[17], and to the

[17], and to the IACS-10759 ic50 3-year actuarial risk of 19% G2 late GU reported by Fonteyene et al., with doses between 72 Gy and 78 Gy [16]. However, comparisons

of patients across study cohorts are difficult and should be interpreted with caution. In particular, the role of hormone therapy in the setting of dose escalation could introduce some bias, thus confounding the analysis, which needs to be evaluated in a randomized trial. The observed five years FFBF of 87%, according to the Phoenix definition, is comparable with the results of 85% reported by Cahlon et al. [17], using a total dose of 86.4 Gy (1.8 cGy/fraction) in combination with neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT. The true role of androgen deprivation in dose escalation schedules in patients with intermediate prognosis risk is currently unknown, the fact that hormonal therapy was not used in this study did not seem to impact on the outcome, even though, more patients and a longer follow up MK 8931 molecular weight are needed to clearly state the role of ADT. Cell killing by hormone-therapy could reduce the tumor burden, enhancing local control, and maybe decreasing the rate of distant metastases [34]. Eade et al. [9] suggested that the use of doses >80 Gy for localized prostate cancer results in better local control and less distant failures when compared to doses <80 Gy, analyzing a cohort of patients free from ADT. In this report, the authors observed a reduced risk of biochemical recurrence of 2.2%

at 8 years for the addition of each Gy over 80 Gy and concluded that the plateau on the dose–response curve for prostate cancer lies well above 80 Gy. Also, feasibility studies of single Institutions and some randomized trials of dose escalation showed improved results in the treatment

of localized prostate cancer [1–8]; analyzing the effects of Captisol increased doses between prognostic categories, the best results are observed in the intermediate risk [3–9, 15, 34–36]. Even though, with a larger number of enrolled patients a multivariate analysis could better clarify the results observed, we believe that the current Interleukin-3 receptor series demonstrates the advantage in terms of disease control of using ultra-high doses in the treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer while the incidence of toxicity observed could be lowered by applying stricter requirements on the dose volume constraints at the interface of the rectum with the posterior portion of the prostate gland and introducing a more advanced imaging protocol, i.e. cone beam CT imaging. Moreover, authors are aware that quality of life questionnaires to investigate treatment effects as reported by patients could have added information to the overall rating of treatment results; for this reason, since then, great effort has been made to introduce in our policy also this additional tool of evaluation. Conclusion Our results proved to be good in terms of FFBF without using ADT in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

Comments are closed.