How to compare results after surgery or radiation for localized prostate carcinoma

Use of different definitions of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy changes conclusions about relative treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To report biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) after radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer with two separate failure definitions and compare the results with those after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

The study sample comprised 2516 patients with a median follow-up of 78 months. Biochemical relapse after RT was defined as either the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology definition (definition A [DefA]) or a prostate-specific antigen elevation of more than 2 ng/mL greater than the nadir prostate-specific antigen level (definition N [DefN]). Failure after RP was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level greater than 0.2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Compared with DefA, DefN resulted in a 13% greater bRFS rate at 5 years and a 12% lower bRFS rate at 10 years. On multivariate analysis, the treatment modality (RP versus RT) was a significant predictor of bRFS using DefA in favor of RP (P <0.001), but was not with DefN (P = 0.87). Higher radiation doses were independently associated with a better outcome with either definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with DefA, DefN resulted in better outcomes for up to 7 years after RT, but worse outcomes thereafter. The use of DefA versus DefN resulted in opposite conclusions about the relative efficacies of RT and RP, with DefN suggesting RT is equivalent to RP and DefA that it is worse than RP. Different definitions of biochemical failure after RT can result in differences in the conclusions about treatment efficacy in men with localized prostate cancer, thereby potentially affecting clinical decisions.

Aggressiveness of familial prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report on the aggressiveness of sporadic versus familial prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study sample consisted of 4,112 stage T1-3 prostate cancer patients. The outcome of interest was biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). The analysis was performed for two distinct time periods, 1986 to 1992 (year < or = 1992) and 1993 to 2002 (year > or = 1993), to encompass both the early and late prostate-specific antigen (PSA) eras.

RESULTS

A positive family history (FH positive) was reported in 16%. The 10-year bRFS rates for patients with negative family history (FH negative) versus FH positive were 59% and 63%, respectively (P = .90). However, in the year < or = 1992 period, the 10-year bRFS rates for FH negative versus FH positive were 45% and 34%, respectively (P = .015). In the year > or = 1993 period, the 10-year bRFS rates for FH negative versus FH positive were 61% and 67%, respectively (P = .54). Multivariate analysis failed to reveal family history as an independent predictor of relapse (P = .42). However, in the subset of patients in each era, family history was an independent predictor of relapse only for those treated in the year < or = 1992 period (P = .038).

CONCLUSION

Family history was an independent predictor of biochemical failure only early in the PSA era, and men with an FH positive presented with more favorable disease later in the PSA era. This suggests that with stage migration and improved therapy, the impact of family history on prognosis has become minimal. However, underlying genetic factors affecting prostate cancer behavior in individuals with familial prostate cancer may still be important in determining individual prognosis.

Is the alpha–beta ratio of prostate cancer really low? A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing standard and hyperfractionated conformal radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The objectives of the current study were to compare genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities as well as biochemical control (bRFS) in prostate cancer, utilizing conventional (2.0 Gy daily) (STD) or hyperfractionated (HFX) conformal irradiation (CRT). HFX (1.2 Gy BID) was chosen as a radiobiological method to try to reduce long term sequelae without compromising local control.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three-hundred-and-seventy consecutive patients (pts) entered this prospective, non-randomized trial in the period January 1993-January 2003; 209 were treated with STD and 161 with HFX CRT. All were evaluable for acute toxicity analysis, 179 (STD) and 151 pts (HFX) being evaluable for late sequelae and bRFS analyses. Pt characteristics were not statistically different in the two groups. CRT consisted of a 4-field technique for prostate and/or pelvic nodes and a 5-field boost with rectal shielding. Median doses were 74 and 79.2 Gy for STD and HFX patients respectively, the latter dose being isoeffective for tumour control assuming alpha/beta=10 (EQD(2)=73.9 Gy). Median follow-up was 29.4 months (25.2 mos for STD; 37.7 mos for HFX; P<0.01). The two regimens were compared in terms of acute and late GU and GI toxicities and 5-year bRFS by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Acute grade> or =2 GU toxicity was higher in the STD group (48.6% versus 37.3% in HFX, P=0.03), while no significant difference was found for acute GI toxicity. Late grade> or =2 GU and GI toxicities were lower in the HFX group (5-year actuarial rate: GU: 10.1% versus 20.3%, P=0.05; GI: 6.0% versus 10.6%, P=0.18). Five-year bRFS were 70% (+/-13.8%, 95% CI) and 82.6% (+/-7.2%) for STD and HFX, respectively (P=0.44); a trend favouring HFX was found in the subgroup of pts who did not receive hormonal therapy (5-year bRFS: 85.9%+/-12.4% versus 63.9%+/-23.8%, P=0.15). Multivariate analysis revealed only risk groups and age statistically related to bRFS but not fractionation regimen. Using the Nahum-Chapman TLCP model and prostate parameter set, which includes hypoxia, the TLCPs are approximately equal for the two regimens, whereas assuming alpha/beta=1.5 and no hypoxia we obtain 73% for the STD group but only 36% for the HFX group.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected from radiobiological considerations, HFX reduces GI and GU late toxicities. Concerning early bRFS, our clinical findings suggest that HFX is no less effective than STD when delivering an isoeffective (alpha/beta=10) dose. Despite the relatively short follow-up, this result appears to be inconsistent with a low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer.

Gleason score and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen in survival among patients with stage D2 prostate cancer

Although multiple studies have addressed the prognostic importance of tumor differentiation in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer, few data are available in patients with metastatic disease. We evaluated and compared survival data in two groups of men with Whitmore stage D2 metastatic prostate cancer initially treated with hormonal therapy. A series of 76 patients with D2 metastatic disease were evaluated and treated at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in conjunction with an additional cohort of 141 patients from the Louisiana State University School of Medicine (LSU). Pathological specimens were classified according to the Gleason score. Fifty-two (25%) of the combined NCI/LSU specimens had a Gleason score of 6 or less, 71 (34%) had a value of 7, and remaining 87 (41%) had scores between 8 and 10. The median PSA at the time of diagnosis for the NCI patients was 294.2 ng/ml. Time to treatment failure was defined as the time that a greater than 50% increase above nadir PSA was noted. In neither group was Gleason score correlated with overall survival. There was no association between the time to progression following hormone therapy and primary tumor Gleason score. The PSA concentration at the time of diagnosis was not correlated with the Gleason score for the NCI patients; however, there was an inverse correlation between pretreatment PSA level and time to progression following hormonal ablation. Gleason score does not appear to impact survival in metastatic prostate cancer. PSA as a marker of the biological behavior in metastatic disease may also be limited. These findings should be reevaluated in larger, better matched cohorts. Novel techniques such as serum proteomics, microarrays, and metastatic cell isolation methods may better predict outcome in advanced prostate cancer.