Outcomes and prognostic factors in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: multi-institutional analysis of the Spanish RECAP database

Significance of androgen-deprivation therapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with high-dose radiotherapy: A literature review

The real-world benefits of adding androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and its optimal duration when combined with current standard high-dose radiation therapy (RT) remain unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy of and toxicities associated with ADT in the setting of combination with high-dose RT for intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). This article is a modified and detailed version of the commentary on Clinical Question 8 described in the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer (ver. 2023). A qualitative systematic review was performed according to the Minds Guide. All relevant published studies between September 2010 and August 2020, which assessed the outcomes of IR or HR PCa treated with high-dose RT, were screened using two databases (PubMed and ICHUSHI). A total of 41 studies were included in this systematic review, mostly consisting of retrospective studies (N = 34). The evidence basically supports the benefit of adding ADT to high-dose RT to improve tumor control. Regarding IR populations, many studies suggested the existence of a subgroup for which adding ADT had no impact on either overall survival or the BF-free duration. On the other hand, regarding HR populations, several studies suggested the positive impact of adding ADT for ≥1 year on overall survival. Adding ADT increases not only the risk of sexual dysfunction but also that of cardiovascular toxicities or bone fracture. Although the benefit of adding ADT was basically suggested for both IR and HR populations, further investigations are warranted to identify subgroups of patients for whom ADT has no benefit, as well as the appropriate duration of ADT for those who do derive benefit.

Low-/high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: long-term results from a single institution team experience

Purpose

To compare brachytherapy (BT) boost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) techniques in patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Material and methods

Between January 2005 and February 2018, 142 patients (50 LDR and 92 HDR) with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with a BT boost, and retrospectively analyzed. Prescribed dose was 45 Gy with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus 100-108 Gy with LDR-BT, and 60 Gy with EBRT plus one fraction of 10 Gy with HDR-BT. 99% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 6 months. Primary endpoint was to compare LDR and HDR boosts in terms of biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Secondary endpoint, after re-classifying patients into "favorable" and "unfavorable" sub-groups, was to analyze differences with a similar treatment intensity.

Results

Median overall follow-up for the total cohort was 66.5 months (range, 16-185 months). There were no significant differences in bPFS, overall survival, cause specific survival, local failure, lymph node failure, or distant failure when LDR or HDR was employed. bPFS at 90 months was 100% for favorable, and 89% and 85% for unfavorable patients at 60 months and 90 months, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.017). The crude incidence of genitourinary acute and chronic toxicity grade 3 was 0.7% and 4%, respectively. Twelve patients (8%) had chronic rectal hemorrhage grade 2, in whom argon was applied (4 LDR and 8 HDR).

Conclusions

Combined treatment is an excellent therapeutic option in patients with intermediate-risk prostate carcinoma, with similar results in both LDR and HDR approaches and very low toxicities. Importantly, the current literature has indicated that unfavorable-risk patients belong to a different category, and should be treated as patients with high-risk factors. Therefore, the stratification and identification of both risk groups is extremely relevant.