilitation efforts should be stopped.
3. The overall goal of the document is to provide guidance to doctors on discussing risks and managing expectations regarding erectile function with patients undergoing prostatectomy surgery.
This document discusses prostate cancer, including:
1. It is the second most common cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Rates are closely related to age and vary geographically.
2. Treatment depends on risk level, ranging from active surveillance for very low risk to radiation therapy or prostatectomy for low risk to radiation plus long-term androgen deprivation therapy for high risk.
3. For metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, adding docetaxel chemotherapy to initial androgen deprivation therapy improves progression-free and overall survival compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone.
This document summarizes a journal club discussion on a clinical trial comparing active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy for treating clinically localized prostate cancer. The trial included over 2,600 men randomized to one of the three treatment groups or choosing their own treatment. Results found no difference in prostate cancer deaths between groups after 10 years. Exploratory analyses combining randomized and non-randomized cohorts found a lower risk of cancer death with radical treatment versus active monitoring. However, radical treatments were associated with higher rates of urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and bowel issues compared to active monitoring. Limitations included potential for bias in the analyses and unknown long-term outcomes beyond 10 years.
This document provides guidelines for pre-anesthesia evaluation created by Advocate Safer Surgery Council. It was last revised in March 2016 and is intended as a tool for the preoperative evaluation of surgical patients based on best evidence. The guidelines are not intended to supersede the judgment of individual physicians. It provides information on testing recommendations based on procedure risk, medical history, medications, and other factors. It also provides guidelines on preoperative fasting, smoking cessation, and cardiac evaluation.
The document discusses results from the CheckMate-142 trial evaluating nivolumab monotherapy for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer. It found that 34% of patients had an objective response to nivolumab and 62% had disease control. Responses were seen across patient groups regardless of number and type of prior therapies.
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Maintaining low testosterone levels through medical or surgical castration is integral to treating prostate cancer across all disease stages. Clinical trials have shown that long-term androgen deprivation therapy in combination with radiation therapy improves survival outcomes for patients with high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer compared to short-term therapy. Emerging evidence also supports the use of chemotherapy in combination with androgen deprivation for select non-metastatic prostate cancer patients. As the disease progresses to castration-resistant stages, novel anti-androgen and cytotoxic agents that target different pathways have improved outcomes compared to androgen deprivation alone.
Brachytherapy temporary vs permanent seed placementGil Lederman
This document compares temporary and permanent prostate brachytherapy seed placement for treating prostate cancer. It finds that permanent seed placement has better outcomes than temporary seed placement using catheters. For high-risk patients, the author's institution achieves 5 and 7-year disease-free survival rates up to 25% higher than another institution using temporary seed placement via catheters. Permanent seed placement allows patients to leave the hospital quickly with minimal side effects and return to normal activities, while temporary seed placement requires multiple treatments and hospital stays with more pain and risk of complications.
This document summarizes the key points from a presentation on recent cancer research:
1. Several studies presented findings on improving outcomes for prostate cancer, glioblastoma, rectal cancer, and other cancers through optimized use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy.
2. One study found long-term androgen deprivation therapy improved outcomes more than short-term therapy for prostate cancer. Another found radiation improved survival for node-positive prostate cancer.
3. For glioblastoma, a study identified molecular subgroups with more favorable prognosis, while another found improved outcomes with dose-escalated radiation and temozolomide.
4. For rectal cancer, studies explored organ-sparing approaches and found hypofraction
This document discusses the management of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. It begins by providing background on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk stratification. It then covers various treatment options including observation, active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy. Several studies comparing the efficacy of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy with short or long-term ADT are summarized. For intermediate risk prostate cancer, the document recommends 4-6 months of ADT with radiotherapy based on trial results. For high risk prostate cancer, 2-3 years of ADT with radiotherapy is recommended.
This document summarizes highlights from the 2013 ASTRO conference. It provides an overview of the scientific program and abstracts presented. It then summarizes several notable studies presented on prostate cancer, glioblastoma, meningioma, brain metastases, cervical cancer, and breast cancer. A few of the highlighted studies showed improved outcomes with longer neoadjuvant hormone therapy or improved progression-free survival with adding bevacizumab for glioblastoma. The document cautions that the studies presented are not peer-reviewed and conclusions should not form the basis of practice changes.
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT FOR HIGH RISK PROSTATE CANCERGil Lederman
This document summarizes the results of a presentation comparing treatments for high-risk prostate cancer. The author presented data from their institution showing superior outcomes for patients treated with brachytherapy and radiation compared to other treatments such as radical prostatectomy, conformal radiation, or brachytherapy alone. Their data showed higher rates of patients being cancer-free and surviving at 5 years compared to results from other institutions. This demonstrates brachytherapy with radiation can provide better outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer patients.
Module 4 Submodule 4. 2 Final June 2007Flavio Guzmán
The document discusses key considerations for clinicians in evaluating the results of drug clinical trials. It emphasizes the importance of critically assessing trial design, results, and whether the findings warrant changing clinical practice. Clinicians are advised to consider factors like trial methodology, potential biases, statistical/clinical significance, applicability to their patients, and safety. The document provides guidance on how to distinguish high-quality trials that produce useful results for patient care.
Tofacitinib, an oral janus kinase inhibitor, analysis of malignancies across ...Paul Pérez
1) An analysis was conducted of malignancy data from clinical trials of tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Over 5,600 patients were treated with tofacitinib across phase 2, 3, and long-term extension studies.
2) 107 patients treated with tofacitinib developed malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), with rates similar to those expected in RA patients and the general population. The most common malignancies were lung cancer, breast cancer, and lymphoma.
3) The incidence of malignancies was stable over time with tofacitinib exposure and was not higher than placebo or the active control ad
This document discusses radiotherapy techniques for early breast cancer, including:
1) Modern techniques like IMRT and 4D radiotherapy allow for better treatment planning and delivery while avoiding nearby organs.
2) Several randomized clinical trials found that a shorter, hypofractionated course of radiotherapy was not inferior to standard radiotherapy in terms of local recurrence or toxicity.
3) Partial breast irradiation techniques are being studied as a way to further reduce treatment volumes and time for selected low-risk patients.
The RAPIDO trial tested a new experimental treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer that involved short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before surgery, compared to the standard treatment of long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and then chemotherapy. The results showed that the experimental treatment led to a lower rate of disease-related treatment failures and distant metastases, along with a doubled rate of pathologic complete responses, without increasing toxicities or compromising survival rates. This provides evidence that the experimental approach may be a new standard of care for high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer.
Similar to Comparing Treatment Results Of PROSTATE CANCER - 2013 (20)
Here is the updated list of Top Best Ayurvedic medicine for Gas and Indigestion and those are Gas-O-Go Syp for Dyspepsia | Lavizyme Syrup for Acidity | Yumzyme Hepatoprotective Capsules etc
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.comreignlana06
The UK is currently facing a Adhd Medication Shortage Uk, which has left many patients and their families grappling with uncertainty and frustration. ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is a chronic condition that requires consistent medication to manage effectively. This shortage has highlighted the critical role these medications play in the daily lives of those affected by ADHD. Contact : +1 (747) 209 – 3649 E-mail : sales@trinexpharmacy.com
Promoting Wellbeing - Applied Social Psychology - Psychology SuperNotesPsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
Osteoporosis - Definition , Evaluation and Management .pdfJim Jacob Roy
Osteoporosis is an increasing cause of morbidity among the elderly.
In this document , a brief outline of osteoporosis is given , including the risk factors of osteoporosis fractures , the indications for testing bone mineral density and the management of osteoporosis
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptxTina Purnat
• Pitfalls and pivots needed to use AI effectively in public health
• Evidence-based strategies to address health misinformation effectively
• Building trust with communities online and offline
• Equipping health professionals to address questions, concerns and health misinformation
• Assessing risk and mitigating harm from adverse health narratives in communities, health workforce and health system
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a quick overview of the physiological basis of a normal electrocardiogram.
Learning objectives:
1. Define an electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrocardiography
2. Describe how dipoles generated by the heart produce the waveforms of the ECG
3. Describe the components of a normal electrocardiogram of a typical bipolar lead (limb II)
4. Differentiate between intervals and segments
5. Enlist some common indications for obtaining an ECG
6. Describe the flow of current around the heart during the cardiac cycle
7. Discuss the placement and polarity of the leads of electrocardiograph
8. Describe the normal electrocardiograms recorded from the limb leads and explain the physiological basis of the different records that are obtained
9. Define mean electrical vector (axis) of the heart and give the normal range
10. Define the mean QRS vector
11. Describe the axes of leads (hexagonal reference system)
12. Comprehend the vectorial analysis of the normal ECG
13. Determine the mean electrical axis of the ventricular QRS and appreciate the mean axis deviation
14. Explain the concepts of current of injury, J point, and their significance
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 11, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 9, Human Physiology - From Cells to Systems, Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
3. Chapter 29, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
4. Electrocardiogram, StatPearls - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/
5. ECG in Medical Practice by ABM Abdullah, 4th edition
6. Chapter 3, Cardiology Explained, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2214/
7. ECG Basics, http://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/e-c-g-basics
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune DiseaseHealth Advances
There is increasing confidence that cell therapies will soon play a role in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, but the extent of this impact remains to be seen. Early readouts on autologous CAR-Ts in lupus are encouraging, but manufacturing and cost limitations are likely to restrict access to highly refractory patients. Allogeneic CAR-Ts have the potential to broaden access to earlier lines of treatment due to their inherent cost benefits, however they will need to demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy to established modalities.
In addition to infrastructure and capacity constraints, CAR-Ts face a very different risk-benefit dynamic in autoimmune compared to oncology, highlighting the need for tolerable therapies with low adverse event risk. CAR-NK and Treg-based therapies are also being developed in certain autoimmune disorders and may demonstrate favorable safety profiles. Several novel non-cell therapies such as bispecific antibodies, nanobodies, and RNAi drugs, may also offer future alternative competitive solutions with variable value propositions.
Widespread adoption of cell therapies will not only require strong efficacy and safety data, but also adapted pricing and access strategies. At oncology-based price points, CAR-Ts are unlikely to achieve broad market access in autoimmune disorders, with eligible patient populations that are potentially orders of magnitude greater than the number of currently addressable cancer patients. Developers have made strides towards reducing cell therapy COGS while improving manufacturing efficiency, but payors will inevitably restrict access until more sustainable pricing is achieved.
Despite these headwinds, industry leaders and investors remain confident that cell therapies are poised to address significant unmet need in patients suffering from autoimmune disorders. However, the extent of this impact on the treatment landscape remains to be seen, as the industry rapidly approaches an inflection point.
Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptxAyeshaZaid1
Dive into an in-depth exploration of the histological structure of female reproductive system with this comprehensive lecture. Presented by Dr. Ayesha Irfan, Assistant Professor of Anatomy, this presentation covers the Gross anatomy and functional histology of the female reproductive organs. Ideal for students, educators, and anyone interested in medical science, this lecture provides clear explanations, detailed diagrams, and valuable insights into female reproductive system. Enhance your knowledge and understanding of this essential aspect of human biology.
TEST BANK For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition by...Donc Test
TEST BANK For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition by Stamler, Verified Chapters 1 - 33, Complete Newest Version Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition by Stamler, Verified Chapters 1 - 33, Complete Newest Version Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition by Stamler Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition TEST BANK by Stamler Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Pdf Chapters Download Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Pdf Download Stuvia Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Study Guide Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Ebook Download Stuvia Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Questions and Answers Quizlet Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Studocu Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Quizlet Test Bank For Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Stuvia Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Pdf Chapters Download Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Pdf Download Course Hero Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Answers Quizlet Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Ebook Download Course hero Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Questions and Answers Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Studocu Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Quizlet Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Stuvia Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Pdf Chapters Download Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Pdf Download Stuvia Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Study Guide Questions and Answers Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Ebook Download Stuvia Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Questions Quizlet Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Studocu Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Quizlet Community Health Nursing A Canadian Perspective, 5th Edition Test Bank Stuvia
Recomendações da OMS sobre cuidados maternos e neonatais para uma experiência pós-natal positiva.
Em consonância com os ODS – Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável e a Estratégia Global para a Saúde das Mulheres, Crianças e Adolescentes, e aplicando uma abordagem baseada nos direitos humanos, os esforços de cuidados pós-natais devem expandir-se para além da cobertura e da simples sobrevivência, de modo a incluir cuidados de qualidade.
Estas diretrizes visam melhorar a qualidade dos cuidados pós-natais essenciais e de rotina prestados às mulheres e aos recém-nascidos, com o objetivo final de melhorar a saúde e o bem-estar materno e neonatal.
Uma “experiência pós-natal positiva” é um resultado importante para todas as mulheres que dão à luz e para os seus recém-nascidos, estabelecendo as bases para a melhoria da saúde e do bem-estar a curto e longo prazo. Uma experiência pós-natal positiva é definida como aquela em que as mulheres, pessoas que gestam, os recém-nascidos, os casais, os pais, os cuidadores e as famílias recebem informação consistente, garantia e apoio de profissionais de saúde motivados; e onde um sistema de saúde flexível e com recursos reconheça as necessidades das mulheres e dos bebês e respeite o seu contexto cultural.
Estas diretrizes consolidadas apresentam algumas recomendações novas e já bem fundamentadas sobre cuidados pós-natais de rotina para mulheres e neonatos que recebem cuidados no pós-parto em unidades de saúde ou na comunidade, independentemente dos recursos disponíveis.
É fornecido um conjunto abrangente de recomendações para cuidados durante o período puerperal, com ênfase nos cuidados essenciais que todas as mulheres e recém-nascidos devem receber, e com a devida atenção à qualidade dos cuidados; isto é, a entrega e a experiência do cuidado recebido. Estas diretrizes atualizam e ampliam as recomendações da OMS de 2014 sobre cuidados pós-natais da mãe e do recém-nascido e complementam as atuais diretrizes da OMS sobre a gestão de complicações pós-natais.
O estabelecimento da amamentação e o manejo das principais intercorrências é contemplada.
Recomendamos muito.
Vamos discutir essas recomendações no nosso curso de pós-graduação em Aleitamento no Instituto Ciclos.
Esta publicação só está disponível em inglês até o momento.
Prof. Marcus Renato de Carvalho
www.agostodourado.com
ABDOMINAL TRAUMA in pediatrics part one.drhasanrajab
Abdominal trauma in pediatrics refers to injuries or damage to the abdominal organs in children. It can occur due to various causes such as falls, motor vehicle accidents, sports-related injuries, and physical abuse. Children are more vulnerable to abdominal trauma due to their unique anatomical and physiological characteristics. Signs and symptoms include abdominal pain, tenderness, distension, vomiting, and signs of shock. Diagnosis involves physical examination, imaging studies, and laboratory tests. Management depends on the severity and may involve conservative treatment or surgical intervention. Prevention is crucial in reducing the incidence of abdominal trauma in children.
Comparing Treatment Results Of PROSTATE CANCER - 2013
1. Comparing Treatment Results Of
PROSTATE CANCER
Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
2013
Peter Grimm, DO
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
11/04/14 1
2. Problem: Patients, physicians and carriers
need a simple, unbiased means to compare
the cancer control rates of modern prostate
cancer treatment methods.
11/04/14 2
3. To solve this problem, we have assembled
11/04/14
experts from key treating disciplines:
Surgery, External Radiation, Internal (or
Brachytherapy), High Frequency
Ultrasound, and Proton Therapy
The purpose of this work is to do a
complete review study of the current
literature on prostate cancer treatment
3
4. Ignace Billiet, MD F.E.B.U., Urologist Kortrijk, Belgium
David Bostwick, MD Bostwick Laboratories
David Crawford, MD Univ Colorado, Denver
Adam Dicker, MD Thomas Jefferson U Philadelphia,PA
Steven Frank, MD MD Andersen, Houston Texas
Peter Grimm, DO Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
Jos Immerzeel, MD De Prostaat Kliniek Netherlands
Stephen Langley, MD St Luke's Cancer Centre, Guildford England
Alvaro Martinez, MD William Beaumont , Royal Oak, Mi
Mira Keyes, MD BC Cancer Agency , Vancouver Canada
Patrick Kupelian, MD UCLA Med Center Los Angeles
Robert Lee , MD Duke University Medical Center
Stefan Machtens, MD University Bergisch, Gladbach Germany
Jyoti Mayadev, UC Davis Davis ,California
Brian Moran, MD Chicago Prostate Institute Chicago
11/04/14 4
5. Gregory Merrick, MD Schiffler Cancer Center Wheeling West Virginia
Jeremy Millar, MD Alfred Health and Monash University, Melbourne Australia
Mack Roach, MD UCSF San Francisco California
Richard Stock, MD Mt. Sinai New York
Katsuto Shinohara, MD UCSF San Francisco California
Mark Scholz, MD Prostate Cancer Research Institute Marina del Ray California
Edward Weber, MD Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
Anthony Zietman, MD Harvard Joint Center Boston Ma
Michael Zelefsky, MD Memorial Sloan Kettering New York
Jason Wong, MD UC Irvine Irvine California
Stacy Wentworth, MD Piedmont Radiation Oncology Greensboro , NC
Robyn Vera, DO Medical College of Virginia Richmond Virginia
11/04/14 5
6. ABOUT THIS REVIEW STUDY
23,000+ prostate studies were
published between 2000 and 2012
989 of those studies featured
treatment results
195 of those met the criteria to be
included in this review study. (*1st & 2nd group)
Some treatment methods are under-represented
due to failure to meet
criteria
11/04/14 6
7. “Will I be cured?” or “Will my treatment
make me cancer free?” are valid patient
questions. However, PSA values (our best
measurement tool today) cannot answer this
absolutely. The current state-of-the-art can
only indicate that the treatment was
“successful” if PSA numbers do not indicate
cancer progression.
11/04/14 7
8. After prostate removal, PSA numbers usually
fall rapidly to very low numbers and stay low.
After radiation, PSA numbers usually come
down slower, might increase then fall in the
1 to 3 year range (called a “PSA Bump”), and
then usually level out at a higher number
than the surgery patient.
These different PSA expectations result in
dissimilar ways to review a man’s PSA
history to judge treatment success.
This study makes no attempt to standardize
those evaluation systems.
11/04/14 8
9. Brachy = Seed implantation either
permanent or temporary seeds
IMRT = Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy a
form of External Radiation
RP = Standard open radical prostatectomy
Robot RP = Robotic Radical Prostatectomy
HIFU = High frequency Ultrasound
Cryo= Cryotherapy
Protons = form of External Radiation using Protons
EBRT= External Beam Radiation Therapy
ADT= Hormone Therapy
11/04/14 9
10. Criteria for Inclusion of Article*
1. Patients should be separated into Low,
Intermediate, and High Risk
2. Success must be determined by PSA analysis
3. All Treatment types considered: Seeds (Brachy),
Surgery (Standard or Robotic), IMRT (Intensity
Modulated Radiation), HIFU (High Frequency
Ultrasound), CRYO (Cryo Therapy), Protons, HDR
(High dose Rate Brachytherapy)
4. Article must be in a Peer Reviewed Journal
* Expert panel consensus
11/04/14 10
11. 5. Low Risk articles must have a minimum of 100
patients
6. Intermediate Risk articles must have a minimum of
100 patients
7. High Risk articles, because of fewer patients, need
only 50 patients to meet criteria
8. Patients must have been followed for a median of 5
years
For additional criteria information contact: lisa@prostatecancertc.com
11/04/14 11
12. RP
EBRT/
IMRT
Cryo Brachy/
HDR
Robot
RP
Proton HIFU
8.7% 10.6% 6% 19% 6% 23% 3%
25/285 28/263 2/33 51/275 4/65 3/13 1/33
Total of 989 Treatment Articles. Some articles addressed several treatments and were
counted as separate articles for each treatment. *A few articles evaluated other/minor treatments and are
not listed here. These calculations only include primary accepted articles, and do not include secondary acceptance totals.
11/04/14 12
13. How to Interpret the Results
Each treatment is given a symbol. For example Seed implant
alone (Brachy) is given a blue dot with a number in it.
2277
The number in the symbol refers to the article. The article
can be found in the notes section below the slide ( go into
“view” in up left corner of PowerPoint and click on note
section, then click on this portion and scroll down to see all
the references)
Treatment Success % = Percent of men whose PSA numbers
do not indicate cancer progression. (progression free) at a
specific point in time
The bottom line indicates the number years the study is out
An example, the blue dot with 27 inside indicates that, as per
article 27, 97% of the patients treated with seeds alone in low
risk patients at 12 years were free of disease progression
according to PSA numbers
11/04/14 13
14. How to Interpret the Results
First Establish your clinical risk group* by looking at
the definitions or ask your physician Refer only to
those slides for your risk group
Make your own judgment and then ask a doctor in
each discipline ( Seeds, External Radiation Surgery,
etc) to tell you where his/her own peer reviewed
published Treatment Success % would fit on this
plot.
*Next Slide
11/04/14 14
16. 100
90
80
70
LOW RISK RESULTS
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp. 1)
110011
1199 36 36
2 2
2233
7 7
60
1 1
1144
1122
2244
88
2277
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Seeds
Surgery
EBRT
55
2222
← Years from Treatment →
CRYO
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
HIFU
gor P ASP %
1111
1155
Protons
2211
44
1188
99
1100
EBRT &
Seeds
2255
Robot RP
2266
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
HDR
2299 2288
3300
3311
3333 3322
3344
3377
3388
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
33
3399
35
4400
110000
1133
16
110033
110022
6 6
1166
106 110044 106
110077
110088
1177
17. LOW RISK RESULTS
Weighted
EBRT 1133
110011
1199 36 36
2 2
2233
2266
7 7
100
90
80
70
60
2277
55
2255
2222
1 1
1144
2211
1122
2244
88
44
1155
1188
99
1100
← Years from Treatment →
1111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EBRT &
Seeds
Robot RP
Seeds
Surgery
EBRT
CRYO
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
HIFU
gor P ASP %
Protons
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp. 1) 17
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
HDR
2299 2288
3300
3311
3333 3322
3344
3377
3388
33
3399
35
4400
110000
Brachy
Surgery
Treatment Success
110033
110022
6 6
1166
106 110044 106
110077
110088
1177
18. “The PCRSG criteria is pretty strict and not a
lot of studies fit. What happens if you include
articles with only 40 months of follow up or
have a long follow up but less than 100
patients?”
11/04/14 18
19. LOW RISK RESULTS
>40 months follow-up or less than 100 patients
100
90
80
70
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
8811 62 62
4444 EBRT &
19
110011
5511
6666
7755
8822
8888
6699
1199 36 36
2 2
2233
7 7
60
110000
1 1
1144
1122
2244
88
2277
5588
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Seeds
Surgery
EBRT
55
2222
← Years from Treatment →
CRYO
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
HIFU
gor P ASP %
1111
1155
Protons
2211
44
1188
99
1100
EBRT &
Seeds
2255
Robot RP
2266
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
HDR
2299 2288
3300
3311
3333 3322
3344
3377
3388
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
33
3399
35
4400
4411
1133
6655
4499
7766
5566
8800
5599
6633
4411
7711
7722
9900
7733
7744
7700
4422
5577
8855
8844
4433
6644
ADT
5533
5544
7799
Hypo EBRT
8866
8877
4455
77778888
7777
44446666
44448888
9911
+ + Seeds &
ADT
899933 89
5500
6677
6688
99449955
5555
88883333 55552222
4477
6611
9966
110033
110022
9977
9988
6 6600 6
1166
106 110044 106
9999
110077
110088
1177
20. LOW RISK RESULTS Weighted
>40 months follow-up or less than 100 patients
100
90
80
70
EBRT Brachy
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
9922
8811 62 62
4444 EBRT &
20
110011
5511
6666
7755
8822
8888
6699
8899
1199 36 36
2 2
2233
7 7
60
110000
1 1
1144
1122
2244
88
2277
5588
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Seeds
Surgery
EBRT
55
2222
← Years from Treatment →
CRYO
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
HIFU
gor P ASP %
1111
1155
Protons
2211
44
1188
99
1100
EBRT &
Seeds
2255
Robot RP
2266
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
HDR
2299 2288
3300
3311
3333 3322
3344
3377
3388
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
33
3399
35
4400
4411
1133
6655
4499
7766
5566
8800
5599
6633
4411
7711
7722
9900
7733
7744
7700
4422
5577
8855
8844
4433
6644
ADT
5533
5544
7799
8866
8877
4455
77778888
7777
44446666
44448888
9911
+ + Seeds &
ADT
9933
5500
6677
6688
99449955
5555
88883333 55552222
4477
6611
Surgery
Hypo EBRT
9966
110033
110022
9977
9988
6 6600 6
1166
106 110044 106
9999
110077
110088
1177
27. HIGH RISK RESULTS
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
EBRT & ADT
EBRT & Seeds
27
2200 1166
1188
4455
4422
1111
6 6
3366
2255
1155
5 5
EBRT Seeds +
ADT
1199
3300
2299
gor P ASP %
17
4444
2211
8 8
9 9
2244
2266
3377
4411
4433
1122
Protons
HDR
3355
4466
← Years from Treatment
→
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
4477
Robot RP
4488
4499
110011
110022
110033
110044
110055
110066
Hypo EBRT
110077
110099
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
2233
44 110088
2 2
3311
3399
3322
3333
3344
38
7 7
1 1
111100
2277
3 3
1133
1144
2288
4400
1100
111111
111122
111122
111133
111144
111155
Surg & ADT
111166
111188
111177
112211 111199
28. HIGH RISK RESULTS
Weighted
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
28
EBRT, Seeds & ADT
2200 1166
1188
4455
4422
1111
6 6
3366
2255
1155
5 5
EBRT Seeds +
ADT
1199
3300
2299
gor P ASP %
17
4444
2211
8 8
9 9
2222
2244
2266
3377
4411
4433
1122
Protons
HDR
3355
4466
111100
← Years from Treatment
→
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
4477
Robot RP
4488
4499
110011
110022
110033
110044
110055
110066
110077
110099
2233
44 110088
2 2
3311
3399
3322
3333
3344
38
Brachy
EBRT Surgery
EBRT & ADT
EBRT & Seeds
Hypo EBRT
Treatment Success
1 1
7 7
2277
3 3
1133
1144
2288
4400
1100
111111
111122
111122
111133
111144
111155
111166
Surg & ADT
111188
111177
112211 111199
29. HIGH RISK RESULTS
>40 months follow-up or less than 100 patients
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
EBRT & ADT
EBRT & Seeds
29
4422
1111
8833 8822
6 6
65
81
74
9922
80
78
6677
6666
79
3366
2255
1155
5 5
EBRT Seeds +
ADT
1199
3300
2200 1166
1188
5522
2299
gor P ASP %
17
4444
2211
8 8
5544
9 9
2222
2244
2266
3377
4411
4433
1122
Protons
HDR
4466
7722
← Years from Treatment
→
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
4477
Robot RP
4488
4499
110011
110022
110033
110044
110055
110066
Hypo EBRT
110077
110099
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
3355
44 110088
2 2
3311
3399
3322
3333
3344
38
5500
5511
53
55
HIFU
5566
8866 8877
57
5588
5599
6611
6622
6633
6644
6688
6699
7700
7711
7733
75
76
77
8888
8899
8844
85
1 1
7 7
9900
9911
111100
2277
3 3
1133
1144
2288
4400
1100
4455
2233 111111
111122
111122
111133
111144
111155
111166
Surg & ADT
111188
111177
111121211919 111199
6600
30. HIGH RISK RESULTS Weighted
>40 months follow-up or less than 100 patients
11/04/14
BJU Int, 2012, Vol. 109(Supp 1)
30
2200 1166
1188
4422
1111
8833 8822
7 7
6 6
65
81
74
9922
80
78
6677
6600
79
3366
2255
1155
5 5
1199
3300
5522
2299
gor P ASP %
17
4444
1 1
9900
2211
8 8
5544
6666
9 9
2222
Brachy
2244
2266
3377
4411
4433
1122
Protons
3355
4466
7722
← Years from Treatment
→
• Prostate Cancer Results Study Group
• Numbers within symbols refer to references
4477
4488
4499
110011
110022
110033
110044
110055
110066
110077
110099
sseccuS t ne mt aer T
1100
2233
44 110088
2 2
3311
3399
3322
3333
3344
38
5500
5511
53
55
HIFU
5566
8866 8877
57
5588
5599
6611
6622
6633
6644
6688
6699
7700
7711
7733
75
76
77
8888
8899
8844
85
Surgery
EBRT
EBRT & ADT
EBRT & Seeds
Hypo EBRT
HDR
EBRT Seeds +
ADT
Robot RP
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle
9911
111100
2277
3 3
1133
1144
2288
4400
4455
111111
111122
111122
111133
111144
111155
111166
Surg & ADT
111188 111199
31. OBSERVATIONS
For most low risk patients, most therapies
will be successful.
There appears to be a higher cancer control
success rate for Brachy over EBRT and
Surgery for all groups. Patients are
encouraged to look at graphs and determine
for themselves
Serious side effect rates must be considered
for any treatment
Relaxing the report selection criteria doesn’t
seem to impact the results substantially
11/04/14 31
32. = Seeds alone
= EBRT & Seeds
= Surgery = Standard Radical Prostatectomy
= “Robot” =Robotic Prostatectomy
= “HIFU” = High Frequency Ultrasound
= “HDR”= High Dose Rate Brachytherapy +/-EBRT
= EBRT alone
= Hypo EBRT
= Protons
11/04/14 32
33. = “CRYO” Cryo Therapy
= EBRT, Seeds, & ADT
= Seeds & ADT
= EBRT & ADT
= Surgery & ADT
= “Brachy” = all seed implant treatments
= all Surgery treatments
= all EBRT treatments
= all EBRT & Seeds
= all EBRT, Seeds & ADT
+ +
11/04/14 33
35. Peter Grimm, DO
peter@grimm.com
Lisa Grimm, Research Coordinator
lisa@prostatecancertc.com
Or ProstateCancerTC.com
Or contact PCRSG member
Prostate Cancer Center of Seattle website
www.Prostatecancertreatmentcenter.com
11/04/14 35
Editor's Notes
1st Group References:
Kupelian P, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33.(RP)
Thames H, et al. Increasing external beam dose for T1-T2 prostate cancer: Effect on risk groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
Zelefsky M, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
Martin AG, Roy J, Beaulieu L, et al. Permanent prostate implant using high activity seeds and inverse planning with fast simulated annealing algorithm: A 12-Year Canadian experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
Potters L, et al.12-Year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year outcome of Intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
Boorjian S, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the D&apos;Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
Critz J, et al. 10-Year disease free survival rates after simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer with a focus on calculation and methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
Kuban D, et al. Long-Term multi-institutional analysis of stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
Weight C, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse free survival at 10-years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urology 2008;71(1):141-145.
Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-Free Survival After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
Merrick G, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(3):669-67
Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Community Oncology 2007;4(4):235-240.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
Morris, W et al. Population-based 10-year oncologic outcomes after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; epub ahead of print Dec. 26.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long-term results of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Impact of dose escalation in biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or Conformal External Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A single-Institutional Matched Pair Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(1): 43-49. (EBRT)
(Open)
Bittner N, et al. Primary causes of death after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
Morris W, et al. Population-based Study of Biochemical and Survival Outcomes After Permanenet 125I Brachytherapy for Low and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Urol 2009; 73(4);860-867.
Moyad M, et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin may favorably influence clinical presentation and biochemical PFS after brachytherapy of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Bhatta-Dhar N, et al. No difference in 6 year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node during radical prostatectomy in low risk patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2004;63(3): 528-531.
Zietman A, et al. Comparison of conventional dose vs high dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239 & Correction: JAMA 2008; 299(8): 898-900.
Nguyen P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prevalent versus incident cases of prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;113(11):3146-3152.
Taira A, et al. Natural history of clinically staged low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with monotherapeutic permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
Demanes J, et al. Excellent results from high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam for prostate cancer are not improved by Androgen deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
Stone N, et al. Local control following permanent prostate brachytherapy: Effect of high biologically effective dose on biopsy results and oncologic outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or conformal external radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A single-istitution matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):43-49. (Seeds)
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Protons)
Zeitman A, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional dose with high dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Long term results from proton radiation oncology group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(7):1106-1111.
Menon M, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58:838-46.
Kane CJ, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: Results from the SEARCH database urology. Urol 2010;76(3):695-700.
Ellis R, et al. Ten year outcomes : The clinical utility of single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography capromab pendetide (prostascint) in a cohort diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81(1): 29-34. Epub date: 10-18-2010.
Hinnen, K. et al. Long term biochemical and survival outcome of 921 patients treated with I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (Seeds)
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (IMRT 81Gy)
Burri, R. et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochemical outcomes Compared With Older Men After Treatment With Brachytherapy For Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77(5):1315-1321.
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Seeds)
100. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (Seeds)
101. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (EBRT)
102. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Brachy)
103. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Protons)
104. Sylvester, J, Grimm P et at Fifteen Year Biochemical RFS CSS, OS Following I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy in Clinically localized prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81;376-81:
105. (Open)
106. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
107 Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
108. Mulllins, J et al. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;187(5):1620-25.
1st Group References:
Kupelian P, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33.(RP)
Thames H, et al. Increasing external beam dose for T1-T2 prostate cancer: Effect on risk groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
Zelefsky M, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
Martin AG, Roy J, Beaulieu L, et al. Permanent prostate implant using high activity seeds and inverse planning with fast simulated annealing algorithm: A 12-Year Canadian experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
Potters L, et al.12-Year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year outcome of Intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
Boorjian S, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the D&apos;Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
Critz J, et al. 10-Year disease free survival rates after simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer with a focus on calculation and methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
Kuban D, et al. Long-Term multi-institutional analysis of stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
Weight C, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse free survival at 10-years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urology 2008;71(1):141-145.
Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-Free Survival After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
Merrick G, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(3):669-67
Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Community Oncology 2007;4(4):235-240.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
Morris, W et al. Population-based 10-year oncologic outcomes after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; epub ahead of print Dec. 26.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long-term results of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Impact of dose escalation in biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or Conformal External Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A single-Institutional Matched Pair Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(1): 43-49. (EBRT)
(Open)
Bittner N, et al. Primary causes of death after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
Morris W, et al. Population-based Study of Biochemical and Survival Outcomes After Permanenet 125I Brachytherapy for Low and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Urol 2009; 73(4);860-867.
Moyad M, et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin may favorably influence clinical presentation and biochemical PFS after brachytherapy of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Bhatta-Dhar N, et al. No difference in 6 year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node during radical prostatectomy in low risk patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2004;63(3): 528-531.
Zietman A, et al. Comparison of conventional dose vs high dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239 & Correction: JAMA 2008; 299(8): 898-900.
Nguyen P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prevalent versus incident cases of prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;113(11):3146-3152.
Taira A, et al. Natural history of clinically staged low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with monotherapeutic permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
Demanes J, et al. Excellent results from high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam for prostate cancer are not improved by Androgen deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
Stone N, et al. Local control following permanent prostate brachytherapy: Effect of high biologically effective dose on biopsy results and oncologic outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or conformal external radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A single-istitution matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):43-49. (Seeds)
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Protons)
Zeitman A, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional dose with high dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Long term results from proton radiation oncology group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(7):1106-1111.
Menon M, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58:838-46.
Kane CJ, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: Results from the SEARCH database urology. Urol 2010;76(3):695-700.
Ellis R, et al. Ten year outcomes : The clinical utility of single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography capromab pendetide (prostascint) in a cohort diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81(1): 29-34. Epub date: 10-18-2010.
Hinnen, K. et al. Long term biochemical and survival outcome of 921 patients treated with I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (Seeds)
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (IMRT 81Gy)
Burri, R. et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochemical outcomes Compared With Older Men After Treatment With Brachytherapy For Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77(5):1315-1321.
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Seeds)
100. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (Seeds)
101. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (EBRT)
102. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Brachy)
103. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Protons)
104. Sylvester, J, Grimm P et at Fifteen Year Biochemical RFS CSS, OS Following I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy in Clinically localized prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81;376-81:
105. (Open)
106 Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
107. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
108. Mullins, J et al. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;187(5):1620-25.
1st Group References:
Kupelian P, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33.(RP)
Thames H, et al. Increasing external beam dose for T1-T2 prostate cancer: Effect on risk groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
Zelefsky M, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
Martin AG, Roy J, Beaulieu L, et al. Permanent prostate implant using high activity seeds and inverse planning with fast simulated annealing algorithm: A 12-Year Canadian experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
Potters L, et al.12-Year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year outcome of Intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
Boorjian S, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the D&apos;Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
Critz J, et al. 10-Year disease free survival rates after simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer with a focus on calculation and methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
Kuban D, et al. Long-Term multi-institutional analysis of stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
Weight C, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse free survival at 10-years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urology 2008;71(1):141-145.
Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-Free Survival After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
Merrick G, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(3):669-67
Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Community Oncology 2007;4(4):235-240.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
Morris, W et al. Population-based 10-year oncologic outcomes after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; epub ahead of print Dec. 26.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long-term results of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Impact of dose escalation in biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or Conformal External Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A single-Institutional Matched Pair Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(1): 43-49. (EBRT)
(Open)
Bittner N, et al. Primary causes of death after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
Morris W, et al. Population-based Study of Biochemical and Survival Outcomes After Permanenet 125I Brachytherapy for Low and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Urol 2009; 73(4);860-867.
Moyad M, et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin may favorably influence clinical presentation and biochemical PFS after brachytherapy of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Bhatta-Dhar N, et al. No difference in 6 year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node during radical prostatectomy in low risk patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2004;63(3): 528-531.
Zietman A, et al. Comparison of conventional dose vs high dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239 & Correction: JAMA 2008; 299(8): 898-900.
Nguyen P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prevalent versus incident cases of prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;113(11):3146-3152.
Taira A, et al. Natural history of clinically staged low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with monotherapeutic permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
Demanes J, et al. Excellent results from high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam for prostate cancer are not improved by Androgen deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
Stone N, et al. Local control following permanent prostate brachytherapy: Effect of high biologically effective dose on biopsy results and oncologic outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or conformal external radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A single-istitution matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):43-49. (Seeds)
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Protons)
Zeitman A, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional dose with high dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Long term results from proton radiation oncology group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(7):1106-1111.
Menon M, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58:838-46.
Kane CJ, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: Results from the SEARCH database urology. Urol 2010;76(3):695-700.
Ellis R, et al. Ten year outcomes : The clinical utility of single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography capromab pendetide (prostascint) in a cohort diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81(1): 29-34. Epub date: 10-18-2010.
Hinnen, K. et al. Long term biochemical and survival outcome of 921 patients treated with I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (Seeds)
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (IMRT 81Gy)
Burri, R. et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochemical outcomes Compared With Older Men After Treatment With Brachytherapy For Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77(5):1315-1321.
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Seeds)
100. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (Seeds)
101. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (EBRT)
102. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Brachy)
103. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Protons)
104. Sylvester, J, Grimm P et at Fifteen Year Biochemical RFS CSS, OS Following I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy in Clinically localized prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81;376-81:
105. (Open)
106. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
107. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
108 Mullins, J et al. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;187(5):1620-25.
2nd Group References:
Blasko J, et al. Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46(4):839-850.
Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity-Modulated Brachytherapy with External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: California Endocurietherapy;s 10-Year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
Grimm P, et al. 10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with I-125 brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51(1):31-40.
Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary evaluation of the D&apos;Amico risk classification of prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 70(5): 931-935
Kupelian P, et al.Improved Biochemical relapse-free survuval with increased external radiation doses in patients with localized prostate cancer: the combined experience of nine institutions in patients treated in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
Merrick G, et al. Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61(1):132-43.
Vora S, et al. Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(4):1053-1058.
Merrick G, et al. Brachytherapy inmen aged &lt;54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:324-328.
Bahn D, et al. Targeted cryoablation of the prostate: 7 year outcome in the primary treatment of prostate cancer. Urol 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Phan T, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007;177:123-127.
Cahlon O, et al. Ultra high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
Sylvester J, et al. 15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
Higgins G, et al. Outcome analysis of 300 prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):982-989.
Kollmeier M, et al. Biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
Stone N, et al. Customized dose prescription for permanent prostate brachytherapy: Insights from a multicenter analysis of dosimetry outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477.
Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of Gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
Ellis R, et al. Biochemical disease-free survival rates following definitive low-dose rate prostate brachytherapy with dose escalation to biologic target volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
Kwok Y, et al. Risk group stratification in patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
Blana A, et al. Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;72(6):1329-1333.
Lawton, C et al. Long-term Results of a Phase II Trial of Ultrasound-Guided Radioactive Implantation of the Prostate for Definitive Management of Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (RTOG 98-05.) Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(1):1-7.
Zelefsky M, et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:876-881. (81Gy)
Khuntia D, et al. Recurrence free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate-specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
Blana A, et al. First Analysis of the Long-Term results with Transrectal HIFU in Patients with Localised prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2008;53:1194-1203.
Henry A, et al. Outcomes following Iodine-125 monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: the results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
Aizer A, et al. Radical prostatectomy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009; 93:185-191.
Gómez-Iturriaga Piña A, et al. Median 5 year Follow-up of I-125 Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Men aged &lt;55 Years with Favorable Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2010;75(6):1416-17. & Gómez-Iturriaga Piña A, et al. Biochemical Disease-free rate toxicicty for Men treated with I-125 prostate Brachytherapy with D90&gt; 180GY. Int J Radia Oncol Bio Phys 2010;78(2):422-427.
Prada P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival and side effects in 734 patients with up to 10 years of follow-up with localized prostate cancer treated by permanent Iodine-125 implants. BJU Int 2010;106(1):32-36.
Rene N, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy for favorable risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77(3):805-810.
Lawton C, et al. Results of a Phase II Trial of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive management of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate (radiation therapy oncology group 98-05). Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):39-47.
Deger S, et al. High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy with conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47(4):441-448.
Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus implant for early prostate cancer: results from a single institution, 1992-2005. Cancer J 2007;13(4):229-232. (RP)
Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus implant for early prostate cancer: results from a single institution, 1992-2005. Cancer J 2007;13(4):229-232. (Seeds)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (RP)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (EBRT)
Block T, et al. Transperineal permanent seed implantation of “low-risk” prostate cancer. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2006;182:666-671.
Battermann J, et al. Results of permanent prostate brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a single institution. Radiotherapy & Oncology 2004;71:23-28.
Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy in carcinoma of the prostate: five-year outcome analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
Lederman G.S, et al. Retrospective stratification of a consecutive cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with a combined regimen of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49(5):1297-1303.
Kuban D, et al. Long-term results of the M.D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70(1):67-74. (78Gy)
Berglund R, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urology 2007;177:526-530.
Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer- A focus on intermediate- and high-risk disease. Clinical Oncology 2006;18:513-518.
Hull G, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urology 2002;167:528-534.
Sylvester J, et al. Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival after external beam radiation and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: The Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4)944-952.
Giberti C, et al. Radial retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol 2009;27:607-612. (RP)
Giberti C, et al. Radial retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol 2009;27:607-612. (Seeds)
Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated intersity-modulated radiotherapy (70 GY at 2.5GY per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland clinic experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
Kupelian P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: A large scale single institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clinical Oncology 2002;20(16):3376-3385. (RP)
Kupelian P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: A large scale single institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clinical Oncology 2002;20(16):3376-3385. (EBRT)
Peschel R, et al. Iodine 125 versus palladium 103 implants for prostate cancer: Clinical outcomes and complications. The Cancer Journal 2004;10(3):170-174.
Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
Misraї V, et al. Oncologic control provided by HIFU therapy as single treatment in men with localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2008;26:481-485.
Nobes JP, et al. Biochemical relapse-free survival in 400 patients treated with I-125 prostate brachytherapy: the Guildford experience. Prostate Cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66. (Seeds)
Nobes JP, et al. Biochemical relapse-free survival in 400 patients treated with I-125 prostate brachytherapy: the Guildford experience. Prostate Cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66. (Seeds & ADT)
Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 2009;181:1665-1671. (&lt;60 yrs old)
Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 2009;181:1665-1671. (&gt;60 yrs old)
96. Crook, J et al. 10-Year Experience with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy at the Princess Margaret Hospital: Results for 1,100 Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(5):1323-29.
97. Goldner, G et al. Comparison of seed brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (70Gy or 74Gy) in 919 low-risk prostate cancer patients. Stathentherapie und Onkol 2012;4:305-10. (Brachy)
98. Goldner, G et al. Comparison of seed brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (70Gy or 74Gy) in 919 low-risk prostate cancer patients. Stathentherapie und Onkol 2012;4:305-10. (EBRT)
99.Lubbe, W et al. Biochemical and clinical experience with real-time intraoperatively planned permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2012;11(3):209-13.
1st Group References:
Kupelian P, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33.(RP)
Thames H, et al. Increasing external beam dose for T1-T2 prostate cancer: Effect on risk groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
Zelefsky M, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
Martin AG, Roy J, Beaulieu L, et al. Permanent prostate implant using high activity seeds and inverse planning with fast simulated annealing algorithm: A 12-Year Canadian experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
Potters L, et al.12-Year outcomes following permanent prostate brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year outcome of Intraoperative conformal permanent I-125 interstitial implantation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
Boorjian S, et al. Mayo Clinic validation of the D&apos;Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
Critz J, et al. 10-Year disease free survival rates after simultaneous irradiation for prostate cancer with a focus on calculation and methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
Kuban D, et al. Long-Term multi-institutional analysis of stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy in the PSA era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
Weight C, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection does not improve biochemical relapse free survival at 10-years after radical prostatectomy in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urology 2008;71(1):141-145.
Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-Free Survival After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
Merrick G, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause-specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(3):669-67
Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Community Oncology 2007;4(4):235-240.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
Morris, W et al. Population-based 10-year oncologic outcomes after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; epub ahead of print Dec. 26.
Zelefsky M, et al. Long-term results of conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Impact of dose escalation in biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or Conformal External Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A single-Institutional Matched Pair Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(1): 43-49. (EBRT)
(Open)
Bittner N, et al. Primary causes of death after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
Morris W, et al. Population-based Study of Biochemical and Survival Outcomes After Permanenet 125I Brachytherapy for Low and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. Urol 2009; 73(4);860-867.
Moyad M, et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin may favorably influence clinical presentation and biochemical PFS after brachytherapy of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Bhatta-Dhar N, et al. No difference in 6 year biochemical failure rates with or without pelvic lymph node during radical prostatectomy in low risk patients with prostate cancer. Urology 2004;63(3): 528-531.
Zietman A, et al. Comparison of conventional dose vs high dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239 & Correction: JAMA 2008; 299(8): 898-900.
Nguyen P, et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prevalent versus incident cases of prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;113(11):3146-3152.
Taira A, et al. Natural history of clinically staged low- and intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with monotherapeutic permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
Demanes J, et al. Excellent results from high dose rate brachytherapy and external beam for prostate cancer are not improved by Androgen deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
Stone N, et al. Local control following permanent prostate brachytherapy: Effect of high biologically effective dose on biopsy results and oncologic outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Pickles T, et al. Brachytherapy or conformal external radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A single-istitution matched-pair analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):43-49. (Seeds)
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Protons)
Zeitman A, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional dose with high dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Long term results from proton radiation oncology group/American College of Radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(7):1106-1111.
Menon M, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010;58:838-46.
Kane CJ, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: Results from the SEARCH database urology. Urol 2010;76(3):695-700.
Ellis R, et al. Ten year outcomes : The clinical utility of single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography capromab pendetide (prostascint) in a cohort diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81(1): 29-34. Epub date: 10-18-2010.
Hinnen, K. et al. Long term biochemical and survival outcome of 921 patients treated with I-125 permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (Seeds)
Zelefsky et al. Comparison of Tumor Control and toxicity Outcomes of IMRT and Brachytherapy for Patients with Favorable Risk PCa J Urology 2011; 77(4): 986-90. Epub date: 12-31-2010. (IMRT 81Gy)
Burri, R. et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochemical outcomes Compared With Older Men After Treatment With Brachytherapy For Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77(5):1315-1321.
Jabbari S, et al. Equivalent biochemical control and improved prostate-specific antigen nadir after permanent prostate seed implant brachytherapy versus high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and high-dose conformal proton beam radiotherapy boost. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):36-42. (Seeds)
100. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (Seeds)
101. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:(1):25-33. (EBRT)
102. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Brachy)
103. Coen, J et al. Comparison of High-Dose-Rate Proton Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Case-Matched Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;81(1):e25-e31. (Protons)
104. Sylvester, J, Grimm P et at Fifteen Year Biochemical RFS CSS, OS Following I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy in Clinically localized prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;81;376-81:
105. (Open)
106. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
107. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
108. Mullins, J et al. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;187(5):1620-25.
2nd Group References:
Blasko J, et al. Palladium-103 brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46(4):839-850.
Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity-Modulated Brachytherapy with External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: California Endocurietherapy;s 10-Year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
Grimm P, et al. 10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with I-125 brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51(1):31-40.
Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary evaluation of the D&apos;Amico risk classification of prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 70(5): 931-935.
Kupelian P, et al.Improved Biochemical relapse-free survuval with increased external radiation doses in patients with localized prostate cancer: the combined experience of nine institutions in patients treated in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
Merrick G, et al. Impact of supplemental external beam radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical outcome after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61(1):132-43.
Vora S, et al. Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(4):1053-1058.
Merrick G, et al. Brachytherapy inmen aged &lt;54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:324-328.
Bahn D, et al. Targeted cryoablation of the prostate: 7 year outcome in the primary treatment of prostate cancer. Urol 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Phan T, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007;177:123-127.
Cahlon O, et al. Ultra high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
Sylvester J, et al. 15-Year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical stage T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
Higgins G, et al. Outcome analysis of 300 prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(4):982-989.
Kollmeier M, et al. Biochemical outcomes after prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
Stone N, et al. Customized dose prescription for permanent prostate brachytherapy: Insights from a multicenter analysis of dosimetry outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477.
Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of Gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
Ellis R, et al. Biochemical disease-free survival rates following definitive low-dose rate prostate brachytherapy with dose escalation to biologic target volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
Kwok Y, et al. Risk group stratification in patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
Blana A, et al. Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;72(6):1329-1333.
Lawton, C et al. Long-term Results of a Phase II Trial of Ultrasound-Guided Radioactive Implantation of the Prostate for Definitive Management of Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (RTOG 98-05.) Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(1):1-7.
Zelefsky M, et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:876-881. (81Gy)
Khuntia D, et al. Recurrence free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate-specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
Blana A, et al. First Analysis of the Long-Term results with Transrectal HIFU in Patients with Localised prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2008;53:1194-1203.
Henry A, et al. Outcomes following Iodine-125 monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: the results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
Aizer A, et al. Radical prostatectomy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009; 93:185-191.
Gómez-Iturriaga Piña A, et al. Median 5 year Follow-up of I-125 Brachytherapy as Monotherapy in Men aged &lt;55 Years with Favorable Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2010;75(6):1416-17. & Gómez-Iturriaga Piña A, et al. Biochemical Disease-free rate toxicicty for Men treated with I-125 prostate Brachytherapy with D90&gt; 180GY. Int J Radia Oncol Bio Phys 2010;78(2):422-427.
Prada P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival and side effects in 734 patients with up to 10 years of follow-up with localized prostate cancer treated by permanent Iodine-125 implants. BJU Int 2010;106(1):32-36.
Rene N, et al. Hypofractionated radiotherapy for favorable risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;77(3):805-810.
Lawton C, et al. Results of a Phase II Trial of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive management of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate (radiation therapy oncology group 98-05). Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):39-47.
Deger S, et al. High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy with conformal radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47(4):441-448.
Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus implant for early prostate cancer: results from a single institution, 1992-2005. Cancer J 2007;13(4):229-232. (RP)
Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus implant for early prostate cancer: results from a single institution, 1992-2005. Cancer J 2007;13(4):229-232. (Seeds)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (RP)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (EBRT)
Block T, et al. Transperineal permanent seed implantation of “low-risk” prostate cancer. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2006;182:666-671.
Battermann J, et al. Results of permanent prostate brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a single institution. Radiotherapy & Oncology 2004;71:23-28.
Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy in carcinoma of the prostate: five-year outcome analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
Lederman G.S, et al. Retrospective stratification of a consecutive cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with a combined regimen of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49(5):1297-1303.
Kuban D, et al. Long-term results of the M.D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70(1):67-74. (78Gy)
Berglund R, et al. Limited pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy does not affect 5-year failure rates for low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urology 2007;177:526-530.
Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer- A focus on intermediate- and high-risk disease. Clinical Oncology 2006;18:513-518.
Hull G, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urology 2002;167:528-534.
Sylvester J, et al. Ten-year biochemical relapse-free survival after external beam radiation and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: The Seattle experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4)944-952.
Giberti C, et al. Radial retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol 2009;27:607-612. (RP)
Giberti C, et al. Radial retropubic prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for low-risk prostatic cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol 2009;27:607-612. (Seeds)
Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated intersity-modulated radiotherapy (70 GY at 2.5GY per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland clinic experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
Kupelian P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: A large scale single institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clinical Oncology 2002;20(16):3376-3385. (RP)
Kupelian P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: A large scale single institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clinical Oncology 2002;20(16):3376-3385. (EBRT)
Peschel R, et al. Iodine 125 versus palladium 103 implants for prostate cancer: Clinical outcomes and complications. The Cancer Journal 2004;10(3):170-174.
Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
Misraї V, et al. Oncologic control provided by HIFU therapy as single treatment in men with localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2008;26:481-485.
Nobes JP, et al. Biochemical relapse-free survival in 400 patients treated with I-125 prostate brachytherapy: the Guildford experience. Prostate Cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66. (Seeds)
Nobes JP, et al. Biochemical relapse-free survival in 400 patients treated with I-125 prostate brachytherapy: the Guildford experience. Prostate Cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66. (Seeds & ADT)
Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 2009;181:1665-1671. (&lt;60 yrs old)
Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term outcomes in younger men following permanent prostate brachytherapy. J Urol 2009;181:1665-1671. (&gt;60 yrs old)
96. Crook, J et al. 10-Year Experience with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy at the Princess Margaret Hospital: Results for 1,100 Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(5):1323-29.
97. Goldner, G et al. Comparison of seed brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (70Gy or 74Gy) in 919 low-risk prostate cancer patients. Stathentherapie und Onkol 2012;4:305-10. (Brachy)
98. Goldner, G et al. Comparison of seed brachytherapy or external beam radiotherapy (70Gy or 74Gy) in 919 low-risk prostate cancer patients. Stathentherapie und Onkol 2012;4:305-10. (EBRT)
99.Lubbe, W et al. Biochemical and clinical experience with real-time intraoperatively planned permanent prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2012;11(3):209-13.
1st Group References:
Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryo-Ablation of the Prostate:7 yr Outcomes in Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
3Critz, F et al. 10-Year Disease Free Survival Rates after Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation and Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
4Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal high Dose Brachytherapy Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
5Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (RP)
6Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (Seeds)
7Kupelian, P et al. Imporved biochemial Relapse-Free Survival With Increased External Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in patients in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
8Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
9 Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT)
10Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (RP)
11Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (Seeds)
12Martin, A et al. Permanent Prostate Implant Using High activity Seeds and Inverse Planning with Fast simulated annealing Algorithm: 12 Year Canadian Experience Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
13Merrick G, et al. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Dose not Impact Cause Specific Overall Survival after Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-677.
14Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
15Phan, T, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy as a Boost for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2002;177:123-127.
16Burri, R et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochmical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010; 77(5): 1315-1321.
17Potters, L et al. 12 year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer J Urol 2005;173:1562-1566.
18Rossi, C et al. Conformal Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Concepts & Clinical Results. Comm Oncol 2007;4:235-240.
19 Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (EBRT)
20Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Low int)
21Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Mid int)
22Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (High int)
23Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds)
24Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds & EBRT)
25Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and Distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
26Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT & Seeds)
27. Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
28Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
29Zelefsky, M et al. Multi Institutional Analysis of Long term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333
30. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
31. Lawton, C et al. Long-term results of an RTOG phase II trial (00-19) of external-beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(5):e795-e801.
32 Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes after Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients having Intermediate and High-risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
Moyad, M et al. Statins, Especially Atorvastatin, May Favorably Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & EBRT)
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & ADT)
36. Galalae, R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Is Escalation to Very High Biologically Equivalent Dose Beneficial in All Prognostic Risk Groups? Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
37. Taira, A et al. Natural History of Clinically Staged Low and Intermediate risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Monotherapeutic Permanent Interstitial Brachytherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
38. Demanes, J et al. Excellent Results from HDR Brachytherapy and EBRT for PCA are not Improved by Androgen deprivation Amer J Clin Oncology 2009;32(4):342-347.
39. Stone, N et al. Local Control Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Radiation and Brachytherapy J Oncology 2010; 2010(Art. Id 471375): 6 pages.
Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted RP: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year Follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58:838-846. (Robot)
Munro, N et al. ( Leeds) Outcomes for Gleason Score 7, intermediate risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with I-125 monotherapy over 10 years. Radiother Oncol 2010;96(1):34-37.
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (RP)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Proatate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (Seeds)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (EBRT)
Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
47. (Open)
48. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
49. Herbert, C et al. Outcomes following inodine-125 brachytherapy in patients with gleason 7, intermediate risk prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):228-32.
150. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
151.Cury, F et al. Single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the treatment-risk prostate cancer- long term results. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(4):1417-23.
1st Group References:
Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryo-Ablation of the Prostate:7 yr Outcomes in Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
3Critz, F et al. 10-Year Disease Free Survival Rates after Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation and Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
4Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal high Dose Brachytherapy Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
5Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (RP)
6Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (Seeds)
7Kupelian, P et al. Imporved biochemial Relapse-Free Survival With Increased External Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in patients in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
8Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
9 Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT)
10Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (RP)
11Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (Seeds)
12Martin, A et al. Permanent Prostate Implant Using High activity Seeds and Inverse Planning with Fast simulated annealing Algorithm: 12 Year Canadian Experience Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
13Merrick G, et al. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Dose not Impact Cause Specific Overall Survival after Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-677.
14Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
15Phan, T, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy as a Boost for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2002;177:123-127.
16Burri, R et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochmical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010; 77(5): 1315-1321.
17Potters, L et al. 12 year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer J Urol 2005;173:1562-1566.
18Rossi, C et al. Conformal Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Concepts & Clinical Results. Comm Oncol 2007;4:235-240.
19 Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (EBRT)
20Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Low int)
21Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Mid int)
22Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (High int)
23Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds)
24Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds & EBRT)
25Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and Distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
26Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT & Seeds)
27. Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
28Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
29Zelefsky, M et al. Multi Institutional Analysis of Long term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333
30. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.)
31. Lawton, C et al. Long-term results of an RTOG phase II trial (00-19) of external-beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(5):e795-e801.
32 Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes after Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients having Intermediate and High-risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
Moyad, M et al. Statins, Especially Atorvastatin, May Favorably Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & EBRT)
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & ADT)
36. Galalae, R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Is Escalation to Very High Biologically Equivalent Dose Beneficial in All Prognostic Risk Groups? Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
37. Taira, A et al. Natural History of Clinically Staged Low and Intermediate risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Monotherapeutic Permanent Interstitial Brachytherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
38. Demanes, J et al. Excellent Results from HDR Brachytherapy and EBRT for PCA are not Improved by Androgen deprivation Amer J Clin Oncology 2009;32(4):342-347.
39. Stone, N et al. Local Control Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Radiation and Brachytherapy J Oncology 2010; 2010(Art. Id 471375): 6 pages.
Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted RP: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year Follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58:838-846. (Robot)
Munro, N et al. ( Leeds) Outcomes for Gleason Score 7, intermediate risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with I-125 monotherapy over 10 years. Radiother Oncol 2010;96(1):34-37.
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (RP)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Proatate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (Seeds)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (EBRT)
Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
47. (Open)
48. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
49. Herbert, C et al. Outcomes following inodine-125 brachytherapy in patients with gleason 7, intermediate risk prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):228-32.
150. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
151. Cury, F et al. Single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the treatment-risk prostate cancer- long term results. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(4):1417-23.
1st Group References:
Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryo-Ablation of the Prostate:7 yr Outcomes in Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
3Critz, F et al. 10-Year Disease Free Survival Rates after Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation and Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
4Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal high Dose Brachytherapy Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
5Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (RP)
6Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (Seeds)
7Kupelian, P et al. Imporved biochemial Relapse-Free Survival With Increased External Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in patients in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
8Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
9 Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT)
10Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (RP)
11Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (Seeds)
12Martin, A et al. Permanent Prostate Implant Using High activity Seeds and Inverse Planning with Fast simulated annealing Algorithm: 12 Year Canadian Experience Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
13Merrick G, et al. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Dose not Impact Cause Specific Overall Survival after Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-677.
14Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
15Phan, T, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy as a Boost for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2002;177:123-127.
16Burri, R et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochmical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010; 77(5): 1315-1321.
17Potters, L et al. 12 year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer J Urol 2005;173:1562-1566.
18Rossi, C et al. Conformal Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Concepts & Clinical Results. Comm Oncol 2007;4:235-240.
19 Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (EBRT)
20Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Low int)
21Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Mid int)
22Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (High int)
23Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds)
24Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds & EBRT)
25Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and Distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
26Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT & Seeds)
27Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.)
28Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
29Zelefsky, M et al. Multi Institutional Analysis of Long term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333
30Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.)
31. Lawton, C et al. Long-term results of an RTOG phase II trial (00-19) of external-beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(5):e795-e801.
32 Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes after Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients having Intermediate and High-risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
Moyad, M et al. Statins, Especially Atorvastatin, May Favorably Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & EBRT)
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & ADT)
36. Galalae, R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Is Escalation to Very High Biologically Equivalent Dose Beneficial in All Prognostic Risk Groups? Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
37. Taira, A et al. Natural History of Clinically Staged Low and Intermediate risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Monotherapeutic Permanent Interstitial Brachytherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
38. Demanes, J et al. Excellent Results from HDR Brachytherapy and EBRT for PCA are not Improved by Androgen deprivation Amer J Clin Oncology 2009;32(4):342-347.
39. Stone, N et al. Local Control Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Radiation and Brachytherapy J Oncology 2010; 2010(Art. Id 471375): 6 pages.
Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted RP: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year Follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58:838-846. (Robot)
Munro, N et al. ( Leeds) Outcomes for Gleason Score 7, intermediate risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with I-125 monotherapy over 10 years. Radiother Oncol 2010;96(1):34-37.
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (RP)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Proatate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (Seeds)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (EBRT)
Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
47. (Open)
48. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
49. Herbert, C et al. Outcomes following inodine-125 brachytherapy in patients with gleason 7, intermediate risk prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):228-32.
150. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
151. Cury, F et al. Single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the treatment-risk prostate cancer- long term results. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(4):1417-23.
2nd Group References:
50.Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary Evaluation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Classification of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2007;70(5):931-935.
51.Koontz B, et al. Morbidity and prostate-specific antigen control of external beam radiation therapy plus low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for low, intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2009;8:191-196.
52.Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000:47(1):129-136. (RP)
53.Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000:47(1):129-136. (Seeds)
54.Merrick G, et al. Brachytherapy in Men aged &lt;54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:324-328.
55.Merrick G, et al. Impact of Supplemental External beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Oncol Bio Phys, 2005;61(1):32-43. (seeds)
56.Merrick G, et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Oncol Bio Phys, 2005;61(1):32-43. (seeds & EBRT)
57.Nobes J, et al. Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in 400 Patients Treated with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy: the Guildford Experience. Prostate cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66.
58.Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity-Modulated Brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: California Endocurietherapy’s 10-Year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
59.Yamada Y, et al. Favorable clinical outcomes of three-dimensional computer-optimized high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy in the management of localized prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2006;5:157-164.
60.Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Comm Oncol 2007;4(4):235-240.
61.(Open)
62.Yassa M, et al. Combined hypofractionated radiation and hormone therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(1):58-63.
63.Cahlon O, et al . Ultra-high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
64.Sylvester J, et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy; Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
65.Cohen J, et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control for patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cyrosurgery as Primary Therapy. J Urol 2008;71(3):515-518.
66.Bachand F, et al. An Eight-Year Experience of HDR Brachytherapy Boost for Localized Prostate cancer: Biopsy and PSA outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2009;73(3):679-684.
67.Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of Gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
68.Ellis R, et al. Biochemical Disease-free Survival rates following Definitive Low-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy with Dose Escalation to Biologic Target Volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
69.Kuban D, et al. Long term results of the MD Anderson randomized dose escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
70.Blana A, et al. Eight Years’ Experience with High-Intensity Focused Ultrasonography for Treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;72(6):1329-1333.
71.Grimm P, et al. 10-Year Biochemical (Prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with I-125 Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;51(1):31-40.
72.Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Men Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2009;181:1665-1671. (Seeds &lt;60yr old)
73.Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Men Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2009;181:1665-1671. (Seeds &gt;60yr old)
74.Zietman A, et al. Comparison of Conventional-Dose vs High-Dose Conformal Radiation Therapy in Clincially Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239. & CORRECTION JAMA 2008;299(8):899-900.
75.Kwok Y, et al. Risk Group Stratification in Patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
76.Zelefsky M, et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75-81 Gy )
77.Khunita D, et al. Recurrence-free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
78.Vora S, et al. Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(4):1053-1058.
79.Stone N, et al. Customized Dose prescription for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy : Insights from Multicenter Analysis of Dosimetry Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477. (High dose: &gt;200Gy)
80.Misrai V, et al. Oncologic Control provided by HIFU therapy as single treament with clinically localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2008;26:481-485.
81.Henry, A, et al. Outcomes Following Iodine-125 Monotherapy for localized Prostate Cancer: The Results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int. J. Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
82.Aizer A, et al. Radical Prostatectomy vs. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009;93:185-191.
83.Prada P, et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen Relapse-Free Survival and Side-Effects in 734 Patients with up to 10 years of Follow-up with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated by permanent 125-Iodine Implants. BJU Int 2010;106(1):32-36.
84.Vassil A, et al. Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Permanent Seed Implantation. Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257. (Robot)
85.Deger S, et al. High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2005;47:441-448.
86.D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (low vol- RP)
87.D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (low vol- EBRT)
88.Battermann J, et al. Results of Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a Single Institution. Radiotherapy & Oncol 2004;71:23-28.
89.Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated Conformal Radiotherapy In Carcinoma of the Prostate: five-year outcome analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
90.Lederman G, et al. Retrospective Stratification of a Consecutive Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with a Combined Regimen of External-beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;49(5):1297-1303.
91.Kollmeier M, et al. Biochemical Outcomes after Prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
92.Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer- A Focus on Intermediate & High Risk Disease. Clinical Oncol 2006;18:513-518.
93.Hull G, et al. Cancer Control with Radical Prostatectomy alone in 1000 Consecutive Patients. J Urol 2002;167:528-534.
94.Higgins G, et al. Outcome Analysis of 300 Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation & Hypofractionated Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):982-989.
95.Sylvester J, et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
96.Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year Outcome of Intraoperative Conformal Permanent I-125 Interstitial Implantation for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
97.Blasko J, et al. Palladium-103 Brachytherapy for Prostate Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46(4):839-850.
Stock, R, et al. Impact of Hormonal Therapy on Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Combination Brachytherapy and External Beam Irradiation. J Urol 2010;183:546-551.
99.Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (70Gy at 2.5Gy per fraction) for Localized Prostate Cancer: Cleveland Clinic Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
100.Tang J, et al. A prospective dose Escalation Trial of High-dose-rate Brachyhteapy Boost for Prostate Cancer: Evidence of hypofractionation efficacy? Brachytherapy 2006;5:256-261.
101.Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
102.Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus Implant for early Prostate Cancer: Results from a Single Institution, 1992-2005. Cancer 2007;13(4):229-232. (RP)
103.Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus Implant for early Prostate Cancer: Results from a Single Institution, 1992-2005. Cancer 2007;13(4):229-232. (Seeds)
104. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18. (HDR)
105. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18. (IMRT)
106. Goldner, G et al. Comparison between external beam radiotherapy (70Gy/74Gy) and permanent interstitial brachytherapy in 890 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):223-27. (EBRT)
107. Goldner, G et al. Comparison between external beam radiotherapy (70Gy/74Gy) and permanent interstitial brachytherapy in 890 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):223-27. (Seeds)
108. Edelman, S et al. High-dose radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: cancer control and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;83(5):1473-79. (EBRT alone)
109. Edelman, S et al. High-dose radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: cancer control and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;83(5):1473-79. (EBRT & ADT)
1st Group References:
Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryo-Ablation of the Prostate:7 yr Outcomes in Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
3Critz, F et al. 10-Year Disease Free Survival Rates after Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation and Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
4Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal high Dose Brachytherapy Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
5Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (RP)
6Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (Seeds)
7Kupelian, P et al. Imporved biochemial Relapse-Free Survival With Increased External Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in patients in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
8Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.
9 Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT)
10Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (RP)
11Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (Seeds)
12Martin, A et al. Permanent Prostate Implant Using High activity Seeds and Inverse Planning with Fast simulated annealing Algorithm: 12 Year Canadian Experience Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):334-341.
13Merrick G, et al. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Dose not Impact Cause Specific Overall Survival after Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-677.
14Merrick G, et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
15Phan, T, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy as a Boost for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2002;177:123-127.
16Burri, R et al. Young Men Have Equivalent Biochmical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010; 77(5): 1315-1321.
17Potters, L et al. 12 year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer J Urol 2005;173:1562-1566.
18Rossi, C et al. Conformal Proton Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Concepts & Clinical Results. Comm Oncol 2007;4:235-240.
19 Klein E, et al. Outcomes for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Are There Advantage For Surgery, External Beam, or Brachytherapy. Urologic Oncology 2009;27(1):67-71. (EBRT)
20Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Low int)
21Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (Mid int)
22Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981 (High int)
23Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds)
24Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008; 72(2): 433-440. (Seeds & EBRT)
25Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and Distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-1033.
26Kupelian, P et al. Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy &lt;72 Gy, External Beam Radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, Permanent Seed Implantation, or Combined Seeds/External Beam Radiotherapy for Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(1):25-33. (EBRT & Seeds)
27Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.
28Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-1419.
29Zelefsky, M et al. Multi Institutional Analysis of Long term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67(2):327-333
30Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
31. Lawton, C et al. Long-term results of an RTOG phase II trial (00-19) of external-beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(5):e795-e801.
32 Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes after Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients having Intermediate and High-risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
Moyad, M et al. Statins, Especially Atorvastatin, May Favorably Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & EBRT)
Ho, A et al. Radiation Dose Predicts for Biochemical Control in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Low-dose-rate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75(1):16-22. (Seeds & ADT)
36. Galalae, R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Is Escalation to Very High Biologically Equivalent Dose Beneficial in All Prognostic Risk Groups? Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
37. Taira, A et al. Natural History of Clinically Staged Low and Intermediate risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Monotherapeutic Permanent Interstitial Brachytherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):349-354. Update Paper: Taira, A et al. Long-Term Outcomes for Clinically Licalized Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanene Interstitial Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys, 2011;79(5):1336-42.
38. Demanes, J et al. Excellent Results from HDR Brachytherapy and EBRT for PCA are not Improved by Androgen deprivation Amer J Clin Oncology 2009;32(4):342-347.
39. Stone, N et al. Local Control Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Radiation and Brachytherapy J Oncology 2010; 2010(Art. Id 471375): 6 pages.
Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted RP: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year Follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58:838-846. (Robot)
Munro, N et al. ( Leeds) Outcomes for Gleason Score 7, intermediate risk Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with I-125 monotherapy over 10 years. Radiother Oncol 2010;96(1):34-37.
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (RP)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Proatate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (Seeds)
Vassil, A et al. ( Cleveland Clinic) Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after RP, EBRT, or Permanent Seed Implantation Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257 (EBRT)
Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
47. (Open)
48. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
49. Herbert, C et al. Outcomes following inodine-125 brachytherapy in patients with gleason 7, intermediate risk prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):228-32.
150. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
151 Cury, F et al. Single-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy in the treatment-risk prostate cancer- long term results. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(4):1417-23.
2nd Group References:
50.Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary Evaluation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Classification of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2007;70(5):931-935.
51.Koontz B, et al. Morbidity and prostate-specific antigen control of external beam radiation therapy plus low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for low, intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2009;8:191-196.
52.Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000:47(1):129-136. (RP)
53.Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000:47(1):129-136. (Seeds)
54.Merrick G, et al. Brachytherapy in Men aged &lt;54 years with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:324-328.
55.Merrick G, et al. Impact of Supplemental External beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Oncol Bio Phys, 2005;61(1):32-43. (seeds)
56.Merrick G, et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Oncol Bio Phys, 2005;61(1):32-43. (seeds & EBRT)
57.Nobes J, et al. Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in 400 Patients Treated with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy: the Guildford Experience. Prostate cancer & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66.
58.Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity-Modulated Brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: California Endocurietherapy’s 10-Year results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
59.Yamada Y, et al. Favorable clinical outcomes of three-dimensional computer-optimized high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy in the management of localized prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2006;5:157-164.
60.Rossi C, et al. Conformal proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: concepts and clinical results. Comm Oncol 2007;4(4):235-240.
61.(Open)
62.Yassa M, et al. Combined hypofractionated radiation and hormone therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(1):58-63.
63.Cahlon O, et al . Ultra-high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
64.Sylvester J, et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy; Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
65.Cohen J, et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control for patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cyrosurgery as Primary Therapy. J Urol 2008;71(3):515-518.
66.Bachand F, et al. An Eight-Year Experience of HDR Brachytherapy Boost for Localized Prostate cancer: Biopsy and PSA outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2009;73(3):679-684.
67.Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of Gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
68.Ellis R, et al. Biochemical Disease-free Survival rates following Definitive Low-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy with Dose Escalation to Biologic Target Volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
69.Kuban D, et al. Long term results of the MD Anderson randomized dose escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
70.Blana A, et al. Eight Years’ Experience with High-Intensity Focused Ultrasonography for Treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;72(6):1329-1333.
71.Grimm P, et al. 10-Year Biochemical (Prostate-specific antigen) control of prostate cancer with I-125 Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;51(1):31-40.
72.Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Men Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2009;181:1665-1671. (Seeds &lt;60yr old)
73.Shapiro E, et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Younger Men Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urology 2009;181:1665-1671. (Seeds &gt;60yr old)
74.Zietman A, et al. Comparison of Conventional-Dose vs High-Dose Conformal Radiation Therapy in Clincially Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA 2005;294(10):1233-1239. & CORRECTION JAMA 2008;299(8):899-900.
75.Kwok Y, et al. Risk Group Stratification in Patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
76.Zelefsky M, et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75-81 Gy )
77.Khunita D, et al. Recurrence-free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
78.Vora S, et al. Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(4):1053-1058.
79.Stone N, et al. Customized Dose prescription for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy : Insights from Multicenter Analysis of Dosimetry Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477. (High dose: &gt;200Gy)
80.Misrai V, et al. Oncologic Control provided by HIFU therapy as single treament with clinically localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2008;26:481-485.
81.Henry, A, et al. Outcomes Following Iodine-125 Monotherapy for localized Prostate Cancer: The Results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int. J. Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
82.Aizer A, et al. Radical Prostatectomy vs. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009;93:185-191.
83.Prada P, et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen Relapse-Free Survival and Side-Effects in 734 Patients with up to 10 years of Follow-up with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated by permanent 125-Iodine Implants. BJU Int 2010;106(1):32-36.
84.Vassil A, et al. Five Year Biochemical recurrence Free Survival for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, or Permanent Seed Implantation. Urology 2010;76(5):1251-1257. (Robot)
85.Deger S, et al. High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2005;47:441-448.
86.D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (low vol- RP)
87.D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical Outcome after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-285. (low vol- EBRT)
88.Battermann J, et al. Results of Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a Single Institution. Radiotherapy & Oncol 2004;71:23-28.
89.Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated Conformal Radiotherapy In Carcinoma of the Prostate: five-year outcome analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
90.Lederman G, et al. Retrospective Stratification of a Consecutive Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with a Combined Regimen of External-beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;49(5):1297-1303.
91.Kollmeier M, et al. Biochemical Outcomes after Prostate brachytherapy with 5-year minimal follow-up: importance of patient selection and implant quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
92.Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer- A Focus on Intermediate & High Risk Disease. Clinical Oncol 2006;18:513-518.
93.Hull G, et al. Cancer Control with Radical Prostatectomy alone in 1000 Consecutive Patients. J Urol 2002;167:528-534.
94.Higgins G, et al. Outcome Analysis of 300 Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation & Hypofractionated Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):982-989.
95.Sylvester J, et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
96.Zelefsky M, et al. Five-Year Outcome of Intraoperative Conformal Permanent I-125 Interstitial Implantation for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):65-70.
97.Blasko J, et al. Palladium-103 Brachytherapy for Prostate Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46(4):839-850.
Stock, R, et al. Impact of Hormonal Therapy on Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Combination Brachytherapy and External Beam Irradiation. J Urol 2010;183:546-551.
99.Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (70Gy at 2.5Gy per fraction) for Localized Prostate Cancer: Cleveland Clinic Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
100.Tang J, et al. A prospective dose Escalation Trial of High-dose-rate Brachyhteapy Boost for Prostate Cancer: Evidence of hypofractionation efficacy? Brachytherapy 2006;5:256-261.
101.Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
102.Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus Implant for early Prostate Cancer: Results from a Single Institution, 1992-2005. Cancer 2007;13(4):229-232. (RP)
103.Colberg J, et al. Surgery versus Implant for early Prostate Cancer: Results from a Single Institution, 1992-2005. Cancer 2007;13(4):229-232. (Seeds)
104. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18. (HDR)
105. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18. (IMRT)
106. Goldner, G et al. Comparison between external beam radiotherapy (70Gy/74Gy) and permanent interstitial brachytherapy in 890 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):223-27. (EBRT)
107. Goldner, G et al. Comparison between external beam radiotherapy (70Gy/74Gy) and permanent interstitial brachytherapy in 890 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2012;103(2):223-27. (Seeds)
108. Edelman, S et al. High-dose radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: cancer control and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;83(5):1473-79. (EBRT alone)
109. Edelman, S et al. High-dose radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: cancer control and toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;83(5):1473-79. (EBRT & ADT)
1st Group References:
1. Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryoablation of the Prostate:7-year Outcomes in the Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
2. Burri, R et al. Young Men have Equivalent Biochemical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(5):1315-21.
3. Ploussard, G et al. Radical Prostatectomy of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Defined by Preoperative criteria: Oncologic Follow-up in National Multicenter Study in 813 Patients and Assessment of Easy-to-use Prognostic Substratification. Urol 2011;78(3):607-13
4. Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
5. Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
6. Carver, B et al. Long Term Outcome following Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Clinical T3 Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:564-568.
7. Cohen, J et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cryosurgery as Primary Therapy. Urology 2008;71(3):515-518.
8. Critz, Fet al. 10-year Disease Survival Rates After Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
9. Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-BT) Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
10. Kollmeier, M et al. Biochemical Outcomes After Prostate Brachytherapy with 5-year Minimal follow-up: Importance of patient Selection and implant Quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
11. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.(PSA:4-10,GS:2-6,&gt;70 Gy)
12. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Results of the MD Anderson Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
13. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
14. Stenmark, M et al. Continued Benefit to Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy Across Multiple Definitions of High-Risk Disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):3335-44.
15. Loeb, S et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence & survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69(6):1170-1175.
16. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
17. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT & Seeds)
18. Merrick, G et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
19. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT & Seeds)
20. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
21. Mian, B et al. Outcome of Patients w/ Gleason score 8 or Higher Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy alone. J Urology 2002;167:1675-1680.
22. Pellizzon, A et al. The Relationship Between the Biochemical Control Outcomes and the Quality of Planning of HDR as a Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for locally and locally advanced Prostate Cancer using the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix definition. Int J Med Sci 2008;5:113-120.
23. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (EBRT)
24. Potters, L et al. 12-Year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
25. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (RP)
26. Sylvester, J et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
Lau, W et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Pathological Gleason 8 or Greater Prostate Cancer: Influence of Concomitant Pathological Variables. J Urol 2002;167:117-22.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.29. Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
30. Ward, J et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Advanced (cT3) Prostate Cancer since the advent of PSA testing: 15 year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751-6.
31. Zelefsky, M et al. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Long-Term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
32. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-19. (81 Gy)
33. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (81 Gy)
34. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (86 Gy)
35. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75 Gy)
36. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (81 Gy)
37. Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes After Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients Having Intermediate and High-Risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
38. Moyad, M et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin, may Favorable Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
39. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome Following Three dimensional Conformal/IMRT for Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2008;53:1172-79.
40. Yoshioka, Y et al. Monotherapeutic High-dose-rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results of an Extreme Hypofractionation Regimen with 54Gy in Nine Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(2):469-75.
41. Galalae R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
42. Demanes, DJ et al. Excellent Results from High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer are Not Imroved by Androgen Deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
43. Stock, R et al. Outcomes for patients with High-Grade Prostate Cancer Treated with a Combination of Brachytherapy, EBRT and Hormone therapy. BJU Int 2009;104:1631-1636.
44. Stone, N et al. Local Control following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
45. Bittner, N et al. Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy in Combination with Interstitial Brachytherapy: Does Coverage of the Pelvic Lymph Nodes Improve Treatment Outcome in High Risk Prostate Cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(4):1078-1084.
46. Rubio-Briones, J et al. Metastatic Progression, Cancer Specific Mortality and Need for Secondary Treatments in Patients with Clinically High Risk Prostate Cancer Treated Initially with Radical Prostatectomy. Actas Urologicas Esanolas 2010;34(7):610-617.
47. Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Beam Irradiation and Brachytherapy. J Oncology 2010;2010(Article Id 471375):6 pages.
48. Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year follow-up. Eurr Urol 2010;58:838-46.
49. Pierorazio, P et al. Long Term Survival after Radical Prostatectomy for Men with High Gleason Sum in Pathologic Specimen. Urology 2010;76(3):715-21.
101. Deger, S et al. (Germany) High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47:441-448.
102. Magheli A et al. (Johns Hopkins) Importance of Tumor Location in Patients with High Preoperative PSA Levels ( greater than 20 ng/ml treated with Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2007;178:1311-15.
103. Kupelian P, et al. Improved Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival With Increased Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
104. Sylvester, J et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy: Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
105. Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients Treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
106. Hsu, C et al. Comparing Results After Surgery in Patients with Clinical Unilateral T3a Prostate Cnacer Treated with or without neoadjuvent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy. BJU Int 2006;99:311-314.
107. Roehl, K et al. Cancer Progression and Survival Rates Following Anatomical Radical Prostatectomy in 3,478 Consecutive Patients: Long Term Results. J Urology 2004;172:910-914.
108. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (No ADT)
109. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (Plus ADT)
Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Failure Patterns and Survival in a Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Who Dies of Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;79(5):1310-17.
Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
Prada, P et al. Biochemical outcome after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy: 12 years of experience. BJU Int 2012;109(12):1787-93. (1 high risk criteria & 2&gt; high risk criteria) (Study Update: Prada, P et al. Long-term biochemical results after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for high risk prostate cancer. Radiation Oncol 2012;7,31-39.
Thomson, D et al. Dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-risk carcinoma of the prostate: outcome and toxicity. 2012; epub June 20.
114. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
115. Yamamoto, S et al. Long-term oncological outcome and risk stratification in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012;42(6):541-47.
116. Berglund, R et al. Ten-year follow-up of neoadjuvant therapy with Goserelin Acetate and Flutamide before radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 and T4 prostate cancer: update on Southwest Oncology Group Study 9109. Urol 2012;79(3):633-37.
117. Freedland, S et al. Radical Prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer 2007;109(7):1273-78.
118. Dearnaley, D et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;8:475-87.
119. Spahn, M et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European mulit-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol 2010;58,1-7.
120. (Open)
121. Tendulkar, R et al. Redefining high-risk prostate cancer based on distant metastases and mortality after high-dose radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(4):1397-1404.
1st Group References:
1. Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryoablation of the Prostate:7-year Outcomes in the Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
2. Burri, R et al. Young Men have Equivalent Biochemical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(5):1315-21.
3. Ploussard, G et al. Radical Prostatectomy of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Defined by Preoperative criteria: Oncologic Follow-up in National Multicenter Study in 813 Patients and Assessment of Easy-to-use Prognostic Substratification. Urol 2011;78(3):607-13
4. Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
5. Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
6. Carver, B et al. Long Term Outcome following Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Clinical T3 Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:564-568.
7. Cohen, J et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cryosurgery as Primary Therapy. Urology 2008;71(3):515-518.
8. Critz, Fet al. 10-year Disease Survival Rates After Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
9. Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-BT) Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
10. Kollmeier, M et al. Biochemical Outcomes After Prostate Brachytherapy with 5-year Minimal follow-up: Importance of patient Selection and implant Quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
11. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.(PSA:4-10,GS:2-6,&gt;70 Gy)
12. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Results of the MD Anderson Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
13. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
14. Stenmark, M et al. Continued Benefit to Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy Across Multiple Definitions of High-Risk Disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):3335-44.
15. Loeb, S et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence & survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69(6):1170-1175.
16. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
17. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT & Seeds)
18. Merrick, G et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
19. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT & Seeds)
20. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
21. Mian, B et al. Outcome of Patients w/ Gleason score 8 or Higher Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy alone. J Urology 2002;167:1675-1680.
22. Pellizzon, A et al. The Relationship Between the Biochemical Control Outcomes and the Quality of Planning of HDR as a Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for locally and locally advanced Prostate Cancer using the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix definition. Int J Med Sci 2008;5:113-120.
23. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (EBRT)
24. Potters, L et al. 12-Year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
25. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (RP)
26. Sylvester, J et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
27. Lau, W et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Pathological Gleason 8 or Greater Prostate Cancer: Influence of Concomitant Pathological Variables. J Urol 2002;167:117-22.
28. Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.)
29. Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
30. Ward, J et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Advanced (cT3) Prostate Cancer since the advent of PSA testing: 15 year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751-6.
31. Zelefsky, M et al. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Long-Term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
32. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-19. (81 Gy)
33. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (81 Gy)
34. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (86 Gy)
35. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75 Gy)
36. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (81 Gy)
37. Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes After Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients Having Intermediate and High-Risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
38. Moyad, M et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin, may Favorable Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
39. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome Following Three dimensional Conformal/IMRT for Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2008;53:1172-79.
40. (Yoshioka, Y et al. Monotherapeutic High-dose-rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results of an Extreme Hypofractionation Regimen with 54Gy in Nine Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(2):469-75.
)
41. Galalae R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
42. Demanes, DJ et al. Excellent Results from High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer are Not Imroved by Androgen Deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
43. Stock, R et al. Outcomes for patients with High-Grade Prostate Cancer Treated with a Combination of Brachytherapy, EBRT and Hormone therapy. BJU Int 2009;104:1631-1636.
44. Stone, N et al. Local Control following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
45. Bittner, N et al. Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy in Combination with Interstitial Brachytherapy: Does Coverage of the Pelvic Lymph Nodes Improve Treatment Outcome in High Risk Prostate Cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(4):1078-1084.
46. Rubio-Briones, J et al. Metastatic Progression, Cancer Specific Mortality and Need for Secondary Treatments in Patients with Clinically High Risk Prostate Cancer Treated Initially with Radical Prostatectomy. Actas Urologicas Esanolas 2010;34(7):610-617.
47. Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Beam Irradiation and Brachytherapy. J Oncology 2010;2010(Article Id 471375):6 pages.
48. Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year follow-up. Eurr Urol 2010;58:838-46.
49. Pierorazio, P et al. Long Term Survival after Radical Prostatectomy for Men with High Gleason Sum in Pathologic Specimen. Urology 2010;76(3):715-21.
101. Deger, S et al. (Germany) High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47:441-448.
102. Magheli A et al. (Johns Hopkins) Importance of Tumor Location in Patients with High Preoperative PSA Levels ( greater than 20 ng/ml treated with Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2007;178:1311-15.
103. Kupelian P, et al. Improved Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival With Increased Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
104. Sylvester, J et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy: Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
105. Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients Treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
106. Hsu, C et al. Comparing Results After Surgery in Patients with Clinical Unilateral T3a Prostate Cnacer Treated with or without neoadjuvent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy. BJU Int 2006;99:311-314.
107. Roehl, K et al. Cancer Progression and Survival Rates Following Anatomical Radical Prostatectomy in 3,478 Consecutive Patients: Long Term Results. J Urology 2004;172:910-914.
108. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (No ADT)
109. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (Plus ADT)
Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Failure Patterns and Survival in a Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Who Dies of Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;79(5):1310-17.
Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
Prada, P et al. Biochemical outcome after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy: 12 years of experience. BJU Int 2012;109(12):1787-93. (1 high risk criteria & 2&gt; high risk criteria) (Study Update: Prada, P et al. Long-term biochemical results after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for high risk prostate cancer. Radiation Oncol 2012;7,31-39.)
Thomson, D et al. Dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-risk carcinoma of the prostate: outcome and toxicity. 2012; epub June 20.
Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
Yamamoto, S et al. Long-term oncological outcome and risk stratification in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012;42(6):541-47.
Berglund, R et al. Ten-year follow-up of neoadjuvant therapy with Goserelin Acetate and Flutamide before radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 and T4 prostate cancer: update on Southwest Oncology Group Study 9109. Urol 2012;79(3):633-37.
117. Freedland, S et al. Radical Prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer 2007;109(7):1273-78.
118. Dearnaley, D et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;8:475-87.
119. Spahn, M et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European mulit-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol 2010;58,1-7.
120. (Open)
121. Tendulkar, R et al. Redefining high-risk prostate cancer based on distant metastases and mortality after high-dose radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(4):1397-1404.
1st Group References:
1. Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryoablation of the Prostate:7-year Outcomes in the Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
2. Burri, R et al. Young Men have Equivalent Biochemical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(5):1315-21.
3. Ploussard, G et al. Radical Prostatectomy of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Defined by Preoperative criteria: Oncologic Follow-up in National Multicenter Study in 813 Patients and Assessment of Easy-to-use Prognostic Substratification. Urol 2011;78(3):607-13
4. Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
5. Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
6. Carver, B et al. Long Term Outcome following Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Clinical T3 Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:564-568.
7. Cohen, J et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cryosurgery as Primary Therapy. Urology 2008;71(3):515-518.
8. Critz, Fet al. 10-year Disease Survival Rates After Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
9. Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-BT) Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
10. Kollmeier, M et al. Biochemical Outcomes After Prostate Brachytherapy with 5-year Minimal follow-up: Importance of patient Selection and implant Quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
11. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.(PSA:4-10,GS:2-6,&gt;70 Gy)
12. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Results of the MD Anderson Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
13. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
14. Stenmark, M et al. Continued Benefit to Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy Across Multiple Definitions of High-Risk Disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):3335-44.
15. Loeb, S et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence & survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69(6):1170-1175.
16. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
17. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT & Seeds)
18. Merrick, G et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
19. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT & Seeds)
20. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
21. Mian, B et al. Outcome of Patients w/ Gleason score 8 or Higher Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy alone. J Urology 2002;167:1675-1680.
22. Pellizzon, A et al. The Relationship Between the Biochemical Control Outcomes and the Quality of Planning of HDR as a Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for locally and locally advanced Prostate Cancer using the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix definition. Int J Med Sci 2008;5:113-120.
23. Dearnely, D et al Escalated dose vs standard dose confromal radiotherapy in prostate cancer First results from the MRC RT101 randomised trial Lancet Oncolo 2007;8:475-87
24. Potters, L et al. 12-Year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
25. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (RP)
26. Sylvester, J et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
27. Lau, W et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Pathological Gleason 8 or Greater Prostate Cancer: Influence of Concomitant Pathological Variables. J Urol 2002;167:117-22.Open)
28. Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.29. Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
30. Ward, J et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Advanced (cT3) Prostate Cancer since the advent of PSA testing: 15 year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751-6.
31. Zelefsky, M et al. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Long-Term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
32. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-19. (81 Gy)
33. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (81 Gy)
34. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (86 Gy)
35. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75 Gy)
36. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (81 Gy)
37. Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes After Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients Having Intermediate and High-Risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
38. Moyad, M et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin, may Favorable Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
39. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome Following Three dimensional Conformal/IMRT for Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2008;53:1172-79.
40. Yoshioka, Y et al. Monotherapeutic High-dose-rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results of an Extreme Hypofractionation Regimen with 54Gy in Nine Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(2):469-75.
41. Galalae R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
42. Demanes, DJ et al. Excellent Results from High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer are Not Imroved by Androgen Deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
43. Stock, R et al. Outcomes for patients with High-Grade Prostate Cancer Treated with a Combination of Brachytherapy, EBRT and Hormone therapy. BJU Int 2009;104:1631-1636.
44. Stone, N et al. Local Control following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
45. Bittner, N et al. Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy in Combination with Interstitial Brachytherapy: Does Coverage of the Pelvic Lymph Nodes Improve Treatment Outcome in High Risk Prostate Cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(4):1078-1084.
46. Rubio-Briones, J et al. Metastatic Progression, Cancer Specific Mortality and Need for Secondary Treatments in Patients with Clinically High Risk Prostate Cancer Treated Initially with Radical Prostatectomy. Actas Urologicas Esanolas 2010;34(7):610-617.
47. Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Beam Irradiation and Brachytherapy. J Oncology 2010;2010(Article Id 471375):6 pages.
48. Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year follow-up. Eurr Urol 2010;58:838-46.
49. Pierorazio, P et al. Long Term Survival after Radical Prostatectomy for Men with High Gleason Sum in Pathologic Specimen. Urology 2010;76(3):715-21.
100. (Open)
101. Deger, S et al. (Germany) High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47:441-448.
102. Magheli A et al. (Johns Hopkins) Importance of Tumor Location in Patients with High Preoperative PSA Levels ( greater than 20 ng/ml treated with Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2007;178:1311-15.
103. Kupelian P, et al. Improved Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival With Increased Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
104. Sylvester, J et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy: Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
105. Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients Treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
106. Hsu, C et al. Comparing Results After Surgery in Patients with Clinical Unilateral T3a Prostate Cnacer Treated with or without neoadjuvent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy. BJU Int 2006;99:311-314.
107. Roehl, K et al. Cancer Progression and Survival Rates Following Anatomical Radical Prostatectomy in 3,478 Consecutive Patients: Long Term Results. J Urology 2004;172:910-914.
108. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (No ADT)
109. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (Plus ADT)
110. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Failure Patterns and Survival in a Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Who Dies of Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;79(5):1310-17.
111. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
112. Prada, P et al. Biochemical outcome after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy: 12 years of experience. BJU Int 2012;109(12):1787-93. (1 high risk criteria & 2&gt; high risk criteria) (Study Update: Prada, P et al. Long-term biochemical results after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for high risk prostate cancer. Radiation Oncol 2012;7,31-39.)
113. Thomson, D et al. Dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-risk carcinoma of the prostate: outcome and toxicity. 2012; epub June 20.
114. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
115. Yamamoto, S et al. Long-term oncological outcome and risk stratification in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012;42(6):541-47.
116.Berglund, R et al. Ten-year follow-up of neoadjuvant therapy with Goserelin Acetate and Flutamide before radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 and T4 prostate cancer: update on Southwest Oncology Group Study 9109. Urol 2012;79(3):633-37.
117. Freedland, S et al. Radical Prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer 2007;109(7):1273-78.
118. Dearnaley, D et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;8:475-87.
119. Spahn, M et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European mulit-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol 2010;58,1-7.
120. (Open)
121. Tendulkar, R et al. Redefining high-risk prostate cancer based on distant metastases and mortality after high-dose radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(4):1397-1404.
2nd Group References:
50.Aizer A, et al. Radical Prostatectomy vs Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009;93:185-191.
51.Battermann J, et al. Results of permanent prostate brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a single institution. Radiotherapy & Oncology 2004;71:23-28.
52.Berglund R, et al. Limited Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Does Not Affect 5-Year Failure Rates for Low, Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From CaPSURE. J Urology 2007;177:526-530.
53.Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
54.Cahlon O, et al. Ultra high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
55.Copp H, et al. Tumor Control Outcomes of Patients Treated With Trimodality Therapy For Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;65(6):1146-1151.
56.Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
57.Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity Modulated Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: California Endocurietherapy&apos;s 10-Year Results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
58. Donohue J, et al. Poorly Differentiated Prostate Cancer Treated With Radical Prostatectomy: Long-Term Outcome and Incidence of Pathological Downgrading. J Urology 2006;176(3):991-995.
59.Ellis R, et al. Biochemical disease free survival rates following definitive low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy with dose escalation to biologic target volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
60.Fonteyne, V et al. Clinical results after high-dose intentisy-modulated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012; Article ID 368528.
61.Henry A, et al. Outcomes Following Iodine-125 Monotherapy for localized Prostate Cancer: The results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
62.Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary Evaluation of the D’Amico risk classification of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2007;70(5):931-935.
63.Hong S, et al. Predictions of Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer of Biopsy GS &gt; 8 via Contemporary multi (&gt;12)-core prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2011;108(2):217-222.
64.Hull G, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1000 consecutive patients. J Urology 2002;167:528-534.
65.Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer-a focus on intermediate & high risk disease. Clinical Oncology 2006;18:513-518.
66.Khuntia D, et al. Recurrence-free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
67.Koontz B, et al. Morbidity and Prostate Specific Antigen Control of External Beam Radiation Therapy plus Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost for Low ,Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer. Brachytherapy 2009;8:191-196.
68.Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (70Gy at 2.5Gy per fraction) for Localized Prostate Cancer: Cleveland Clinic Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
69.Kwok Y, et al. Risk Group stratification in patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
70.Lederman G, et al. Retrospective Stratification of a Consecutive Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with a Combined Regimen of External-beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;49(5):1297-1303.
71.Lee L, et al. Role of Hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate to high risk prostate cancer treated with permanent radioactive seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;52(2):444-452.
72.Liauw S, et al. Dose-escalated radiotherapy for hight-risk prostate cancer: outcomes in modern ear with short termandrogen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(1):125-130.
73.Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated Conformal Radiotherapy in Carcinoma of the Prostate: five-Year Outcome Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
74.Nobes J, et al. Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in 400 Patients Treated with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy: the Guildford Experience. Prostate Ca & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66.
75.Phan T, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2007;177:123-127.
Prada P, et al. High-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external-beam radiotherapy improves local and biochemical control in patients with high risk prostate cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2008;10:415-421.
Sathya J, et al. Randomized Trial comparing Iridium implants plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(5):1192-1199.
Stock, R. et al. Combined Modality Treatment in the Management of High Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;59(5):1352-1359.
Stone N, et al. Multicenter Analysis of Effect of High Biologic Effective dose on Biochemical Failure and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Gleason 7-10 Prostate cancer Treated with Permanent Prostate Bracyhhterapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2009;73(2):341-346.
Stone N, et al. Customized dose Prescription for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Insights From a Multicenter Analysis of Dosimetry Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477.
Yamada Y, et al. Favorable Clinical Outcomes of 3-D Computer Optimized High Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy in the management of Localized Prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2006;5:157-164.
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #1)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #2)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #3)
Zwahlen D, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy in Combination with Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Brachytherapy 2010;9:27-35.
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-286. (RP)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-286. (EBRT)
Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (seeds)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #4)
Higgins G, et al. Outcome Analysis of 300 prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy. IJROBP;65(4):982-89.
91. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18.
92. Zapatero, A et al. Long-Term Results After High-Dose Radiotherapy and Adjuvant Hormones in Prostate Cancer: How Curable in High Risk Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(5):1279-85.
.
1st Group References:
1. Bahn, D et al. Targeted Cryoablation of the Prostate:7-year Outcomes in the Primary Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Urology 2002;60(Supp 2A):3-11.
2. Burri, R et al. Young Men have Equivalent Biochemical Outcomes Compared with Older Men After Treatment with Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(5):1315-21.
3. Ploussard, G et al. Radical Prostatectomy of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Defined by Preoperative criteria: Oncologic Follow-up in National Multicenter Study in 813 Patients and Assessment of Easy-to-use Prognostic Substratification. Urol 2011;78(3):607-13
4. Bittner, N et al. Primary Causes of Death After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;72(2):433-440.
5. Boorjian, S et al. Mayo Clinic Validation of the D&apos;Amico Risk Group Classification for Predicting Survival Following Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2008;179:1354-1361.
6. Carver, B et al. Long Term Outcome following Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Clinical T3 Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:564-568.
7. Cohen, J et al. Ten-Year Biochemical Disease Control in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Cryosurgery as Primary Therapy. Urology 2008;71(3):515-518.
8. Critz, Fet al. 10-year Disease Survival Rates After Simultaneous Irradiation for Prostate Cancer with a Focus on Calculation Methodology. J Urology 2004;172:2232-2238.
9. Galalae, R et al. Long-term Outcome by Risk Factors Using Conformal High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-BT) Boost with or without Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;58(4):1048-1055.
10. Kollmeier, M et al. Biochemical Outcomes After Prostate Brachytherapy with 5-year Minimal follow-up: Importance of patient Selection and implant Quality. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(3):645-653.
11. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Multi-Institutional Analysis of Stage T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy in the PSA Era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(4):915-928.(PSA:4-10,GS:2-6,&gt;70 Gy)
12. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Results of the MD Anderson Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;70(1):67-74.
13. Sabolch, A et al. Gleason Patter 5 is Greatest Risk Factor for Clinical Failure and Death from Prostate Cancer after Dose-Escalation Radiation Therapy and Hormonal Ablation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):e351-e360.
14. Stenmark, M et al. Continued Benefit to Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy Across Multiple Definitions of High-Risk Disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(4):3335-44.
15. Loeb, S et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence & survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007;69(6):1170-1175.
16. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
17. Merrick, G et al. Androgen deprivation therapy does not impact cause specific overall survival after permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(3):669-77. (EBRT & Seeds)
18. Merrick, G et al. Prognostic Significance of Perineural Invasion on Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Prostate Brachytherapy. Urology 2005;66(5):1048-1053.
19. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT & Seeds)
20. Merrick, G et al. Impact of Supplemental External Beam Radiotherapy and/or Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Biochemical Outcome After Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(1):32-43. (EBRT, Seeds, ADT)
21. Mian, B et al. Outcome of Patients w/ Gleason score 8 or Higher Prostate Cancer following Radical Prostatectomy alone. J Urology 2002;167:1675-1680.
22. Pellizzon, A et al. The Relationship Between the Biochemical Control Outcomes and the Quality of Planning of HDR as a Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for locally and locally advanced Prostate Cancer using the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix definition. Int J Med Sci 2008;5:113-120.
23. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (EBRT)
24. Potters, L et al. 12-Year Outcomes Following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy in Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2005;173:1562-1566.
25. Stokes, S et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (RP)
26. Sylvester, J et al. Ten Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival After External Beam Radiation and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: The Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(4):944-952.
Lau, W et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Pathological Gleason 8 or Greater Prostate Cancer: Influence of Concomitant Pathological Variables. J Urol 2002;167:117-22.
Stone, N et al. Influence of Pretreatment and Treatment Factors on Intermediate to Long-term Outcome After Prostate Brachytherapy. J Urol 2011;185:495-500.29. Thames, H et al. Increasing External Beam Dose for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer: Effect on Risk Groups. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2006;65(4):975-981.
30. Ward, J et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Advanced (cT3) Prostate Cancer since the advent of PSA testing: 15 year outcome. BJU Int 2005;95:751-6.
31. Zelefsky, M et al. Multi-Institutional Analysis of Long-Term Outcome for T1-T2 Prostate Cancer Treated with Permanent Seed Implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(2):327-333.
32. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome of High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2006;176:1415-19. (81 Gy)
33. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (81 Gy)
34. Zelefsky, M et al. Long-term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation in Biochemical Tumor Control and distant Metastases-free Survival Outcomes. Int j Radiat Oncol bio Phys 2008;71(4):1028-33. (86 Gy)
35. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (75 Gy)
36. Zelefsky, M et al. High Dose Radiation Delivered by Intensity Modulated Conformal Radiotherapy Improves the Outcome of Localized Prostate Cancer. J Urology 2001;166:876-881. (81 Gy)
37. Dattoli, M et al. Long-term Outcomes After Treatment with Brachytherapy and Supplemental Conformal Radiation for Prostate Cancer Patients Having Intermediate and High-Risk Features. Cancer 2007;110(3):551-555.
38. Moyad, M et al. Statins, especially Atorvastatin, may Favorable Influence Clinical Presentation and Biochemical Progression-free Survival after Brachytherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;66(6):1150-1154.
39. Zelefsky, M et al. Long Term Outcome Following Three dimensional Conformal/IMRT for Clinical Stage T3 Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urol 2008;53:1172-79.
40. Yoshioka, Y et al. Monotherapeutic High-dose-rate Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results of an Extreme Hypofractionation Regimen with 54Gy in Nine Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;80(2):469-75.
41. Galalae R et al. Hypofractionated Conformal HDR Brachytherapy in Hormone Naïve Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2006;182(3):135-141.
42. Demanes, DJ et al. Excellent Results from High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer are Not Imroved by Androgen Deprivation. Amer J Clin Oncol 2009;32(4):342-347.
43. Stock, R et al. Outcomes for patients with High-Grade Prostate Cancer Treated with a Combination of Brachytherapy, EBRT and Hormone therapy. BJU Int 2009;104:1631-1636.
44. Stone, N et al. Local Control following Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Effect of High Biologically Effective Dose on Biopsy Results and Oncologic Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(2):355-360.
45. Bittner, N et al. Whole Pelvis Radiotherapy in Combination with Interstitial Brachytherapy: Does Coverage of the Pelvic Lymph Nodes Improve Treatment Outcome in High Risk Prostate Cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(4):1078-1084.
46. Rubio-Briones, J et al. Metastatic Progression, Cancer Specific Mortality and Need for Secondary Treatments in Patients with Clinically High Risk Prostate Cancer Treated Initially with Radical Prostatectomy. Actas Urologicas Esanolas 2010;34(7):610-617.
47. Dattoli, M et al. Long Term Outcomes for Patients with Prostate Cancer Having Intermediate and High Risk Disease, Treated with Combination External Beam Irradiation and Brachytherapy. J Oncology 2010;2010(Article Id 471375):6 pages.
48. Menon, M et al. Biochemical Recurrence Following Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5 year follow-up. Eurr Urol 2010;58:838-46.
49. Pierorazio, P et al. Long Term Survival after Radical Prostatectomy for Men with High Gleason Sum in Pathologic Specimen. Urology 2010;76(3):715-21.
100. (Open)
101. Deger, S et al. (Germany) High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy with Conformal Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Eurr Urology 2005;47:441-448.
102. Magheli A et al. (Johns Hopkins) Importance of Tumor Location in Patients with High Preoperative PSA Levels ( greater than 20 ng/ml treated with Radical Prostatectomy. J Urology 2007;178:1311-15.
103. Kupelian P, et al. Improved Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival With Increased Radiation Doses in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: The Combined Experience of Nine Institutions in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(2):415-419.
104. Sylvester, J et al. 15-Year Biochemical Relapse Free Survival in Clinical Stage T1-T3 Prostate Cancer Following Combined External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy: Seattle Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;67(1):57-64.
105. Hinnen, K et al. (Netherlands) Long Term Biochemical and Survival Outcome of 921 Patients Treated with I-125 Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1433-1438.
106. Hsu, C et al. Comparing Results After Surgery in Patients with Clinical Unilateral T3a Prostate Cnacer Treated with or without neoadjuvent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy. BJU Int 2006;99:311-314.
107. Roehl, K et al. Cancer Progression and Survival Rates Following Anatomical Radical Prostatectomy in 3,478 Consecutive Patients: Long Term Results. J Urology 2004;172:910-914.
108. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (No ADT)
109. Merrick, G et al. Prostate Cancer Death is Unlikely in High Risk Patients Following Quality Permanent Seed Implantation. BJU Int 2010;107:226-233. (Plus ADT)
110. Kuban, D et al. Long-Term Failure Patterns and Survival in a Randomized Dose-Escalation Trial for Prostate Cancer. Who Dies of Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;79(5):1310-17.
111. Busch, J et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):E985-90. (Robot)
112. Prada, P et al. Biochemical outcome after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy: 12 years of experience. BJU Int 2012;109(12):1787-93. (1 high risk criteria & 2&gt; high risk criteria) (Study Update: Prada, P et al. Long-term biochemical results after high-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for high risk prostate cancer. Radiation Oncol 2012;7,31-39.
113. Thomson, D et al. Dose-escalated hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-risk carcinoma of the prostate: outcome and toxicity. 2012; epub June 20.
114. Sooriakumaran, P et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):768-74.
115. Yamamoto, S et al. Long-term oncological outcome and risk stratification in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012;42(6):541-47.
116. Berglund, R et al. Ten-year follow-up of neoadjuvant therapy with Goserelin Acetate and Flutamide before radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 and T4 prostate cancer: update on Southwest Oncology Group Study 9109. Urol 2012;79(3):633-37.
117. Freedland, S et al. Radical Prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer 2007;109(7):1273-78.
118. Dearnaley, D et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;8:475-87.
119. Spahn, M et al. Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate-specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml: a European mulit-institutional study of 712 patients. Eur Urol 2010;58,1-7.
120. (Open)
121. Tendulkar, R et al. Redefining high-risk prostate cancer based on distant metastases and mortality after high-dose radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2012;82(4):1397-1404.
2nd Group References:
50.Aizer A, et al. Radical Prostatectomy vs Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized Prostate Adenocarcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009;93:185-191.
51.Battermann J, et al. Results of permanent prostate brachytherapy, 13 years of experience at a single institution. Radiotherapy & Oncology 2004;71:23-28.
52.Berglund R, et al. Limited Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Does Not Affect 5-Year Failure Rates for Low, Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From CaPSURE. J Urology 2007;177:526-530.
53.Beyer D, et al. Relative influence of gleason score and pretreatment PSA in predicting survival following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2003;2:77-84.
54.Cahlon O, et al. Ultra high dose (86.4Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2008;71(2):330-337.
55.Copp H, et al. Tumor Control Outcomes of Patients Treated With Trimodality Therapy For Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer. Urology 2005;65(6):1146-1151.
56.Crouzet S, et al. Multicentric Oncologic Outcomes of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Localized Prostate Cancer in 803 patients. Eurr Urol 2010;58:559-566.
57.Demanes D, et al. High-Dose-Rate Intensity Modulated Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: California Endocurietherapy&apos;s 10-Year Results. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2005;61(5):1306-1316.
58. Donohue J, et al. Poorly Differentiated Prostate Cancer Treated With Radical Prostatectomy: Long-Term Outcome and Incidence of Pathological Downgrading. J Urology 2006;176(3):991-995.
59.Ellis R, et al. Biochemical disease free survival rates following definitive low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy with dose escalation to biologic target volumes identified with SPECT/CT capromab pendetide. Brachytherapy 2007;6:16-25.
60.Fonteyne, V et al. Clinical results after high-dose intentisy-modulated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012; Article ID 368528.
61.Henry A, et al. Outcomes Following Iodine-125 Monotherapy for localized Prostate Cancer: The results of Leeds 10-year single-center brachytherapy experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;76(1):50-56.
62.Hernandez D, et al. Contemporary Evaluation of the D’Amico risk classification of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2007;70(5):931-935.
63.Hong S, et al. Predictions of Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy in Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer of Biopsy GS &gt; 8 via Contemporary multi (&gt;12)-core prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2011;108(2):217-222.
64.Hull G, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1000 consecutive patients. J Urology 2002;167:528-534.
65.Khaksar S, et al. Interstitial low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer-a focus on intermediate & high risk disease. Clinical Oncology 2006;18:513-518.
66.Khuntia D, et al. Recurrence-free survival rates after external-beam radiotherapy for patients with clinical T1-T3 prostate carcinoma in prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2004;100(6):1283-1292.
67.Koontz B, et al. Morbidity and Prostate Specific Antigen Control of External Beam Radiation Therapy plus Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost for Low ,Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer. Brachytherapy 2009;8:191-196.
68.Kupelian P, et al. Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (70Gy at 2.5Gy per fraction) for Localized Prostate Cancer: Cleveland Clinic Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;68(5):1424-1430.
69.Kwok Y, et al. Risk Group stratification in patients undergoing permanent I-125 prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;53(3):588-594.
70.Lederman G, et al. Retrospective Stratification of a Consecutive Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with a Combined Regimen of External-beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2001;49(5):1297-1303.
71.Lee L, et al. Role of Hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate to high risk prostate cancer treated with permanent radioactive seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2002;52(2):444-452.
72.Liauw S, et al. Dose-escalated radiotherapy for hight-risk prostate cancer: outcomes in modern ear with short termandrogen deprivation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2010;77(1):125-130.
73.Livsey J, et al. Hypofractionated Conformal Radiotherapy in Carcinoma of the Prostate: five-Year Outcome Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2003;57(5):1254-1259.
74.Nobes J, et al. Biochemical Relapse-Free Survival in 400 Patients Treated with I-125 Prostate Brachytherapy: the Guildford Experience. Prostate Ca & Prostatic Disease 2009;12:61-66.
75.Phan T, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urology 2007;177:123-127.
Prada P, et al. High-dose-rate intensity modulated brachytherapy with external-beam radiotherapy improves local and biochemical control in patients with high risk prostate cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2008;10:415-421.
Sathya J, et al. Randomized Trial comparing Iridium implants plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(5):1192-1199.
Stock, R. et al. Combined Modality Treatment in the Management of High Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2004;59(5):1352-1359.
Stone N, et al. Multicenter Analysis of Effect of High Biologic Effective dose on Biochemical Failure and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Gleason 7-10 Prostate cancer Treated with Permanent Prostate Bracyhhterapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2009;73(2):341-346.
Stone N, et al. Customized dose Prescription for Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy: Insights From a Multicenter Analysis of Dosimetry Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2007;69(5):1472-1477.
Yamada Y, et al. Favorable Clinical Outcomes of 3-D Computer Optimized High Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy in the management of Localized Prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2006;5:157-164.
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #1)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #2)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #3)
Zwahlen D, et al. High Dose Rate Brachytherapy in Combination with Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Brachytherapy 2010;9:27-35.
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-286. (RP)
D’Amico A, et al. Biochemical outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy or External Beam Radiation Therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the Prostate Specific Antigen Era. Cancer 2002;95(2):281-286. (EBRT)
Stokes S, et al. Comparison of biochemical disease-free survival of patients with localized carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy, transperineal ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation, or definitive external beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2000;47(1):129-136. (seeds)
Yossepowitch O, et al. Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized High Risk Prostate Cancer: Critical Analysis of Risk Assessment Methods. J Urology 2007;178:493-499. (Def. #4)
Higgins G, et al. Outcome Analysis of 300 prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy. IJROBP;65(4):982-89.
91. Deutsch, I et al. Comparison of PSA relapse-free survival in patients treated with ultra-high-dose IMRT versus combination HDR brachytherapy and IMRT. Brachytherapy 2010;9:313-18.
92. Zapatero, A et al. Long-Term Results After High-Dose Radiotherapy and Adjuvant Hormones in Prostate Cancer: How Curable in High Risk Disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 2011;81(5):1279-85.