All News


Site Logo

Comparing Radical Prostatectomy and Brachytherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

September 1st 2004

Radical prostatectomy and ultrasound-guided transperinealbrachytherapy are both commonly used for the treatment of localizedprostate cancer. No randomized trials are available to compare thesemodalities. Therefore, the physician must rely on institutional reportsof results to determine which therapy is most effective. While some investigatorshave concluded that both therapies are effective, others haveconcluded that radical prostatectomy should remain the gold standardfor the treatment of this disease. This article reviews the major seriesavailable for both treatments and discusses the major controversiesinvolved in making these comparisons. The data indicate that for lowriskdisease, both treatments are effective, controlling disease in over80% of the cases, with no evidence to support the use of one treatmentover the other. Similarly, for intermediate-risk disease, the conclusionthat one treatment is superior to the other cannot be drawn. Brachytherapyshould be performed in conjunction with external-beam radiationtherapy in this group of patients. For patients with high-risk disease,neither treatment consistently achieves biochemical control rates above50%. Although radical prostatectomy and/or brachytherapy may playa role in the care of high-risk patients in the future, external-beamradiation therapy in combination with androgen deprivation has thebest track record to date.


Site Logo

Induction Therapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

July 1st 2004

Data from adjuvant trials clearly indicate that one of the most importantproblems in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC) is compliance to chemotherapy. In the postoperative setting,significant comorbidities and incomplete recovery after surgery oftenmake it difficult for patients to tolerate or comply with systemic therapy.Therefore, it may be preferable to deliver chemotherapy before surgeryas "neoadjuvant" or "induction" chemotherapy. The rationale for usinginduction chemotherapy is based on evidence that chemotherapymight reduce tumor burden and possess activity againstmicrometastases, resulting in improved results by surgery, radiotherapy,or a combination. Moreover, induction therapy facilitates in vivo assessmentof tumor response or resistance. Potential drawbacks includethe risk of perioperative complications, and the possibility that the tumormass may become unresectable due to disease progression. Duringthe past decade, four phase III randomized trials evaluated the roleof induction chemotherapy in stage IIIA NSCLC. The first three studiesconsistently showed that induction chemotherapy improves survivalcompared with surgery alone. More recently, a large phase III trialperformed by French investigators suggested a survival benefit in stageI/II patients, but not stage IIIA. The high activity of new platinumbasedchemotherapy-based on response rate and 1-year survival inadvanced disease-reinforces the rationale for the use of these newcombinations in early-stage NSCLC, especially for a subset of patientstraditionally treated with surgery alone. Several phase III trials arecurrently evaluating the role of new doublets as induction chemotherapy;these are discussed in the article. The results of these ongoingphase III trials should help clarify the role of induction chemotherapyin early-stage disease.


Site Logo

Contemporary Management of Prostate Cancer With Lethal Potential

June 1st 2004

Screening for prostate cancer by determining serum prostate-specificantigen (PSA) levels has resulted in a stage migration such thatpatients with high-risk disease are more likely to be candidates for curativelocal therapy. By combining serum PSA, clinical stage, and biopsyinformation-both Gleason score and volume of tumor in the biopsycores-specimen pathologic stage and patient biochemical disease-freesurvival can be estimated. This information can help patients and cliniciansunderstand the severity of disease and the need for multimodaltherapy, often in the context of a clinical trial. While the mainstays oftreatment for local disease control are radical prostatectomy and radiationtherapy, systemic therapy must be considered as well. A randomizedtrial has shown a survival benefit for radical prostatectomy inpatients with positive lymph nodes who undergo immediate adjuvantandrogen deprivation. Clinical trials are needed to clarify whether adjuvantradiation therapy after surgery confers a survival benefit. PSAis a sensitive marker for follow-up after local treatment and has proventhat conventional external-beam irradiation alone is inadequate treatmentfor high-risk disease. Fortunately, the technology of radiationdelivery has been dramatically improved with tools such as three-dimensionalconformal radiation, intensity-modulated radiation therapy,and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. The further contributions of pelvicirradiation and neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant androgen deprivationtherapy have been defined in clinical trials. Future managementof high-risk prostate cancer may be expanded by clinical trialsevaluating neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy in combinationwith androgen deprivation.