Mortality in men with localized prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant hormone therapy

Protocol for a phase III RCT and economic analysis of two exercise delivery methods in men with PC on ADT

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat prostate cancer. However, side effects of ADT often lead to reduced quality of life and physical function. Existing evidence demonstrates that exercise can ameliorate multiple treatment-related side effects for men on ADT, yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (e.g., supervised group in-centre vs. individual home-based) may be important from clinical and economic perspectives; however, few studies have compared different delivery models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence and an understanding of predictors of adherence are critical to achieving sustained benefits, but such data are lacking. The primary aim of this multi-centre phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether a home-based delivery model is non-inferior to a group-based delivery model in terms of benefits in fatigue and fitness in this population. Two other key aims include examining cost-effectiveness and long-term adherence.

METHODS

Men diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage, starting or continuing on ADT for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to a study centre are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over 12 months (baseline and every 3 months during the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up phases), including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Biological outcomes are collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A total of 200 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to supervised group training or home-based training supported by smartphones, health coaches, and Fitbit technology. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Outcomes include fatigue, quality of life, fitness measures, body composition, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report and utilities via the EQ-5D.

DISCUSSION

To disseminate publicly funded exercise programs widely, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have to be demonstrated. The goals of this trial are to provide these data along with an increased understanding of adherence to exercise among men with prostate cancer receiving ADT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02834416 ). Registration date was June 2, 2016.

Oncological impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on permanent iodine-125 seed brachytherapy in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves oncological outcomes of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with permanent brachytherapy.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and November 2014, 564 patients underwent transperineal ultrasonography-guided permanent iodine-125 seed brachytherapy. We retrospectively analyzed low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The clinical variables were evaluated for influence on biochemical recurrence-free survival, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 484 patients with low-risk (259 patients) or intermediate-risk disease (225 patients) were evaluated. Of these, 188 received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. With a median follow up of 71 months, the 5-year actuarial biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of patients who did and did not receive neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were 92.9% and 93.6%, respectively (P = 0.2843). When patients were stratified by risk group, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not improve biochemical recurrence-free survival outcomes in low- (P = 0.8949) or intermediate-risk (P = 0.1989) patients. The duration or type of hormonal therapy was not significant in predicting biochemical recurrence. In a multivariate analysis, Gleason score, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, clinical T stage, and prostate dosimetry, primary Gleason score and positive core rate were significant predictive factors of biochemical recurrence-free survival, whereas neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was insignificant. Furthermore, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not significantly influence progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy does not improve oncological outcomes. Its use should be restricted to patients who require prostate volume reduction.

Brachytherapy monotherapy may be sufficient for a subset of patients with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Brachytherapy (BT) monotherapy is a well-established treatment modality for favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) disease are often recommended trimodality therapy involving BT, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). We sought to investigate the relative benefit of supplemental therapies (ADT and/or EBRT) for FIR and UIR prostate cancer in a large dataset.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We identified 3,723 patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with BT between 1997 and 2013, including 1,989 and 1,734 patients with FIR and UIR disease, respectively. For the FIR cohort, Fine and Gray's competing risks regression model was used to evaluate whether there was a difference in prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) between BT vs. BT + supplemental therapy (ADT, EBRT, or both). For the UIR cohort, this regression model was used to evaluate whether supplemental ADT, EBRT, or both decreased PCSM beyond BT alone. Both regression models were adjusted for clinical and treatment-related factors.

RESULTS

The median follow-up periods were 7.7 years (interquartile range: 5.4-10.5) for the FIR cohort and 7.8 years (interquartile range: 5.3-10.6) for the UIR cohort. For the FIR cohort, there was no difference in PCSM between BT monotherapy vs. BT + supplemental therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.70; 95% CI: 0.46-6.29; P = 0.43). For the UIR cohort, supplemental EBRT (AHR = 2.66; 95% CI: 1.12-6.34; P = 0.03), ADT (AHR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.38-2.43; P = 0.93), or both (AHR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.42-5.01; P = 0.55) were not associated with improved PCSM compared with BT alone.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, supplemental therapies did not offer an improvement in PCSM compared with BT alone for FIR or UIR prostate cancers. Further prospective clinical trials are required to determine whether BT monotherapy may be sufficient for a subset of patients with UIR disease.

American Brachytherapy Society Task Group Report: Use of androgen deprivation therapy with prostate brachytherapy-A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Prostate brachytherapy (PB) has well-documented excellent long-term outcomes in all risk groups. There are significant uncertainties regarding the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with brachytherapy. The purpose of this report was to review systemically the published literature and summarize present knowledge regarding the impact of ADT on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase covering the years 1996-2016. Selected were articles with >100 patients, minimum followup 3 years, defined risk stratification, and directly examining the role and impact of ADT on bPFS, CSS, and OS. The studies were grouped to reflect disease risk stratification. We also reviewed the impact of ADT on OS, cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and on-going brachytherapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two selected studies (43,303 patients) were included in this review; 7 high-dose rate and 45 low-dose rate; 25 studies were multi-institutional and 27 single institution (retrospective review or prospective data collection) and 2 were RCTs. The studies were heterogeneous in patient population, risk categories, risk factors, followup time, and treatment administered, including ADT administration and duration (median, 3-12 months);71% of the studies reported a lack of benefit, whereas 28% showed improvement in bPFS with addition of ADT to PB. The lack of benefit was seen in low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk (IR) disease and most high-dose rate studies. A bPFS benefit of up to 15% was seen with ADT use in patients with suboptimal dosimetry, those with multiple adverse risk factors (unfavorable IR [uIR]), and most high-risk (HR) studies. Four studies reported very small benefit to CSS (2%). None of the studies showed OS advantage; however, three studies reported an absolute 5-20% OS detriment with ADT. Literature suggests that OS detriment is more likely in older patients or those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Four RCTs with an adequate number of patients and well-defined risk stratification are in progress. One RCT will answer the question regarding the role of ADT with PB in favorable IR patients and the other three RCTs will focus on optimal duration of ADT in the uIR and favorable HR population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with brachytherapy have excellent long-term disease outcomes. Existing evidence shows no benefit of adding ADT to PB in low-risk and favorable IR patients. UIR and HR patients and those with suboptimal dosimetry may have up to 15% improvement in bPFS with addition of 3-12 months of ADT, with uncertain impact on CSS and a potential detriment on OS. To minimize morbidity, one should exercise caution in prescribing ADT together with PB, in particular to older men and those with existing cardiovascular disease. Due to the retrospective nature of this evidence, significant selection, and treatment bias, no definitive conclusions are possible. RCT is urgently needed to define the potential role and optimal duration of ADT in uIR and favorable HR disease.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy use and the risk of death in men with prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy who have no or at least a single risk factor for coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) use is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD)-induced congestive heart failure (CHF) or myocardial infarction (MI). However, its effect in men with no or at least a single risk factor for CAD stratified by prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether NHT use affects the risk of ACM in men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa treated with brachytherapy who have no or at least a single risk factor for CAD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective study cohort consisted of 5411 men with low-risk PCa (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <10 ng/ml, Gleason score 6, and clinical stage T1-T2a); 4365 men with intermediate-risk PCa (PSA 10-20 ng/ml or Gleason score <8 or clinical stage <T3); and 1360 men with localized or locally advanced, high-risk PCa consecutively treated in a community-based, multi-institutional setting between 1991 and 2006. CAD risk factors included at least a history of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, or hypertension. The median follow-up for men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa were 4.1, 4.4, and 4.6 yr, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

Men were treated with or without a median duration of 4 mo of NHT followed by brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Cox regression multivariable analyses were performed to assess whether NHT use affected the risk of ACM in men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa, adjusting for age; year of brachytherapy; supplemental EBRT use; the presence of CAD risk factors; treatment propensity score; and known PCa prognostic factors, including pretreatment PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical stage.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

NHT use was associated with a significantly increased risk of ACM in men with low-risk PCa (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.51; p<0.01) but not in men with intermediate-risk (adjusted HR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.96-1.35; p=0.15) or high-risk PCa (adjusted HR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66-1.13; p=0.28). Using an interaction model for the low-risk group, NHT use was associated with a significantly increased risk of ACM in the subgroup of men with at least a single CAD risk factor (adjusted HR: 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.74; p=0.01) but not for men with no CAD risk factors (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.51; p=0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

For men with no or at least a single risk factor for CAD, NHT use is associated with an increased risk of ACM in the setting of low-risk but not intermediate- or high-risk PCa. This effect is driven by the subgroup of men with at least a single risk factor for CAD. These results warrant prospective validation given the widespread use of NHT for prostate downsizing prior to brachytherapy.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Predictors in the outcome of 125I brachytherapy as monotherapy for prostate cancer

A number of different prostate cancer treatment modalities exist. Nomograms are used to assist clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate treatment. However, the predicted outcome for (125)I brachytherapy is much worse than what would be expected considering the actual survival rates. This underestimation may result in suboptimal treatment decisions. Therefore, better predictors for outcome after (125)I brachytherapy are necessary. The following factors, which may either influence outcome or predict outcome after brachytherapy, are discussed: tumor characteristics and risk stratification, patient age at treatment, obesity, adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, prostate-specific antigen bounce, implantation technique and dosimetry. For the prediction of outcome after (125)I brachytherapy, as long as the quality of the implant is optimal, only high-risk prostate cancer was found to have a negative impact on outcome.