This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sathya, J. R. Articles by Levine, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sathya, J. R. Articles by Levine, M.

Randomized Trial Comparing Iridium Implant Plus External-Beam Radiation Therapy With External-Beam Radiation Therapy Alone in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Cancer of the Prostate

From McMaster University; Ontario Clinical Oncology Group; and Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Address reprint requests to Jinka R. Sathya, MD, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, 699 Concession St, Hamilton, Ontario, L8V 5C2 Canada; e-mail: Jinka.Sathya{at}hrcc.on.ca

PURPOSE: To determine if iridium implant (IM) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is better than standard EBRT in locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS: Patients with T2 and T3 prostate cancer with no evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to EBRT of 66 Gy in 33 fractions during 6.5 weeks or to IM of 35 Gy delivered to the prostate during 48 hours plus EBRT of 40 Gy in 20 fractions during 4 weeks. The primary outcome consisted of biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). BCF was defined by biochemical failure, clinical failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included 2-year postradiation biopsy positivity, toxicity, and survival.

RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1997, 51 patients were randomly assigned to receive IM plus EBRT, and 53 patients were randomly assigned to receive EBRT alone. The median follow-up was 8.2 years. In the IM plus EBRT arm, 17 patients (29%) experienced BCF compared with 33 patients (61%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio, 0.42; P = .0024). Eighty-seven patients (84%) had a postradiation biopsy; 10 (24%) of 42 in the IM plus EBRT arm had biopsy positivity compared with 23 (51%) of 45 in the EBRT arm (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .015). Overall survival was 94% in the IM plus EBRT arm versus 92% in the EBRT arm.

CONCLUSION: The combination of IM plus EBRT was superior to EBRT alone for BCF and postradiation biopsy. This trial provides evidence that higher doses of radiation delivered in a shorter duration result in better local as well as biochemical control in locally advanced prostrate cancer.

Supported through the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group and the Clinical Trials Department of the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. J. Wilt, R. MacDonald, I. Rutks, T. A. Shamliyan, B. C. Taylor, and R. L. Kane Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Treatments for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Ann Intern Med, March 18, 2008; 148(6): 435 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Speight and M. Roach III Radiotherapy in the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Evolving Standards, Consensus, Controversies and New Directions J. Clin. Oncol., November 10, 2005; 23(32): 8176 - 8185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]