External Beam Radiation Therapy Articles


  • [Localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer].

    BACKGROUND - National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials.

    Published February 14, 2016
  • Comparative Effectiveness of Radical Prostatectomy Versus External Beam Radiation Therapy Plus Brachytherapy in Patients with High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer.

    A previous study comparing external beam radiation therapy with/without brachytherapy (EBRT±BT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) did not find a difference in overall survival (OS) between the treatments.

    Published December 28, 2018
  • External beam radiation therapy improves survival in elderly metastatic prostate cancer patients with low PSA.

    It is unknown, whether metastatic prostate cancer (CaP) patients with intermediate life expectancy (5-10 years) should be considered for external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the prostate. We addressed this void.

    Published November 18, 2020
  • Factors affecting (223)Ra therapy: clinical experience after 532 cycles from a single institution.

    The aim of this study was to identify baseline features that predict outcome in (223)Ra therapy.

    We retrospectively reviewed 110 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with (223)Ra.

    Published October 10, 2015
  • Implementation of hypofractionated prostate radiation therapy in the United States: A National Cancer Database analysis: Beyond the Abstract

    External-beam radiation has an established role as a non-invasive treatment for prostate cancer. Traditionally, this treatment has consisted of conventional fractionation, which entails roughly 8-9 weeks of treatment delivered 5 days per week. While many patients tolerate this regimen quite well, it can impose significant logistical burdens on patients and families.

    Advances in radiation treatment planning and delivery have enabled the development of hypofractionation, which entails a shorter, and therefore less burdensome, treatment course. At the University of Colorado, we are proud to have been early adopters of a 5½-week course. Similar schedules of so-called moderate hypofractionation typically range from 4-6 weeks in duration while maintaining 5 treatments per week. Several large randomized controlled trials have compared these shorter courses with the tried-and-true conventional fractionation approach, with each supporting the use of moderate hypofractionation.

    Other investigators have pushed the limits of hypofractionation even further to arrive at extreme fractionation, which entails only 5 treatments. In contrast to the solid track record supporting moderate hypofractionation, randomized evidence comparing extreme hypofractionation with other schedules is only starting to emerge. However, several smaller studies support the safety and efficacy of this approach.

    Providers therefore have a variety of fractionation schedules to use in treating prostate cancer with radiation. We used a large national dataset, the National Cancer Database, to characterize the use of these approaches in the United States.

    We found that use of shorter treatment schedules increased from 2004 through 2013 but remained low, reaching 14.2% of patients by the end of the period. Remarkably, this growth appears to have come from the less-well-studied extreme hypofractionation, rather than from the better-explored moderate hypofractionation. 

    While extreme hypofractionation certainly offers greater convenience to patients, we find the rapid adoption of these courses to be somewhat concerning given the limited randomized data to support them. We eagerly await the results of randomized studies comparing this approach to others.

    Read the Abstract

    Written By: William A Stokes, Brian D Kavanagh, David Raben, Thomas J Pugh
    Published July 18, 2017
  • Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with localized prostate cancer: Comparison with younger patients (aged <75 years).

    The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for elderly patients with prostate cancer (age ≥75 years) compared with younger patients (<75 years).

    Published April 5, 2019
  • Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: Precursor or aggressive phenotype of prostate cancer? "Beyond the Abstract," by Helmut Bonkhoff, MD

    BERKELEY, CA (UroToday.com) - Although detailed morphological and clinical correlations of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) were provided by McNeal and Yemoto in 1997, there is still a lack of appreciation that this entity represents a clinically aggressive disease that continues to be misreported under the diagnostic category of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN).

    Published January 8, 2013
  • Nadir PSA is a strong predictor of treatment outcome in intermediate and high risk localized prostate cancer patients treated by definitive external beam radiotherapy and androgen deprivation.

    The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of tumor characteristics and parameters of treatment response in predicting biochemical disease-free survival (BFS) for patients with intermediate or high risk prostate cancer treated by combined definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

    Published September 15, 2017
  • Nationwide Japanese Prostate Cancer Outcome Study of Permanent Iodine-125 Seed Implantation (J-POPS): first analysis on survival.

    Investigating oncological outcomes in patients registered in the Japanese Prostate Cancer Outcome Study of Permanent Iodine-125 Seed Implantation (J-POPS) in terms of biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) by the Phoenix and the newly developed J-POPS definitions, exploration of predictive factors for bRFS, and preliminary verification of pitfalls of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure definitions.

    Published June 29, 2018
  • Outcomes and Toxicities in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Brachytherapy Alone or Brachytherapy and Supplemental External Beam Radiation Therapy.

    To evaluate the cancer control outcomes and long-term treatment-related morbidity of brachytherapy as well as combination brachytherapy and EBRT in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

    A retrospective review was conducted in a prospectively collected database of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated either with brachytherapy or brachytherapy and EBRT, with or without ADT, from 1990-2014.

    Published January 15, 2018
  • PET/Computed Tomography for Radiation Therapy Planning of Prostate Cancer.

    This article is a short review of PET tracers, which have been used in clinical routine in single institutions. Preliminary anecdotal research supports the use of PET techniques in therapy planning of prostate cancer.

    Published March 17, 2017
  • Predictive factors of long-term rectal toxicity following permanent iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external beam radiation therapy in 2216 patients.

    We analyzed factors associated with rectal toxicity after iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy (BT) with or without external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

    In total, 2216 prostate cancer patients underwent iodine-125 BT with or without EBRT between 2003 and 2013.

    Published June 26, 2018
  • Radiation for Treatment of Painful Bone Metastases.

    Several variables may be considered when deciding on optimal modality of radiation therapy for each cancer patient with bone pain, including prognosis, tumor histology, location and extent of metastases, and association with cord compression.

    Published May 15, 2018
  • Recovery of Serum Testosterone Levels and Sexual Function in Patients Treated With Short-term Luteinizing Hormone-releasing Hormone Antagonist as a Neoadjuvant Therapy Before External Radiotherapy for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Prospective Study.

    External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with short-term androgen deprivation therapy is the standard of care for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. However, no study to date has evaluated the hormonal kinetics or sexual and hormonal function recovery after cessation of short-term luteinizing hormone (LH)-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist treatment.

    Published October 27, 2017
  • Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer

    Selection of the appropriate treatment requires assessment of the tumor's potential aggressiveness and the general health, life expectancy, and quality of life preferences of the patient. The treatment outcomes in patients may be influenced by the malignant potential of the tumors as well as by the treatment used. 

    Conservative Treatment: 

    Watchful Waiting refers to monitoring the patient until he develops metastases that require palliative treatment.  

    • Watchful waiting has been reserved for men with a life expectancy of less than 10 years and a low-grade (Gleason score 2 to 5) prostate cancer.

    Active surveillance allows delayed primary treatment if there is biochemical or histologic evidence of cancer progression. 

    • Active surveillance is being evaluated as a management strategy in younger patients with low-volume, low- or intermediate-grade (up to Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7) tumors to avoid or to delay treatment that might not be immediately necessary.
    • Monitoring of the patient for progression for either watchful waiting or active surveillance patients are usually observed with semiannual PSA determinations, DRE, and annual biopsies.  
    • Intervention is recommended if Gleason pattern 4 or 5 is present, more than two biopsy cores are involved, or more than 50% of a biopsy core is involved. 
    • Progression is more likely in patients who have cancer present on every biopsy procedure. 
    • The absence of cancer on repeated biopsy significantly decreases the likelihood of progression. 
    • Biopsy criteria used in active surveillance have been reported to be more accurate than PSA criteria in predicting progression. 
    • No study has found DRE or imaging studies to independently predict progression.
    • In most studies of active surveillance, approximately 25% to 50% of patients, depending on their individual risk factors, develop objective evidence of tumor progression within 5 years.  
    • Presently, no tumor marker can identify indolent tumors with certainty.
    • Additional clinical and laboratory research are needed to define the parameters for safe use of active surveillance in younger men, including the appropriate selection criteria, follow-up procedures, and trigger points for intervention.
    • All prostate cancer patients are at risk for progression.
    • If the PSA level is rising, the DRE suggests tumor growth, or surveillance biopsy specimens show evidence of increased involvement by cancer, treatment should be instituted.
    •  Patients may change their minds about remaining on an active surveillance protocol; therefore the physician should review management options on follow-up visits.
    • In discussing treatment for prostate cancer, it is important to consider patient factors such as age and general performance status as well as tumor factors such as Gleason score, initial serum PSA, and estimated clinical volumes/stage of the tumor. 
    • If a patient has less than a 50 percent chance of surviving 10 years, it is difficult to measure the positive effect of treatment. 
    • The side effects of different therapies also have to be considered. It is optimal when patients come to a treatment decision based on consultation and input from both surgical and radiation oncology services.

    The current treatment paradigm

    • Multiple guidelines endorse active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, but concerns regarding biopsy under-sampling and under-staging have limited its acceptance.

    • Today, more than 90 percent of these low risk patients undergo immediate treatment such as radical prostatectomy or radiation, despite less than a 3% chance of low risk disease progressing 

    Genomic Prostate Score (GPS)

    • The Oncotype DX prostate cancer test (Genomic Prostate Score) is a biopsy-based genomic test that, when combined with other measures, can be used to predict the aggressiveness of prostate cancer
    • The GPS test is a standardized, validated biopsy-based test that measures the level of expression of multiple genes across multiple pathways that predict aggressive prostate cancer

    more on genomics: 

    Radical or complete prostatectomy

    • This is the treatment choice for patients with organ-confined disease and a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Generally, age 70 is used as a relative cutoff for strongly recommending surgery and 75 years of age is certainly the upper accepted end of the age limit. 
    • The patient goals are the cure of his cancer (survival), the preservation of his potency, and to remain continent.  Patients want all three outcomes. 
    • The indications for LRP and RALP are identical to that for open surgery (patients with ≤ clinical stage T2 with no evidence of metastasis either clinically or radiographically.
    • The radical perineal prostatectomy is associated with reduced blood loss as the dorsal venous complex is not divided. It may be the preferred approach in very obese men or in those with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery where significant retropubic scarring and fibrosis are suspected.
    • The disadvantages are that it does not provide access for a pelvic lymph node dissection, there is a higher rate of rectal injury, and there is occasional postoperative fecal incontinence that does not occur commonly with other approaches.
    • It is more difficult to spare the cavernous nerves through the perineal approach.The open retropubic approach is preferred by many urologists because of their familiarity with the surgical anatomy, the lower risk for rectal injury and postoperative fecal incontinence, the wide exposure and ready access provided for pelvic lymphadenectomy and prostate excision with preservation of the neurovascular bundles, and the lower risk for positive surgical margins.
    • Significant urinary incontinence may be encountered in up to 4 to 8 percent of patients, and bladder neck contractures can occur in 2 to 6 percent of patients. 
    • Surgical mortality is less than 0.2 percent but 1 to 2 percent of patients may develop pulmonary emboli. 
    • When laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) is performed by a skilled laparoscopic surgeon, reported incontinence and anastomotic stricture rates are comparable to those achieved with open surgery. 
    • It has been claimed that nerve sparing is equivalent or even better with laparoscopic surgery, but direct comparisons and validated results are lacking. 
    • The early reported rates of positive surgical margins have been higher with laparoscopic prostatectomy, and the adequacy of cancer control is as yet uncertain because of lack of long-term results.
    • Remotely controlled laparoscopic surgery or the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy has becoome popularized because of its greater technical ease for the surgeon, especially for tying sutures and performing the vesicourethral anastomosis.
    • The availability of three-dimensional visualization is an advantage over standard laparoscopic techniques.
    • Early reported results are favorable, but have not been validated.
    • It is also more difficult to perform a lymph node dissection with laparoscopic approaches.
    • Pelvic lymphadenectomy is optional in patients at low risk for lymph node metastases.

    Postoperative patient care

    • Patients should ambulate with assistance beginning on the afternoon or evening of surgery.
    • The catheter may be removed 3 to 21 days after surgery, depending on the integrity and the amount of tension on the vesicourethral anastomosis. The more days the catheter is in place the greater the risk of urinarty tract infection (CaUTI).  Removal of the catheter before 7 days is associated with a 15% to 20% risk of urinary retention - View Protocol.  View all CaUTI resources at www.cautichallenge.com

    • After the catheter has been removed, Kegel exercises should be initiated. A protective pad is used until complete urinary control is achieved. The postoperative serum PSA level should be undetectable by 1 month after the operation. 
    • The return of urinary continence is associated with the patient's age: approximately 95% of men younger than 60 years can attain pad-free urinary continence after surgery; 85% of men older than 70 years regain continence. Few require implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter or a sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence.
    • The return of erectile function after radical retropubic prostatectomy correlates with the age of the patient, preoperative potency status and the extent of nerve-sparing surgery.
    • In candidates in whom preoperative potency is normal and bilateral nerve-sparing surgery can be performed, up to 95% in their 40s, 85% in their 50s, 75% in their 60s, and 50% in their 70s can attain recovery of erections sufficient for penetration and intercourse. In most instances, erections are not as good as they were preoperatively.
    • In patients, erections usually begin to return as partial erections 3 to 6 months after surgery and may continue to improve for up to 3 years or more.  

    External beam radiation therapy

    • This is an option for localized prostate cancer and is the treatment of choice for T3 disease. 
    • There is evidence from prospective, randomized trials that dose escalation and three-dimensional definition improve results considerably.
    • External beam radiotherapy involves the use of beams of gamma radiation, usually photons, directed at the prostate and surrounding tissues through multiple fields.
    • The most sophisticated form of 3D-CRT, called intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), can provide localization of the radiation dose to geometrically complex fields.
    • Heavy-particle therapy is another form of 3D-CRT in which the radiation beam can be virtually “stopped” within the tissue, allowing high doses of radiation to be delivered to a localized region. 
    • Proton beam therapy is more expensive than other forms of 3D-CRT, and limited long-term results have been reported.
    • Currently, doses of 76 to 80 Gy or more have been shown to improve cancer control.
    • Low-risk patients are now frequently treated with 70 to 72 Gy, intermediate-risk patients with 75 to 76 Gy, and high-risk patients with 80 Gy or more. Doses above 75 Gy are now considered to be indicated; however, doses above 80 Gy have not been demonstrated to be beneficial.
    • In general, it is administered in divided doses ranging from 70 to 80 Gy and is well tolerated. 
    • Approximately 3 to 5 percent of patients will experience persistent rectal or bladder symptomatology and greater than 50 percent of patients develop erectile dysfunction within 2 years. Hematuria or hemorrhagic cystitis is a late development in a small percentage of patients. Techniques of conformal therapy have reduced unwanted radiation to the bladder and rectum.
    • CT imaging is considered the standard imaging modality for 3D-CRT and 3D-IMRT, but CT is less precise than MRI.
    • A prior transurethral resection of the prostate is a relative contraindication to brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy because the prostate does not hold the seeds well, and radiation after transurethral resection of the prostate is associated with an increased risk for urethral stricture. 
    • The presence of severe obstructive urinary symptoms is also a relative contraindication because of the risk for acute urinary retention, which is an even greater risk in patients treated with brachytherapy. 
    • Another relative contraindication is inflammatory bowel disease.
    • Approximately half of patients develop erectile dysfunction after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This is caused by injury to the vasculature of the cavernous nerves and to the corpora cavernosa of the penis, usually beginning about 1 year after the completion of treatment. 
    • Younger patients with good baseline erectile function are more likely to retain adequate erections. PDE-5 inhibitors are useful in ameliorating the erectile dysfunction associated with radiotherapy. Lower doses of radiation to the penile bulb have been investigated as a means of minimizing radiation-induced erectile dysfunction. The use of adjuvant hormone therapy also adversely affects erectile function.
    • Evaluation of the outcomes of radiotherapy is challenging because cancer cells are not killed immediately after exposure to ionizing radiation. Rather, they sustain lethal DNA damage but do not die until their next attempt to enter into cell division. The PSA level gradually decreases for up to 2 to 3 years after the completion of radiotherapy. 
    • The PSA level is usually monitored at 6-month intervals until it reaches a nadir. In patients treated with external beam radiotherapy, the prostate gland is not completely ablated, and the remaining prostate epithelium continues to produce PSA.
    • In high-risk patients, external beam radiotherapy has also been combined with brachytherapy. The brachytherapy is usually given first, so that the external beam therapy can be discontinued if the patient begins to experience toxicity.


    • Radioactive sources (seeds or needles) are implanted directly into the prostate gland, and sometimes into the surrounding tissues, to deliver a high dose of radiation to the tumor while sparing, to the extent possible, the bladder and the rectum.
    • The most commonly used permanent implants are iodine-125 or palladium-103 seeds.
    • Ultrasound-guided transperineal brachytherapy has become an accepted modality for the treatment of localized prostate cancer using 1251 or 103 Pd radiation sources. The radiation doses delivered to the prostate are approximately 145 Gy for iodine and 125 Gy for palladium.  
    • Optimal candidates have a serum PSA of less than 10 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 6 or lower. Many centers utilize short-term neoadjuvant hormonal blockade given the difficulty in treating prostate glands larger than 50 g. Conversely, glands smaller than 20 g are difficult to implant. 
    • Urinary retention occurs in up to 22% of patients.
    • Short-term complications include urinary retention, urethritis, and irritative voiding symptoms, especially in patients with a history of lower urinary tract obstructive symptoms. Long-term major complications include stricture or contracture development and proctitis. Incontinence is uncommon but averages 20 percent in men with a history of transurethral resection of the prostate. 

    Stereotactic Radiotherapy (“Cyberknife”)

    • More data is needed to include in this section 

    Adjuvant Radiotherapy after Radical Prostatectomy

    • Retrospective cohort studies have shown that postoperative radiotherapy reduces recurrence rates in patients with pathologic stage T3 disease and positive margins. 
    • A trial of adjuvant radiation after radical prostatectomy of men with stage pT3 prostate cancer or positive margins revealed that adjuvant radiation reduced the recurrence rate and that positive margins were the strongest predictor of benefit.  
    • Side effects of adjuvant radiotherapy also include a 5% to 10% risk of radiation proctitis and a 50% probability that return of erectile function will be materially compromised.
    • It is impossible to compare the results of surgery with those of radiotherapy because of the difference in the end points used for treatment failure, that is, undetectable PSA for surgery versus the ASTRO or Phoenix criteria for radiotherapy.

    Primary Hormone Therapy

    • Primary androgen-deprivation therapy may be appropriate for older men, those with significant medical comorbidities precluding the use of curative therapy, and those who do not wish to undergo curative therapy.
    • Cardiovascular evaluation is recommended prior to treatment of men at risk for cardiovascular complications.
    • Hormone therapy is never curative; nevertheless, many patients experience long-term remissions. Luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone analogs are commonly used. 
    • Antiandrogens produce less sexual dysfunction and osteoporosis but have a greater risk for adverse cardiovascular complications.


    • Current technology uses argon gas circulating through hollow needles to freeze the prostate and helium gas to warm the urethra. 
    • Cryoablation has been used as primary treatment for salvage after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. 
    • A prior transurethral resection of the prostate is considered a relative contraindication to cryoablation.
    • An undetectable PSA level is seldom attainable after cryoablation.Pelvic pain persists.
    • Complications associated with salvage cryoablation were much more frequent than for primary treatment.
    • Complications of salvage cryotherapy included 4.4% incontinence, 1.2% rectal fistula, and 3.2% requiring a transurethral resection of the prostate for obstruction.

    High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)

    • Transrectally applied high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) can elevate the tissue temperature of the prostate up to 100° C.
    • Treatment is performed under general or spinal anesthesia and takes 1 to 4 hours, depending on the prostate volume, which should not exceed 40 cc.
    • Most patients require a urethral or suprapubic catheter for several days.
    • The procedure is usually well tolerated; the most common side effect is acute urinary retention, occurring in about 20% of patients. 
    • Other potential complications are urinary fistula, incontinence, urethral stricture, and perineal pain. 
    • Erectile dysfunction has been reported in 27% to 61%.
    • Clinical trials are continuing in the USA and other countries.  


    • Albertson PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DR, Barry MJ: Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:975-980, 1998.
    • Albertsen PC, Fryback DG, Storer BE, et al: Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer. JAMA  1995; 274:626-631.
    • Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al: Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst  2005; 97:1248-1253.
    • Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Penson DF, Fine J: Validation of increasing prostate specific antigen as a predictor of prostate cancer death after treatment of localized prostate cancer with surgery or radiation. J Urol  2004; 171:2221-2225.
    • Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb 3rd RL, et al: Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med  2009; 360:1310-1319.
    • Babaian RJ, Donnelly B, Bahn D, et al: Best practice statement on cryosurgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol  2008; 180:1993-2004.
    • Bishoff JT, Motley G, Optenberg SA, et al: Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population. J Urol  1998; 160:454-458.
    • Blana A, Walter B, Rogenhofer S, Wieland WF: High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 5-year experience. Urology  2004; 63:297-300.
    • Burnett AL: Erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy. JAMA  2005; 293:2648-2653.
    • Burren CP, Wilson EM, Hwa V, et al: Binding properties and distribution of insulin-like growth factor binding protein-related protein 3 (IGFBP-rP3/NovH), an additional member of the IGFBP Superfamily. J Clin Endocrinol Metab  1999; 84:1096-1103.
    • Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al: Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol  2007; 178:2359-2364.discussion 2364–5.
    • Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, et al: Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA  1998; 279:1542-1547.
    • Cooney, K. A., J. D. McCarthy, et al. (1997). "Prostate cancer susceptibility locus on chromosome 1q: a confirmatory study." J Natl Cancer Inst 89(13): 955-9.
    • Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al: Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol  2002; 167:1664-1669.
    • Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer  2008; 112:2664-2670.
    • Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al: Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol  2007; 8:475-487.
    • Devgan, S. A., B. E. Henderson, et al. (1997). "Genetic variation of 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type II in three racial/ethnic groups: implications for prostate cancer risk." Prostate 33(1): 9-12.
    • el-Geneidy M, Garzotto M, Panagiotou I, et al: Delayed therapy with curative intent in a contemporary prostate cancer watchful-waiting cohort. BJU Int  2004; 93:510-515.
    • Fraass BA: The development of conformal radiation therapy. Med Phys  1995; 22:1911-1921.
    • Glickman L, Godoy G, Lepor H: Changes in continence and erectile function between 2 and 4 years after radical prostatectomy. J Urol  2009; 181:731-735.
    • Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward EM: Cancer facts and figures 2009.  Atlanta, American Cancer Society, 2009.
    • Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, et al: Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA  2004; 291:2713-2719.
    • Klotz L: Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J Urol  2004; 172:S48-S50.discussion S50–S1
    • Leibovich BC, Engen DE, Patterson DE, et al: Benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer with a positive surgical margin. J Urol  2000; 163:1178-1182.
    • Madersbacher S, Pedevilla M, Vingers L, et al: Effect of high-intensity focused ultrasound on human prostate cancer in vivo. Cancer Res  1995; 55:3346-3351.
    • Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol  2007; 51:648-657.discussion 657–8
    • Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al: Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology  2002; 60:864-868.
    • Merrick GS, Butler WM, Lief JH, et al: Efficacy of sildenafil citrate in prostate brachytherapy patients with erectile dysfunction. Urology  1999; 53:1112-1116.
    • Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, et al: An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol  2004; 171:1520-1524.
    • Pickles T, Goldenberg L, Steinhoff G: Technology review: high-intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer. Can J Urol  2005; 12:2593-2597.
    • Pisters LL, Rewcastle JC, Donnelly BJ, et al: Salvage prostate cryoablation: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. J Urol  2008; 180:559-563.discussion 563–4
    • Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al: Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys  2002; 53:1097-1105.
    • Roach M, Winter K, Michalski JM, et al: Penile bulb dose and impotence after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406: findings from a prospective, multi-institutional, phase I/II dose-escalation study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys  2004; 60:1351-1356.
    • Taylor 3rd JA, Koff SG, Dauser DA, McLeod DG: The relationship of ultrasensitive measurements of prostate-specific antigen levels to prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int  2006; 98:540-543.
    • Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Lippman SM, Crawford ED, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 27;350(22):2239-46.
    • Valicenti RK, Choi E, Chen C, et al: Sildenafil citrate effectively reverses sexual dysfunction induced by three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Urology  2001; 57:769-773.
    • Van der Kwast TH, Bolla M, Van Poppel H, et al: Identification of patients with prostate cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911. J Clin Oncol  2007; 25:4178-4186.
    • Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M, et al: Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol  2006; 176:1415-1419.
    • Zietman AL, Thakral H, Wilson L, Schellhammer P: Conservative management of prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era: the incidence and time course of subsequent therapy. J Urol  2001; 166:1702-1706.
    Published June 12, 2013
  • Treatment outcomes and late toxicities of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for 1091 Japanese patients with localized prostate cancer.

    This study aimed to evaluate the treatment result of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in a large number of Japanese patients with prostate cancer.

    A total of 1091 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited between March 2006 and July 2014.

    Published December 27, 2017