» Articles » PMID: 16798415

Defining Biochemical Failure Following Radiotherapy with or Without Hormonal Therapy in Men with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2006 Jun 27
PMID 16798415
Citations 917
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In 1996 the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) sponsored a Consensus Conference to establish a definition of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The ASTRO definition defined prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure as occurring after three consecutive PSA rises after a nadir with the date of failure as the point halfway between the nadir date and the first rise or any rise great enough to provoke initiation of therapy. This definition was not linked to clinical progression or survival; it performed poorly in patients undergoing hormonal therapy (HT), and backdating biased the Kaplan-Meier estimates of event-free survival. A second Consensus Conference was sponsored by ASTRO and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 21, 2005, to revise the ASTRO definition. The panel recommended: (1) a rise by 2 ng/mL or more above the nadir PSA be considered the standard definition for biochemical failure after EBRT with or without HT; (2) the date of failure be determined "at call" (not backdated). They recommended that investigators be allowed to use the ASTRO Consensus Definition after EBRT alone (no hormonal therapy) with strict adherence to guidelines as to "adequate follow-up." To avoid the artifacts resulting from short follow-up, the reported date of control should be listed as 2 years short of the median follow-up. For example, if the median follow-up is 5 years, control rates at 3 years should be cited. Retaining a strict version of the ASTRO definition would allow comparisons with a large existing body of literature.

Citing Articles

Management Based on Pretreatment PSMA PET of Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer Part 2: Prediction of Recurrence-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hoffmann M, Soydal C, Virgolini I, Tuncel M, Kairemo K, Kapp D Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075689 PMC: 11899075. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050841.


Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as an Early Predictive Factor of Local and Overall Response to Treatment with Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Radiotherapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

Duque-Santana V, Fernandez J, Diaz-Gavela A, Recio M, Guerrero L, Pena M Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075610 PMC: 11898613. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050762.


Optimizing treatment for Gleason 10 prostate cancer: radiation dose escalation and Ga-PSMA-PET/CT staging.

Onal C, Guler O, Demirhan B, Erpolat P, Elmali A, Yavuz M Strahlenther Onkol. 2025; .

PMID: 40021524 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-025-02376-1.


A Multi-Omics-Based Exploration of the Predictive Role of MSMB in Prostate Cancer Recurrence: A Study Using Bayesian Inverse Convolution and 10 Machine Learning Combinations.

Huang S, Yin H Biomedicines. 2025; 13(2).

PMID: 40002900 PMC: 11853722. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines13020487.


Timing and Patterns of Potentially Salvageable Recurrences Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Assessed by Preferential Amino Acid Uptake.

Kearney T, Nagel L, Bourne M, Zwart A, Kumar D, Danner M Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77964.

PMID: 39996202 PMC: 11849763. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77964.