Does hormone treatment added to radiotherapy improve outcome in locally advanced prostate cancer?

HDR Brachytherapy in the Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer

High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is used with increasing frequency for the treatment of prostate cancer. It is a technique which allows delivery of large individual fractions to the prostate without exposing adjacent normal tissues to unacceptable toxicity. This approach is particularly favourable in prostate cancer where tumours are highly sensitive to dose escalation and to increases in radiotherapy fraction size, due to the unique radiobiological behaviour of prostate cancers in contrast with other malignancies. In this paper we discuss the rationale and the increasing body of clinical evidence for the use of this technique in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, where it is combined with external beam radiotherapy. We highlight practical aspects of delivering treatment and discuss toxicity and limitations, with particular reference to current practice in the United Kingdom.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS

153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5-61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6-9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2-8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2-5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5-6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0-2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years.

INTERPRETATION

Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years.

FUNDING

Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Contemporary role of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

CONTEXT

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease.

OBJECTIVE

Review the published experience with currently available ADT approaches in various contemporary clinical settings of PCa and reported serious treatment-related adverse events. This review addresses the level of evidence associated with the use of ADT in PCa, focusing upon survival outcome measures. Furthermore, this paper discusses evolving approaches targeting androgen receptor signaling pathways and emerging evidence from clinical trials with newer compounds.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed, focusing on data from the last 10 yr (January 2000 to July 2011) and using the terms androgen deprivation, hormone treatment, prostate cancer and adverse effects. Abstracts from trials reported at international conferences held in 2010 and 2011 were also evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from randomized controlled trials and population-based studies were analyzed in different clinical paradigms. Specifically, the role of ADT was evaluated in patients with nonmetastatic disease as the primary and sole treatment, in combination with radiation therapy (RT) or after surgery, and in patients with metastatic disease. The data suggest that in men with nonmetastatic disease, the use of primary ADT as monotherapy has not shown a benefit and is not recommended, while ADT combined with conventional-dose RT (<72Gy) for patients with high-risk disease may delay progression and prolong survival. The postoperative use of ADT remains poorly evaluated in prospective studies. Likewise, there are no trials evaluating the role of ADT in patients with biochemical relapses after surgery or RT. In patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear benefit in terms of quality of life, reduction of disease-associated morbidity, and possibly survival. Treatment with bilateral orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy, with and without antiandrogens has been associated with various serious adverse events, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and skeletal complications that may also affect mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADT is an effective treatment of PCa, consistent long-term benefits in terms of quality and quantity of life are predominantly evident in patients with advanced/metastatic disease or when ADT is used in combination with RT (<72Gy) in patients with high-risk tumors. Implementation of ADT should be evidence based, with special consideration to adverse events and the risk-benefit ratio.

Androgen deprivation therapy and definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes of patients receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT) for local-regionally advanced prostate cancer. However, patients in most randomized trials had more advanced disease than observed in many practices and were treated with suboptimal RT doses. Although data are conflicting, long-term ADT likely has adverse side-effects in patients with comorbidities. We recommend 6 months of ADT monotherapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and RT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (≥T2c, Gleason Score 8 to 10, and/or prostate-specific antigen ≥20 ng/mL) with minimal or no comorbidities. Adjuvant ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients with a Gleason Score of 4+3=7 is also reasonable.

Does hormone therapy exacerbate the adverse effects of radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer? A quality of life study

PURPOSE

We examined whether short course androgen deprivation therapy as an adjunct to radiotherapy would impact health related quality of life outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer treated definitively with external beam radiation therapy or permanent brachytherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1999 to 2003 patients were enrolled in a prospective study at our institution and completed validated health related quality of life surveys at defined pretreatment and posttreatment intervals. A total of 81 men received radiotherapy alone and 67 received radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy. Median androgen deprivation therapy duration was 4 months. Univariate and multivariate analysis was done to compare time to return to baseline in 6 distinct health related quality of life domains.

RESULTS

On univariate analysis the radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy group achieved baseline urinary symptoms more rapidly than the radiotherapy group (5 months, p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis time to return to baseline in any of the 6 health related quality of life domains was not significantly affected by adding androgen deprivation therapy. Factors associated with longer time to return to baseline mental composite scores on multivariate analysis included nonwhite ethnicity, cerebrovascular disease history and alcohol abuse history. Men treated with permanent brachytherapy monotherapy experienced longer time to return to baseline for urinary function and symptoms. Baseline sexual function and lack of a partner were associated with longer time to sexual recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding androgen deprivation therapy to definitive radiotherapy does not significantly impact the time to return to baseline health related quality of life. These data may be valuable for patients and physicians when weighing the toxicity and benefits of androgen deprivation therapy when added to definitive radiotherapy.

[Combined external radiotherapy and hormone therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: predictive factors of genitourinary toxicity]

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation are an established treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer. We evaluate outcomes in efficacy and toxicity for patients treated with this combined therapy at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 80 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy combined with neo-adjuvant (2 months) and adjuvant (24 months) androgen deprivation. We studied the clinical variables and side effects. We evaluated treatment outcomes using PSA nadir and biochemical failure, and recorded acute and late gastrointestinal and urinary toxicity. We assessed the correlation between clinical variables and urinary toxicity by means of univariate and multivariate analyses (multiple logistic regression).

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 68 ± 5.81 years; the initial PSA was 20.05 ± 16.27 ng/ ml and the mean prostate volume 43.7 ± 27.57 cc. The clinical stage was T3a in 33% and T3b in 66%. The Gleason score was <7 in 39%, 7 in 46% and ≥8 in 15%. The mean follow-up was 44.4 months and biochemical failure was observed in 3 cases. Acute urinary toxicity was recorded in 90% of the patients (chronic in 35%) and acute gastrointestinal toxicity in 75% (late in 32%). In a univariate analysis, prostate volume and urinary symptoms were statistically correlated to acute and late urinary toxicity. Both prostate volume and urinary symptoms were independently associated with an increase in urinary toxicity in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Hormone-radiotherapy is a valid option to locally treat advanced prostate cancer with optimal short-term outcomes, although it is not devoid of side effects. Prostate volume and urinary symptoms before treatment can predict genitourinary toxicity.

Impact of hormonal treatment duration in combination with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Hormone therapy plus radiotherapy significantly decreases recurrences and mortality of patients affected by locally advanced prostate cancer. In order to determine if difference exists according to the hormonal treatment duration, a literature-based meta-analysis was performed.

Methods

Relative risks (RR) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (biochemical failure, BF; cancer-specific survival, CSS), and secondary outcomes (overall survival, OS; local or distant recurrence, LR/DM) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity, a meta-regression for clinic-pathological predictors and a correlation test for surrogates were conducted.

Results

Five trials (3,424 patients) were included. Patient population ranged from 267 to 1,521 patients. The longer hormonal treatment significantly improves BF (with significant heterogeneity) with an absolute benefit of 10.1%, and a non significant trend in CSS. With regard to secondary end-points, the longer hormonal treatment significantly decrease both the LR and the DM with an absolute difference of 11.7% and 11.5%. Any significant difference in OS was observed. None of the three identified clinico-pathological predictors (median PSA, range 9.5-20.35, Gleason score 7-10, 27-55% patients/trial, and T3-4, 13-77% patients/trial), did significantly affect outcomes. At the meta-regression analysis a significant correlation between the overall treatment benefit in BF, CSS, OS, LR and DM, and the length of the treatment was found (p≤0.03).

Conclusions

Although with significant heterogeneity (reflecting different patient' risk stratifications), a longer hormonal treatment duration significantly decreases biochemical, local and distant recurrences, with a trend for longer cancer specific survival.

Evidence-based medicine: comparative analysis of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues in combination with external beam radiation and surgery in the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues are a cornerstone in the management of many clinical situations in prostate cancer patients. The multiplicity of drugs make it difficult to decide which is the best drug to prescribe to each patient. Whether or not the different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues belong to the same drug class is only merely supposed. This study adds a systematic review of the literature in order to determine whether or not the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues available for prescription belong to the same drug class (same family, similar chemical structure, mechanism of action, and efficacy). The current evidence available is not enough to support a presumed drug class effect of the various analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

• To study whether luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues are agents of the same pharmacological class, i.e. whether they have the same clinical effect, using an evidence-based medicine approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

• We reviewed the evidence on the alleged 'drug class effect' among analogues and the existing bibliographic support for their use in various medical indications. We used PubMed as the main search source. Evidence level and degree of recommendation were assigned to each conclusion based on the 'Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network'.

RESULTS

• There are no studies designed to answer the question of class effect between LHRH analogues or agonists. Reviews and meta-analyses have been performed on many other issues related to therapeutic management either with analogues alone, or in combination with radiation therapy and surgery. • Direct comparisons do not allow definitive conclusions to be reached. Indirect evidence is obtained from randomized studies comparing the different LHRH analogues with other treatments used to obtain androgen deprivation. Other issues related to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that can support either the existence or non-existence of class effect were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

• The current available evidence is not enough to support a presumed class effect of the drug among the different analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma in its various clinical situations.

Outcome of patients with localized prostate cancer treated by radiotherapy after confirming the absence of lymph node invasion

Objective

Management of lymph nodes in radiotherapy for prostate cancer is an issue for curative intent. To find the influence of lymph nodes, patients with T1–T3 prostate cancer and surgically confirmed negative nodes were treated with radiotherapy.

Methods

After lymphadenectomy, 118 patients received photon beam radiotherapy with 66 Gy to the prostate. No adjuvant treatment was performed until biochemical failure. After failure, hormone therapy was administered. Follow-up period was 57 months (mean).

Results

Biochemical failure occurred in 47 patients. Few failures were observed in patients with low (24%) and intermediate risks (14%). In contrast, 64% of high-risk patients experienced failure, 97% of whom showed until 36 months. Most patients with failure responded well to hormone therapy. After 15 months (mean), a second biochemical failure occurred in 21% of patients who had the first failure, most of them were high risk. Factors involving failure were high initial and nadir prostate-specific antigen, advanced stage, short prostate-specific antigen-doubling time and duration between radiation and first failure. Failure showed an insufficient reduction in prostate-specific antigen after radiotherapy. Factor for second failure was prostate-specific antigen-doubling time at first failure.

Conclusions

Half of high-risk patients experienced biochemical failure, indicating one of the causes involves factors other than lymph nodes. Low-, intermediate- and the other half of high-risk patients did not need to take immediate hormone therapy after radiotherapy. After failure, delayed hormone therapy was effective. Prostate-specific antigen parameters were predictive factors for further outcome.