The addition of bicalutamide 150 mg to radiotherapy significantly improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer

Long-term outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy without hormone therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Until March 2018, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer had been administered high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without additional hormone therapy (HT) at our institution. In this study, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of this treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer who received HDR-BT and EBRT between April 1997 and March 2021 and who were followed up for at least 6 months were included in the study. High-risk groups were classified into five levels according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The EBRT and HDR-BT doses were 39-45 Gy/13-25 fractions. and 16.5-22 Gy/2-4 fractions, respectively. None of the patients received HT during initial treatment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate biochemical freedom from failure (bFFF), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates. Biochemical failure was also determined.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study, with a median follow-up of 91.9 months. The median age and initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level were 71 years and 10.95 ng/mL, respectively. The median biologically effective dose for HDR-BT plus EBRT was 270.3 Gy. The 5- and 7-year bFFF, CSS, and OS rates were 85.2 and 74.2%, 100 and 100%, and 95.7 and 91.9%, respectively. Only the iPSA ≤ 20 group was associated with the higher bFFF rate. The 7-year bFFF rates in the groups with iPSA ≤ 20 and iPSA > 20 were 86.6 and 48.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HDR-BT plus EBRT without HT might be an alternative treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and iPSA levels ≤ 20. Further studies are required to validate the efficacy of this treatment strategy.

A Phase 2 Randomized Open-label Study of Oral Darolutamide Monotherapy Versus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer (EORTC-GUCG 1532)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Darolutamide is an androgen receptor inhibitor that increases overall survival in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa). This phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of darolutamide as monotherapy without ADT in patients with eugonadal testosterone levels.

METHODS

This was a 24-wk, open-label, randomized study of patients with hormone-sensitive, histologically confirmed PCa requiring gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH); an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0/1; and life expectancy >1 yr. All patients received darolutamide 600 mg bid or a commercially available GnRH analog. The primary endpoint is a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, defined as a ≥80% decline at week 24 relative to baseline in the darolutamide study arm. The GnRH arm is used as an internal control. The secondary endpoints included changes in T levels, safety/tolerability, and quality of life.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 61 men enrolled, the median (range) age was 72 yr (53-86 yr); 42.6% of them had metastases. In the darolutamide arm, the evaluable population with available PSA values at baseline and week 24 consisted of 23 patients. Twenty-three (100%) evaluable darolutamide patients achieved a PSA decline of >80% at week 24 (primary endpoint), with a median (range) decrease of -99.1% (-91.9%, -100%). Serum T levels increased by a median (range) of 44.3 (5.7-144.0) at week 24, compared with baseline. In the darolutamide arm, 48.4% of men reported drug-related adverse events (AEs; mostly grade 1 or 2). The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs included gynecomastia (35.5%), fatigue (12.9%), hot flush (12.9%), and hypertension (12.9%). Health-related quality of life measures are descriptive, and GnRH arm results will be presented as an internal reference.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Darolutamide monotherapy was associated with a significant PSA response in nearly all men with hormone-naïve PCa. Testosterone-level changes and most common AEs (gynecomastia, fatigue, hypertension, and hot flush) were consistent with potent androgen receptor inhibition.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we report the first use of darolutamide, a novel antiandrogen, as monotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The study shows that darolutamide induce a profound suppression of prostate-specific antigen in all patients, with a safety profile different from that of ADT.

Structural overview and perspectives of the nuclear receptors, a major family as the direct targets for small-molecule drugs

The nuclear receptors (NRs) are an evolutionarily related family of transcription factors, which share certain common structural characteristics and regulate the expressions of various genes by recognizing different response elements. NRs play important roles in cell differentiation, proliferation, survival and apoptosis, rendering them indispensable in many physiological activities including growth and metabolism. As a result, dysfunctions of NRs are closely related to a variety of diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, infertility, inflammation, the Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular diseases, prostate and breast cancers. Meanwhile, small-molecule drugs directly targeting NRs have been widely used in the treatment of above diseases. Here we summarize recent progress in the structural biology studies of NR family proteins. Compared with the dozens of structures of isolated DNA-binding domains (DBDs) and the striking more than a thousand of structures of isolated ligand-binding domains (LBDs) accumulated in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) over thirty years, by now there are only a small number of multi-domain NR complex structures, which reveal the integration of different NR domains capable of the allosteric signal transduction, or the detailed interactions between NR and various coregulator proteins. On the other hand, the structural information about several orphan NRs is still totally unavailable, hindering the further understanding of their functions. The fast development of new technologies in structural biology will certainly help us gain more comprehensive information of NR structures, inspiring the discovery of novel NR-targeting drugs with a new binding site beyond the classic LBD pockets and/or a new mechanism of action.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with curative intent are at an increased risk of biochemical recurrence, metastatic progression and cancer-related death compared with patients treated for low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. Thus, these patients often need multimodal therapy to achieve complete disease control. Over the past two decades, multiple studies on the use of neoadjuvant treatment have been performed using conventional androgen deprivation therapy, which comprises luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists and/or first-line anti-androgens. However, despite results from these studies demonstrating a reduction in positive surgical margins and tumour volume, no benefit has been observed in hard oncological end points, such as cancer-related death. The introduction of potent androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs), such as abiraterone, apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide, has led to a renewed interest in using neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in high-risk prostate cancer. The addition of ARSIs to androgen deprivation therapy has demonstrated substantial survival benefits in the metastatic castration-resistant, non-metastatic castration-resistant and metastatic hormone-sensitive settings. Intuitively, a similar survival effect can be expected when applying ARSIs as a neoadjuvant strategy in high-risk prostate cancer. Most studies on neoadjuvant ARSIs use a pathological end point as a surrogate for long-term oncological outcome. However, no consensus yet exists regarding the ideal definition of pathological response following neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and pathologists might encounter difficulties in determining pathological response in hormonally treated prostate specimens. The neoadjuvant setting also provides opportunities to gain insight into resistance mechanisms against neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and, consequently, to guide personalized therapy.

The Use of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Plus 150mg Bicalutamide as First Line Salvage Therapy for Local Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) are often treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). However, more than 30% of such patients have high risk of recurrence. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and combination of radiotherapy and ADT are the standard care for recurrent PCa. Recently, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has gradually applied in the treatment of recurrent PCa. Here, we proposed a hypothesis that combined HIFU and bicalutamide 150mg as first line salvage therapy to treat patients with local recurrent PCa with visible lesions due to the following advantages: (1) HIFU is effective in reducing local tumor load, and bicalutamide 150mg is a feasible and safety option to combine with HIFU. (2) Compared with radiotherapy, HIFU plus 150mg bicalutamide is minimal invasiveness with fewer adverse effects and better quality of life(QOL); (3) Radiotherapy can be preserved as the second-line salvage method in the cases who are failure to HIFU and 150mg bicalutamide combination. More clinical trials are warranted to confirm this hypothesis in treatment with recurrent PCa.

Favorable prognosis of patients who received adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy after radiotherapy achieving undetectable levels of prostate-specific antigen in high- or very high-risk prostate cancer

Introduction

To determine the prognostic significance of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (A-ADT) over 1 year in achieving undetectable levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 0.001 ng/mL in prostate cancer patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radiotherapy (RT).

Materials and methods

A total of 197 patients with prostate cancer received RT, with a follow-up of ≥12 months. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA ≥nadir + 2 ng/mL after RT. We analyzed clinical outcomes, including survival, failure patterns, and prognostic factors affecting outcomes.

Results

Biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS), clinical failure-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were 91.1%, 95.4%, 96.9%, 99.5%, and 89.1%, respectively. Administration of long-term A-ADT significantly predicted favorable BCFFS (p = 0.027) and OS (p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. Nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL was an independent prognostic factor for BCFFS (p = 0.006) and OS (p = 0.021). The use of long-term A-ADT significantly affected nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL (p < 0.001). The patients with A-ADT for 1 year or longer had better BCFFS or OS than those for less than 1 year or those without A-ADT (p < 0.001). The best prognosis was demonstrated in patients treated with long-term A-ADT and nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL in BCFFS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The addition of long-term A-ADT over 1 year to RT demonstrated good treatment outcomes in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Achieving a nadir PSA value ≤0.001 ng/mL using combination therapy with RT and A-ADT is a powerful clinical predictor of treatment outcomes.

Current and emerging therapies for localized high-risk prostate cancer

Introduction: Despite progress in the field of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRPCa) treatments, high-risk patients treated with curative intent are at increased risk of biochemical recurrence, metastatic progression and cancer-related death. The optimal treatment strategy remains a topic of debate. This review provides an overview of the current and investigational therapeutic options for HRPCa.Areas covered: A PubMed search was performed for papers on the current perspectives on the multimodality treatment of HRPCa. We focus on both primary local treatment as well as systemic treatment options. Finally, relevant ongoing trials focusing on systemic treatments (including [neo]adjuvant treatments) enrolling at least 50 patients were retrieved, to highlight ongoing research and treatment optimization.Expert opinion: Disease progression in HRPCa patients is driven by local tumor extension and subclinical metastases. Therefore, the main treatment concept is a multimodal approach targeting the primary tumor with extended surgery or RT with long-term ADT and simultaneously targeting micro-metastatic deposits. However, there is still room for optimization. Upcoming clinical trials comparing surgery versus RT as local treatment, trials with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or androgen receptor signaling inhibitors will likely change the treatment landscape. However, a multimodal treatment strategy will stay as the cornerstone in the treatment of HRPCa.

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.

Effect of adjuvant hormone therapy in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence regarding the treatment effect of adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). AHT following radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or surgery is widely used in patients with PCa. However, the treatment effect is inconsistent in individual trials.

METHODS

The electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in September 2016. RCTs that evaluated the effects of AHT in patients with PCa were included. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risks (RR) were used to measure the treatment effects of AHT using a random effects model. The analyses were further stratified by factors that could affect the treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 14,594 potential studies were identified, and 27 RCTs were included. Compared with the control group, patients who received AHT were associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.85; P <.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.39-0.65; P <.001), total mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85-0.96; P = .001), recurrence (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60-0.81; P <.001), and disease-specific mortality (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.56-0.87; P <.001). However, no significant difference was observed between AHT and control for response rate (RR: 1.75; 95% CI: 0.91-3.37; P = .095).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis confirmed that patients who received AHT had a significant improvement in OS, DFS, total mortality, recurrence, and disease-specific mortality. Further, large-scale RCTs are required to evaluate the treatment effect in specific subpopulations.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Thromboembolic Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer with thromboembolic events.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried on April 5, 2017 for systematic review. Additionally, The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform was queried on June 23, 2017. Eligible studies reported thromboembolic events among individuals with prostate cancer exposed to ADT vs a lesser-exposed group. Five hundred sixty-nine unique studies were identified with 65 undergoing full-text review. We utilized the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement guidelines and the Cochrane Review Group's data extraction template. Study quality was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary statistic risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Small study effects were evaluated using Begg and Egger statistics.

RESULTS

In 10 studies "ADT without estrogen" increased the risk of thromboembolic events (risk ratio [RR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.77, P = .001). In 9 studies estrogen therapy alone was associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.78-7.80, P <.001). We found an increased risk of thromboembolic events from ADT use without estrogen when limited to localized disease (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.16, P <.001). Heterogeneity was resolved in those studies examining localized disease. There was no evidence of small study effects.

CONCLUSION

The currently available evidence suggests that ADT without estrogen is associated with an increased the risk of thromboembolic events.

The use of Hormonal Therapy to Augment Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an important adjunctive therapy to external beam radiation therapy (RT) for the definitive management of prostate cancer. The role of ADT is well-established for locally advanced or high-risk disease in conjunction with standard doses of RT, but less defined for intermediate-risk disease or with dose-escalated RT. The goal of this review is to summarize evidence evaluating the combination of ADT/RT, focusing on recent trials and current controversies as they pertain to the practicing clinician.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefit of ADT on biochemical control is maintained with dose-escalated RT according to recently reported phase III studies. Furthermore, there is now prospective, randomized evidence to support the addition of ADT to RT in the post-prostatectomy setting. ADT continues to play an important role for prostate cancer patients receiving dose-escalated RT. Future research is needed to identify subgroups most likely to benefit from this combination.

Enhanced radiosensitization of enzalutamide via schedule dependent administration to androgen-sensitive prostate cancer cells

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a progressive disease and the most diagnosed cancer in men. The current standard of care for high-risk localized PCa is a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation (XRT). The majority of these patients however become resistant due to incomplete responses to ADT as a result of selective cells maintaining androgen receptor (AR) activity. Improvement can be made if increasing radiosensitivity is realized. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of the next-generation PCa drug Enzalutamide (ENZA), as a radiosensitizer in XRT therapy.

METHODS

Using a number of androgen-dependent (LNCaP, PC3-T877A) and androgen-independent (C4-2, 22RV1, PC3, PC3-AR V7) cell lines, the effect of ENZA as a radiosensitizer was studied alone or in combination with ADT and/or XRT. Cell viability and cell survival were assessed, along with determination of cell cycle arrest, DNA damage response and repair, apoptosis and senescence.

RESULTS

Our results indicated that either ENZA alone (in AR positive, androgen-dependent PCa cells) or in combination with ADT (in AR positive, hormone-insensitive PCa cells) potentiates radiation response [Dose enhancement factor (DEF) of 1.75 in LNCAP and 1.35 in C4-2] stronger than ADT + XRT conditions. Additionally, ENZA sensitized androgen dependent PCa cells to XRT in a schedule-dependent manner, where concurrent administration of ENZA and radiation lead to a maximal radiosensitization when compared to either drug administration prior or after XRT. In LNCaP cells, ENZA treatment significantly prolonged the presence of XRT-induced phospho-γH2AX up to 24 h after treatment; suggesting enhanced DNA damage. It also significantly increased XRT-induced apoptosis and senescence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicates that ENZA acts as a much stronger radiosensitizer compared to ADT. We have also observed that its efficacy is schedule dependent and related to increased levels of DNA damage and a delay of DNA repair processes. Finally, the initial abrogation of DNA-PKcs activity by AR inhibition and its subsequent recovery might represent an important mechanism by which PCa cells acquire resistance to combined anti-androgen and XRT treatment. This work suggests a new use of ENZA in combination with XRT that could be applicable in clinical trial settings for patients with early and intermediate hormone responsive disease.

Niclosamide and Bicalutamide Combination Treatment Overcomes Enzalutamide- and Bicalutamide-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Activation of the androgen receptor (AR) and its splice variants is linked to advanced prostate cancer and drives resistance to antiandrogens. The roles of AR and AR variants in the development of resistance to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and bicalutamide treatment, however, are still incompletely understood. To determine whether AR variants play a role in bicalutamide resistance, we developed bicalutamide-resistant LNCaP cells (LNCaP-BicR) and found that these resistant cells express significantly increased levels of AR variants, particularly AR-V7, both at the mRNA and protein levels. Exogenous expression of AR-V7 in bicalutamide-sensitive LNCaP cells confers resistance to bicalutamide treatment. Knockdown of AR-V7 in bicalutamide- and enzalutamide-resistant CWR22Rv1, enzalutamide-resistant C4-2B (C4-2B MDVR), and LNCaP-BicR cells reversed bicalutamide resistance. Niclosamide, a potent inhibitor of AR variants, significantly enhanced bicalutamide treatment. Niclosamide and bicalutamide combination treatment not only suppressed AR and AR variants expression and inhibited their recruitment to the PSA promoter, but also significantly induced apoptosis in bicalutamide- and enzalutamide-resistant CWR22Rv1 and C4-2B MDVR cells. In addition, combination of niclosamide with bicalutamide inhibited the growth of enzalutamide-resistant tumors. In summary, our results demonstrate that AR variants, particularly AR-V7, drive bicalutamide resistance and that targeting AR-V7 with niclosamide can resensitize bicalutamide-resistant cells to bicalutamide treatment. Furthermore, combination of niclosamide with bicalutamide inhibits enzalutamide resistant tumor growth, suggesting that the combination of niclosamide and bicalutamide could be a potential cost-effective strategy to treat advanced prostate cancer in patients, including those who fail to respond to enzalutamide therapy. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(8); 1521-30. ©2017 AACR.

Assessing the Optimum Use of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing External Beam Radiation Therapy

The optimum use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in high-risk prostate cancer patients has not been defined in the setting of dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy. A retrospective analysis of 1,290 patients with high-risk prostate cancer from June 1987 through March 2010 treated with external beam radiation therapy was performed. Median follow-up was 7.2 years, and 797 patients received ADT, with 384 patients experiencing a biochemical failure and 145 with distant metastasis. ADT was associated with lower risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis than no ADT after adjusting for age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, year of diagnosis, tumor stage, and radiation dose. ADT was associated with a greater reduction in biochemical failure in the low-dose radiation group than in the high-dose group. Patients with >24 months of ADT had a lower risk of PSA failures than those with <24 months. ADT was associated with decreased risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis in all patients. The effect of ADT on reducing risk of biochemical failure was greater among men with low-dose radiation. There was a benefit in PSA and distant metastasis-free survival with >24 months of ADT in all patients who received ADT.

PMH 9907: Long-term outcomes of a randomized phase 3 study of short-term bicalutamide hormone therapy and dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of hormone therapy (HT) with dose-escalated external-beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) in the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) remains controversial. The authors report the long-term outcome of a phase 3 study of DE-EBRT with or without HT for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC).

METHODS

From 1999 to 2006, 252 of an intended 338 patients with LPC were randomized to receive DE-EBRT with or without 5 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent bicalutamide 150 mg once daily. The study was closed early because of contemporary concerns surrounding bicalutamide. The primary outcome was biochemical failure (BF) incidence, and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and quality of life. The BF and OS rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier methods and were compared using the Gray test and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were excluded from analysis. Characteristics were well balanced in each treatment arm. Ninety-five percent of patients had IRPC. The prescribed dose increased from 75.6 grays (Gy) in 42 fractions to 78 Gy in 39 fractions over the period. At a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 98 BFs occurred, with no significant effect of HT versus no HT on the BF rate (40% vs 47%; P = .32), the OS rate (82% vs 86%; P = .37), the LC rate (52% vs 48 %; P = .32) or quality of life, in the patients who completed the questionnaires. Dose escalation to 75.6 Gy versus >75.6 Gy reduced the BF rate by 26% (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who predominantly have IRPC, the addition of HT to DE-EBRT did not significantly affect BF, OS, or LC. Bicalutamide appeared to be well tolerated. The conclusions from the study are limited by incomplete recruitment. Cancer 2016;122:2595-603. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The role of androgen deprivation therapy on biochemical failure and distant metastasis in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: effects of radiation dose escalation

BACKGROUND

To determine whether the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on the risk of biochemical failure varies at different doses of radiation in patients treated with definitive external beam radiation for intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC).

METHODS

This study included 1218 IRPC patients treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles from June 1987 to January 2009 at our institution. Patient, treatment, and tumor information was collected, including age, race, Gleason score, radiation dose, PSA, T-stage, and months on ADT.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 6 years. A total of 421(34.6%) patients received ADT, 211 (17.3%) patients experienced a biochemical failure, and 38 (3.1%) developed distant metastasis. On univariable analyses, higher PSA, earlier year of diagnosis, higher T-stage, lower doses of radiation, and the lack of ADT were associated with an increased risk of biochemical failure. No difference in biochemical failure was seen among different racial groups or with the use of greater than 6 months of ADT compared with less than 6 months. On multivariate analysis, the use of ADT was associated with a lower risk of biochemical failure than no ADT (HR, 0.599; 95% CI, 0.367-0.978; P<0.04) and lower risk of distant metastasis (HR, 0.114; 95% CI, 0.014-0.905; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT reduced the risk of biochemical failure and distant metastasis in both low- and high dose radiation groups among men with intermediate-risk PCa. Increasing the duration of ADT beyond 6 months did not reduce the risk of biochemical failures. Better understanding the benefit of ADT in the era of dose escalation will require a randomized clinical trial.

Non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal antiandrogens and castration are the main therapy options for advanced stages of prostate cancer. However, debate regarding the value of these treatment options continues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists or surgical castration monotherapy for treating advanced stages of prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancers Group Specialized Register (PROSTATE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings, three trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 23 December 2013, together with reference lists, and contacted selected experts in the field and manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for men in advanced stages of prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author screened all titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Then, two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the study authors to request additional information. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and used the fixed-effect model for heterogeneity less than 50%; we used the random-effects model for substantial or considerable heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 3060 randomly assigned participants were included in this review. The quality of evidence is hampered by risk of bias. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens decreased overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.48, six studies, 2712 participants) and increased clinical progression (one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, five studies, 2067 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45, six studies, 2373 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25, three studies, 1336 participants), as well as treatment failure (one year: RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38, four studies, 1539 participants; 70 weeks: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52, five studies, 1845 participants; two years: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24, two studies, 808 participants), compared with medical or surgical castration. The quality of evidence for overall survival, clinical progression and treatment failure was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Predefined subgroup analyses showed that use of non-steroidal antiandrogens, compared with castration, was less favourable for overall survival, clinical progression (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) and treatment failure (at one year, 70 weeks, two years) in men with metastatic disease. Use of non-steroidal antiandrogens also increased the risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.94, eight studies, 1559 participants), including events such as breast pain (RR 22.97, 95% CI 14.79 to 35.67, eight studies, 2670 participants), gynaecomastia (RR 8.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 22.28, nine studies, 2774 participants) and asthenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.31, five studies, 2073 participants). The risk of other adverse events, such as hot flashes (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.27, nine studies, 2774 participants), haemorrhage (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, two studies, 546 participants), nocturia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.69, one study, 480 participants), fatigue (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, one study, 51 participants), loss of sexual interest (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, one study, 51 participants) and urinary frequency (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47, one study, 480 participants) was decreased when non-steroidal antiandrogens were used. The quality of evidence for breast pain, gynaecomastia and hot flashes was rated as moderate according to GRADE. The effects of non-steroidal antiandrogens on cancer-specific survival and biochemical progression remained unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence suggests that use of non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy compared with medical or surgical castration monotherapy for advanced prostate cancer is less effective in terms of overall survival, clinical progression, treatment failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Evidence quality was rated as moderate according to GRADE. Further research is likely to have an important impact on results for patients with advanced but non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy. However, we believe that research is likely not necessary on non-steroidal antiandrogen monotherapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer. Only high-quality, randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up should be conducted. If further research is planned to investigate biochemical progression, studies with standardised follow-up schedules using measurements of prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines should be conducted.

Intensified adjuvant treatment of prostate carcinoma: feasibility analysis of a phase I/II trial

PURPOSE

To perform a preliminary feasibility acute and late toxicity evaluation of an intensified and modulated adjuvant treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phase I/II has been designed. Eligible patients were 79 years old or younger, with an ECOG of 0-2, previously untreated, histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma with no distant metastases, pT2-4 N0-1, and with at least one of the following risk factors: capsular perforation, positive surgical margins, and seminal vesicle invasion. All patients received a minimum dose on tumor bed of 64.8 Gy, or higher dose (70.2 Gy; 85.4%), according to the pathological stage, pelvic lymph nodes irradiation (57.7%), and/or hormonal therapy (69.1%).

RESULTS

123 patients were enrolled and completed the planned treatment, with good tolerance. Median follow-up was 50.6 months. Grade 3 acute toxicity was only 2.4% and 3.3% for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) tract, respectively. No patient had late grade 3 GI toxicity, and the GU grade 3 toxicity incidence was 5.8% at 5 years. 5-year BDSF was 90.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

A modulated and intensified adjuvant treatment in PCa was feasible in this trial. A further period of observation can provide a complete assessment of late toxicity and confirm the BDSF positive results.

RGD-Binding Integrins in Prostate Cancer: Expression Patterns and Therapeutic Prospects against Bone Metastasis

Prostate cancer is the third leading cause of male cancer deaths in the developed world. The current lack of highly specific detection methods and efficient therapeutic agents for advanced disease have been identified as problems requiring further research. The integrins play a vital role in the cross-talk between the cell and extracellular matrix, enhancing the growth, migration, invasion and metastasis of cancer cells. Progression and metastasis of prostate adenocarcinoma is strongly associated with changes in integrin expression, notably abnormal expression and activation of the β₃ integrins in tumour cells, which promotes haematogenous spread and tumour growth in bone. As such, influencing integrin cell expression and function using targeted therapeutics represents a potential treatment for bone metastasis, the most common and debilitating complication of advanced prostate cancer. In this review, we highlight the multiple ways in which RGD-binding integrins contribute to prostate cancer progression and metastasis, and identify the rationale for development of multi-integrin antagonists targeting the RGD-binding subfamily as molecularly targeted agents for its treatment.

Endocrine prevention and treatment of prostate cancer

The major androgen within the prostate is dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT and 5α-reductase are highly associated with prostate cancer. It has been hypothesised that inhibition of 5α-reductase activity might reduce the risk of prostate cancer development, slow tumour progression and even treat the existing disease. The basis for endocrine treatment of prostate cancer is to deprive the cancer cells of androgens. Every type of endocrine treatment carries adverse events which influence quality of life in different ways. 5α-Reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) reduce risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer but they do not eliminate it. By suppressing PSA from BPH and indolent prostate cancers 5-ARI enhances the ability of a rising PSA to define a group of men at increased risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. Also fewer high-grade cancers are missed because biopsy is more accurate in smaller prostates. Androgen deprivation is an effective treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. However, it is not curative, and creates a spectrum of unwanted effects that influence quality of life. Castration remains the frontline treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, where orchiectomy, oestrogen agonists, GnRH agonists and antagonists produce equivalent clinical responses. MAB is not significantly more effective than single agent GnRH agonist or orchiectomy. Nonsteroidal antiandrogen monotherapy is as effective as castration in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer offering quality of life benefits. Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment has its place mainly in the external beam radiotherapy setting. Increasing data suggest IAD is as effective as continuous ADT. The decision regarding the type of androgen deprivation should be made individually after informing the patient of all available treatment options, including watchful waiting, and on the basis of potential benefits and adverse effects. There are new promising secondary or tertiary forms of endocrine therapies under evaluation, like CTP17A1 inhibitors and more potent antiandrogens including MDV3100, which give new hope for patients developing castration resistant prostate cancer.

Androgenic suppression combined with radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced prostate cancer is often associated with elevated recurrence rates. Despite the modest response observed, external-beam radiotherapy has been the preferred treatment for this condition. More recent evidence from randomised trials has demonstrated clinical benefit with the combined use of androgen suppression in such cases. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the combination of distinct hormone therapy modalities versus radiotherapy alone for overall survival, disease-free survival and toxicity.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov) were scanned for randomised clinical trials involving radiotherapy with or without androgen suppression in local prostate cancer. The search strategy included articles published until October 2011. The studies were examined and the data of interest were plotted for meta-analysis. Survival outcomes were reported as a hazard ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Data from ten trials published from 1988 to 2011 were included, comprising 6555 patients. There was a statistically significant advantage to the use of androgen suppression, in terms of both overall survival and disease free survival, when compared to radiotherapy alone. The use of long-term goserelin (up to three years) was the strategy providing the higher magnitude of clinical benefit. In contrast to goserelin, there were no trials evaluating the use of other luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues as monotherapy. Complete hormonal blockade was not shown to be superior to goserelin monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this systematic review, the evidence supports the use of androgen suppression with goserelin monotherapy as the standard treatment for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, which are at high risk of recurrence or metastases.

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.

Risk stratification in the hormonal treatment of patients with prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common type of cancer found in American men, other than skin cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in 2008. About 28,660 men will die of this disease this year and PCa remains the second-leading cause of cancer death in men. One in six men will get PCa during his lifetime and one in 35 will die of the disease. Today, more than 2 million men in the United States who have had PCa are still alive. The death rate for PCa continues to decline, chiefly due to early detection and treatment, and improved salvage therapy such as hormone therapy (HT). HT continues to be a mainstay for primary-recurrent PCa and locally-advanced PCa. However, HT is associated with many undesirable side effects including sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis and hot flashes, all of which can lead to decreased quality of life (QOL). These risks are seen in both long- and short-term HT regimens. Additionally, research in recent years has revealed trends related to clinico pathological variables and their predictive ability in HT outcomes. Awareness of the potential adverse effects, the risks associated with HT and the prognostic ability of clinical and pathological variables is important in determining optimal therapy for individual patients. A rigorous evaluation of the current scientific literature associated with HT was conducted with the goal of identifying the most favorable balance of benefits and risks associated with HT.

Molecular targets for radiation oncology in prostate cancer

Recent selected developments of the molecular science of prostate cancer (PrCa) biology and radiation oncology are reviewed. We present potential targets for molecular integration treatment strategies with radiation therapy (RT), and highlight potential strategies for molecular treatment in combination with RT for patient care. We provide a synopsis of the information to date regarding molecular biology of PrCa, and potential integrated research strategy for improved treatment of PrCa. Many patients with early-stage disease at presentation can be treated effectively with androgen ablation treatment, surgery, or RT. However, a significant portion of men are diagnosed with advanced stage/high-risk disease and these patients progress despite curative therapeutic intervention. Unfortunately, management options for these patients are limited and are not always successful including treatment for hormone refractory disease. In this review, we focus on molecules of extracellular matrix component, apoptosis, androgen receptor, RUNX, and DNA methylation. Expanding our knowledge of the molecular biology of PrCa will permit the development of novel treatment strategies integrated with RT to improve patient outcome.

MDM2 antagonists boost antitumor effect of androgen withdrawal: implications for therapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy is the standard of care for newly diagnosed or recurrent prostate cancers. It uses anti-androgen agents, castration, or both to eliminate cancer promoting effect of testicular androgen. The p53 tumor suppressor controls a major pathway that can block cell proliferation or induce apoptosis in response to diverse forms of oncogenic stress. Activation of the p53 pathway in cancer cells expressing wild-type p53 has been proposed as a novel therapeutic strategy and recently developed MDM2 antagonists, the nutlins, have validated this in preclinical models of cancer. The crosstalk between p53 and androgen receptor (AR) signaling suggest that p53 activation could augment antitumor outcome of androgen ablation in prostate cancer. Here, we test this hypothesis in vitro and in vivo using the MDM2 antagonist, nutlin-3 and the p53 wild-type prostate cancer cell line, LNCaP.

RESULTS

Using charcoal-stripped serum as a cellular model of androgen deprivation, we show an increased apoptotic effect of p53 activation by nutlin-3a in the androgen-dependent LNCaP cells and to a lesser extent in androgen-independent but responsive 22Rv1 cell line. This effect is due, at least in part, to an enhanced downregulation of AR expression by activated p53. In vivo, androgen deprivation followed by two weeks of nutlin administration in LNCaP-bearing nude mice led to a greater tumor regression and dramatically increased survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Since majority of prostate tumors express wild-type p53, its activation by MDM2 antagonists in combination with androgen depletion may offer an efficacious new approach to prostate cancer therapy.

Combining radiation therapy and androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer-a critical review

Interest has been increasing in the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy (RT) in the management of localized prostate cancer. Preclinical studies have provided some rationale for the use of this combination. In patients with high-risk disease, the benefit of a combined approach, with the addition of adjuvant hormonal therapy, is supported by results of randomized trials. In contrast, for patients with low-risk disease, there is no obvious therapeutic advantage except for cytoreduction. The usefulness of short-term hormonal therapy in association with rt for intermediate-risk patients is still debatable, particularly in the context of doseescalated RT. The optimal timing and duration of ADT, in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings alike, are still under investigation. In view of the potential side effects with ADT, further studies are being performed to better identify subsets of patients who will definitely benefit from this therapy in combination with rt.

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.

Antagonistic interaction between bicalutamide (Casodex) and radiation in androgen-positive prostate cancer LNCaP cells

BACKGROUND

Bicalutamide (Casodex) reportedly improves high-risk prostate cancer survival as an adjuvant treatment following radiotherapy. However, biological data for the interaction between bicalutamide and ionizing radiation in concomitant association are lacking.

METHODS

To explore this issue, androgen-dependent (LNCaP) and -independent (DU145) human prostate cancer cells were exposed for 48 hr to 20, 40, or 80 microM bicalutamide introduced before (neoadjuvant), during (concomitant), or following (adjuvant) radiation. Growth inhibition and cytotoxicity, cell cycle distribution and expression of the prostate serum antigen (PSA) and androgen receptor (AR), were measured as endpoints.

RESULTS

Bicalutamide-induced cytotoxic and cytostatic effects were found to be correlated with a marked G1 phase arrest and S phase depression. The drug down-regulated PSA and AR proteins and psa mRNA in LNCaP cells. However, transient up-regulation of the expression of ar mRNA was observed in the presence of 40 microM drug. DU145 cells did not express PSA and proved to be comparatively resistant to the drug from both cytostatic and cytotoxic effects. Bicalutamide dose-dependently induced a significant decrease of radiation susceptibility among drug survivors in LNCaP cells, whilst the interaction appeared to be additive in DU145 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The antagonistic radiation-drug interaction observed in LNCaP cells is of significance in relation to combined radiotherapy-bicalutamide treatments directed against tumors expressing the AR. The results suggest that bicalutamide is amenable to combined schedule with radiotherapy provided the drug and radiation are not given in close temporal proximity.

The Early Prostate Cancer program: bicalutamide in nonmetastatic prostate cancer

The Early Prostate Cancer program is investigating the addition of bicalutamide 150 mg to standard care for localized or locally advanced, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The third program analysis, at 7.4 years' median follow-up, has shown that bicalutamide 150 mg does not benefit patients with localized disease, but does confer significant progression-free survival benefits in patients with locally advanced disease, irrespective of standard care received. In patients receiving radiotherapy for locally advanced disease, bicalutamide 150 mg significantly reduced the risk of death by 35%; the magnitude of this benefit compares favorably with that of adjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in a similar population. Bicalutamide 150 mg represents an alternative to castration for patients with locally advanced disease who wish to avoid the side effects associated with castration.

Evidence-based radiation oncology: Definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The standard treatment options based on the risk category (stage, Gleason score, PSA) for localized prostate cancer include surgery, radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The literature does not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy, whereas both approaches differ in their side effects. The definitive external beam irradiation is frequently employed in stage T1b-T1c, T2 and T3 tumors. There is a pretty strong evidence that intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation. The latter requires reduction of the irradiated normal tissue (using 3-dimensional conformal approach, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, etc.). Recent data suggest that prostate cancer may benefit from hypofractionation due to relatively low alpha/beta ratio; these findings warrant confirmation though. The role of whole pelvis irradiation is still controversial. Numerous randomized trials demonstrated a clinical benefit in terms of biochemical control, local and distant control, and overall survival from the addition of androgen suppression to external beam radiotherapy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. These studies typically included locally advanced (T3-T4) and poor-prognosis (Gleason score >7 and/or PSA >20 ng/mL) tumors and employed neoadjuvant/concomitant/adjuvant androgen suppression rather than only adjuvant setting. The ongoing trials will hopefully further define the role of endocrine treatment in more favorable risk patients and in the setting of the dose escalated radiotherapy. Brachytherapy (BRT) with permanent implants may be offered to low-risk patients (cT1-T2a, Gleason score <7, or 3+4, PSA <or=10 ng/mL), with prostate volume of <or=50 ml, no previous transurethral prostate resection and a good urinary function. Some recent data suggest a benefit from combining external beam irradiation and BRT for intermediate-risk patients. EBRT after radical prostatectomy improves disease-free survival and biochemical and local control rates in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 tumors. Salvage radiotherapy may be considered at the time of biochemical failure in previously non-irradiated patients.