Hormonal Therapy and Radiation Therapy: Randomized and Prospective Trials

2014 ◽  
pp. 137-148
Author(s):  
Michel Bolla ◽  
Camille Verry ◽  
Violaine Brun Baronnat ◽  
Alexandre Tessier
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Prospective Trials

scholarly journals Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials

Oncotarget ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (54) ◽  
pp. 5660-5668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor R. Cushman ◽  
Vivek Verma ◽  
Rahul Khairnar ◽  
Joseph Levy ◽  
Charles B. Simone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation ◽  
Prospective Trials

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Multiple Organ Sites

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 947-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Timmerman ◽  
Brian D. Kavanagh ◽  
L. Chinsoo Cho ◽  
Lech Papiez ◽  
Lei Xing
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Dose Fractionation ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Prospective Phase ◽  
Prospective Trials

Introduction Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses advanced technology to deliver a potent ablative dose to deep-seated tumors in the lung, liver, spine, pancreas, kidney, and prostate. Methods SBRT involves constructing very compact high-dose volumes in and about the tumor. Tumor position must be accurately assessed throughout treatment, especially for tumors that move with respiration. Sophisticated image guidance and related treatment delivery technologies have developed to account for such motion and efficiently deliver high daily dose. All this serves to allow the delivery of ablative dose fractionation to the target capable of both disrupting tumor mitosis and cellular function. Results Prospective phase I dose-escalation trials have been carried out to reach potent tumoricidal dose levels capable of eradicating tumors with high likelihood. These studies indicate a clear dose-response relationship for tumor control with escalating dose of SBRT. Prospective phase II studies have been reported from several continents consistently showing very high levels of local tumor control. Although late toxicity requires further careful assessment, acute and subacute toxicities are generally acceptable. Patterns of toxicity, both clinical and radiographic, are distinct from those observed with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy as a result of the unique biologic response to ablative fractionation. Conclusion Prospective trials using SBRT have confirmed the efficacy of treatment in a variety of patient populations. Although mechanisms of ablative-dose injury remain elusive, ongoing prospective trials offer the hope of finding the ideal application for SBRT in the treatment arsenal.

scholarly journals Mathematical Modelling and Prediction of the Effect of Chemotherapy on Cancer Cells

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamidreza Namazi ◽  
Vladimir V. Kulish ◽  
Albert Wong
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Diffusion Equation ◽  
Mathematical Modelling ◽  
Cancer Cells ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Fractional Diffusion ◽  
Fractional Diffusion Equation

Abstract Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by out-of-control cells’ growth which affect DNAs and make them damaged. Many treatment options for cancer exist, with the primary ones including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy and palliative care. Which treatments are used depends on the type, location and grade of the cancer as well as the person’s health and wishes. Chemotherapy is the use of medication (chemicals) to treat disease. More specifically, chemotherapy typically refers to the destruction of cancer cells. Considering the diffusion of drugs in cancer cells and fractality of DNA walks, in this research we worked on modelling and prediction of the effect of chemotherapy on cancer cells using Fractional Diffusion Equation (FDE). The employed methodology is useful not only for analysis of the effect of special drug and cancer considered in this research but can be expanded in case of different drugs and cancers.

Redefining the role of adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for T3 disease and/or positive margins.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 367-367
Author(s):  
Barry W. Goy ◽  
In-Lu Amy Liu
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Positive Margins ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy

367 Background: SWOG 8794 recommends adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for T3 and/or positive margins. Our purpose was to assess 12-year outcomes on 862 RP patients who had either T3 and/or positive margins who underwent surveillance, salvage radiation therapy (SRT), or hormonal therapy (HT), while categorizing these patients into very low risk (VLR), low risk (LR), high risk (HR), and ultra high risk (UHR) groups. Methods: From 2004 - 2007, 862 RP patients had adverse factors of extracapsular penetration (T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (T3b), positive margins, and/or detectable post-operative PSA. Management included surveillance (54.8%), SRT (36.8%), and HT (8.5%) as first salvage therapy, and 21.5% eventually received hormonal therapy. Twenty patients underwent ART, and were excluded from this analysis. We assessed prognostic factors using multivariable analysis, and 12-year estimates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from salvage therapy (FFST), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). VLR were those with Gleason Score (GS) of 6. LR were GS 3+4 with only T3a or positive margins, but an undetectable postoperative PSA <0.1. HR were T3b with GS 7-10, any GS 7-10 with T3a/b and positive margins, but an undetectable PSA. UHR were those with a detectable PSA with a GS 7-10. Results: Median follow-up was 12.1 years. Median age was 61.6 years. Median time to first salvage treatment for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 10.8, 11.1, 5.3, and 0.6 years, p<0.001. 12-year estimates of FFBF for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 60.2%, 52.9%, 28.4%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For FFST, 70.9%, 68.6%, 40.5%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For DMFS, 99.1%, 97.8%, 88.6%, and 63.6%, p<0.0001. For PCSS, 99.4%, 99.5%, 93.5%, and 78.9%, p<0.0001. For OS, 91.8%, 91.8%, 81.0%, and 69.9%, p<0.0001. Conclusions: Outcomes of T3 and/or positive margins using surveillance or SRT as initial management yields excellent outcomes for VLR and LR groups, in which ART should be avoided. For HR, ART can be considered reasonable, since FFBF is only 28.4%. For VHR, these patients may benefit from combined hormonal therapy and ART.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document