Reply

Abstract

Our analysis can rightly be criticized regarding the methodology used, but it represents an effort to make sense of data in the absence of randomized clinical trials and is frankly the best we can do in attempting comparisons between delayed salvage and early adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy (RT). This analysis should be considered hypothesis generating and will not change clinical practice de novo. However, it does lend credence to the idea that these 2 therapeutic approaches are not identical. A Multi-Institutional Matched-Control Analysis of Adjuvant and Salvage Postoperative Radiation Therapy for pT3-4N0 Prostate CancerUrologyVol. 72Issue 6PreviewIt is unclear whether postoperative salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and early adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy lead to equivalent long-term tumor control. We studied a group of patients undergoing ART by comparing them with a matched control group undergoing SRT after biochemical failure. Full-Text PDF Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 72Issue 6PreviewIn this issue of Urology, we find a report on “Multi-Institutional Matched-Control Analysis of Adjuvant and Salvage Postoperative Radiotherapy for pT3-T4N0 Prostate Cancer.” The authors argue that according to their analysis, adjuvant radiotherapy should be recommended instead of salvage radiotherapy for men with adverse pathologic features. Their work certainly represents “a job well done,” and I agree with their conclusions. However, my reasons for agreeing with them have nothing to do with their matched-pair analysis. Full-Text PDF