- 作者：Michael J. Zelefsky ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Zelefskm@mskcc.org ; Douglas M. Housman ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Xin Pei ; Ph.D.&lowast ; ; Zumre Alicikus ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Juan Martin Magsanoc ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Lawrence T. Dauer ; Ph.D.&Dagger ; ; Jean St. Germain ; M.S.&Dagger ; ; Yoshiya Yamada ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Marisa Kollmeier ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Brett Cox ; M.D.&lowast ; ; Zhigang Zhang ; Ph.D.&dagger ;
- 关键词：Second cancers ; Prostate cancer ; External beam radiotherapy ; Brachytherapy ; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
- 刊名：International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
- 出版年：2012
- 期刊代码：136_03603016
- 类别：med
- 出版时间：1 July, 2012
- 卷：83
- 期：3
- 页码：953-959
- 文件大小：223 K
Purpose
To report the incidence and excess risk of second malignancy (SM) development compared with the general population after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy to treat prostate cancer.Methods and Materials
Between 1998 and 2001, 1,310 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with EBRT (n = 897) or brachytherapy (n = 413). We compared the incidence of SMs in our patients with that of the general population extracted from the National Cancer Institute鈥檚 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data set combined with the 2000 census data.
Results
The 10-year likelihood of SM development was 25%after EBRT and 15%after brachytherapy (p = .02). The corresponding 10-year likelihood for in-field SM development in these groups was 4.9%and 1.6%(p = .24). Multivariate analysis showed that EBRT vs. brachytherapy and older age were the only significant predictors for the development of all SMs (p = .037 and p = .030), with a trend for older patients to develop a SM. The increased incidence of SM for EBRT patients was explained by the greater incidence of skin cancer outside the radiation field compared with that after brachytherapy (10.6%and 3.3%, respectively, p = .004). For the EBRT group, the 5- and 10-year mortality rate was 1.96%and 5.1%from out-of field cancer, respectively; for in-field SM, the corresponding mortality rates were 0.1%and 0.7%. Among the brachytherapy group, the 5- and 10-year mortality rate related to out-of field SM was 0.8%and 2.7%, respectively. Our observed SM rates after prostate RT were not significantly different from the cancer incidence rates in the general population.
Conclusions
Using modern sophisticated treatment techniques, we report low rates of in-field bladder and rectal SM risks after prostate cancer RT. Furthermore, the likelihood of mortality secondary to a SM was unusual. The greater rate of SM observed with EBRT vs. brachytherapy was related to a small, but significantly increased, number of skin cancers in the EBRT patients compared with that of the general population.