Adjuvant estrogen following radiation therapy for stage C adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results of a prospective randomized study

Hormonal Agents in Localized and Advanced Prostate Cancer: Current Use and Future Perspectives

Prostate cancer (PC) is generally a hormone-dependent tumor. Androgen deprivation therapy ( has been the standard of care in metastatic disease for more than 80 years. Subsequent studies have highlighted the efficacy of ADT even in earlier disease settings such as in localized disease or in the case of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Improved knowledge of PC biology and ADT resistance mechanisms have led to the development of novel generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). Initially used only in patients who became resistant to ADT, ARPI have subsequently shown to be effective when used in patients with metastatic hormone-naive disease and in recent years their effectiveness has also been evaluated in localized disease and in case of BCR. The objective of this review is to describe the current role of agents interfering with the androgen receptor in different stages of PC and to point out future perspectives.

Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard androgen suppression therapy (AST) using surgical or medical castration is considered a mainstay of advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treatment. AST can be initiated early when disease is asymptomatic or deferred when patients suffer symptoms of disseminated prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early versus deferred standard AST for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Cochrane Review update, we performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science; last searched November 2018) and two clinical trial registers, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings (last searched January 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of early versus deferred standard AST. We excluded all other study designs. Participants included had advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving surgical or medical castration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were time to death of any cause and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were time to disease progression, time to death from prostate cancer, adverse events and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. We performed subgroup analyses for advanced but non-metastatic disease (T2-4/N+ M0), metastatic disease (M1), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new RCTs since publication of the original review in 2002. In total, we included 10 RCTs.Primary outcomesEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from any cause over time (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90; moderate-certainty evidence; 4767 participants). This corresponds to 57 fewer deaths (95% CI 80 fewer to 31 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 23 fewer deaths (95% CI 32 fewer to 13 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded for study limitations. Early versus deferred AST may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence; 10,575 participants) which corresponds to 6 more serious adverse events (6 fewer to 18 more) per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and selective reporting.Secondary outcomesEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from prostate cancer over time (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 62 fewer prostate cancer deaths per 1000 (95% CI 87 fewer to 31 fewer) at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 24 fewer death from prostate cancer (95% CI 34 fewer to 12 fewer) per 1000 men at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.Early AST may decrease the rate of skeletal events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 23 fewer skeletal events per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 fewer). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may also increase fatigue (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 31 more men with this complaint per 1000 (95% CI 18 more to 48 more). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may increase the risk of heart failure (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.33; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 27 more events per 1000 (95% CI 3 more to 69 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.Global quality of life is probably similar after two years as assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) questionnaire (mean difference -1.56, 95% CI -4.50 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence) with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early AST probably extends time to death of any cause and time to death from prostate cancer. It may slightly decrease the rate of skeletal events. Rates of serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar. It may increase fatigue and may increase the risk of heart failure. Better quality trials would be particularly important to better understand the outcomes related to possible treatment-related harm, for which we only found low-certainty evidence.

Efficacy characteristics of different therapeutic modalities for locally advanced prostate cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Though previous studies have investigated the efficacy characteristics of several different therapeutic modalities for locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCa) patients, the available results remained unestablished. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was conducted to clarify such differences.

Methods

The online PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for relevant studies published before September 1st, 2017, and eventually eleven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. The hazard odds ratios (HRs) with 95% credible interval (CI) were utilized to evaluate the efficacy characteristics of several different therapeutic modalities for LAPCa patients by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.

Results

Five different therapeutic modalities were ultimately enrolled to shed light on the efficacy characteristics for LAPCa patients and seven different clinical outcomes were finally analyzed in this study. The cumulative rank probability of overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) from best to worst was radiotherapy (RT) + orchiectomy, RT + long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LTADT), RT + short-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT), LTADT and RT; RT + LTADT, RT + orchiectomy, RT + STADT, LTADT and RT, respectively. Meanwhile, in the terms of progression-free survival (PFS), biochemical failure rate (BFR), disease-free survival (DFS), local progression rate (LPR) and metastasis rate (MR), RT + LTADT as well as RT + STADT had a higher, whereas RT alone or LTADT had a relatively lower treatment effect.

Conclusions

All in all, our results indicated that RT + LTADT or RT + orchiectomy was among the best two therapeutic regimens in the prognostic aspects of the patients with LAPCa. Furthermore, in consideration of reducing invasive treatment of eligible patients, RT + LTADT could yield better survival benefit of LAPCa patients, compared with others. In addition, the results of our analysis might provide a reference in the clinical selection. Larger sample sizes of strictly designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were wanted to validate our findings.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

High-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) represents a heterogeneous disease with potential risk for local and distant progression. In these patients, a multi-modal approach consisting of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies has been proposed. The aim of this review is to summarize the emerging roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HRPCa patients. Areas covered: This review collects the most relevant phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for HRPCa patients. Specifically, the review examines the benefit provided by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy (CHT), and novel antiandrogen agents in this setting. A search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Expert commentary: Three decades of RCTs demonstrated that adjuvant ADT is fundamental in HRPCa treated with RT. Conversely, ADT and CHT did not improve the survival of HRPCa patients managed with RP. The recent introduction of novel antiandrogen agents combined with an appropriated selection of patients at risk of cancer progression, may ultimately extend the indication of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in surgical- and radio-treated patients.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer

This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of treatments for advanced/metastatic PC. Eighteen studies covering 6,340 patients were included in this analysis. The calculated were odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that overall survival rates achieved with radiotherapy or endocrine therapy were lower than obtained with radiotherapy + endocrine therapy. The endocrine therapy includes estrogen therapy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), anti-androgen therapy (ADT), ADT + LHRH-A and estrogen therapy + LHRH-A, and its SUCRA values indicated that for overall response rate, estrogen therapy + LHRH-A ranked the highest (92.6%); for overall survival rate, ADT ranked the highest (75.2%); for anemia, estrogen therapy ranked the highest (88.2%); and for diarrhea and hot flushes, ADT ranked the highest (diarrhea, 87.4%; hot flushes, 89.3%). Cluster analysis on the endocrine therapy showed that ADT + LHRH-A achieved the highest overall survival and overall response rates in the treatment of advanced/metastatic PC. Estrogen therapy and ADT had the lowest incidences of diarrhea and anemia. Thus, combined radiotherapy + endocrine therapy had higher overall survival rate, and among the endocrine therapy, in terms of overall response rate and overall survival rate, ADT + LHRH-A may be a better regimen in the treatment of advanced or metastatic PC.

Effect of Long-Term Hormonal Therapy (vs Short-Term Hormonal Therapy): A Secondary Analysis of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated on NRG Oncology RTOG 9202

PURPOSE

NRG Oncology RTOG 9202 was a randomized trial testing long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation (LTAD) versus initial androgen deprivation only (STAD) with external beam radiation therapy (RT) in mostly high-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. RTOG 9408 found an overall survival (OS) advantage in patients with cT1b-T2b disease and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/mL, with benefit observed mostly among intermediate-risk patients. It was still unknown whether intermediate-risk patients would experience an additional survival benefit with LTAD; thus, we performed a secondary analysis to explore whether LTAD had any incremental benefit beyond STAD among the intermediate-risk subset of RTOG 9202. The study endpoints were OS, disease-specific survival (DSS), and PSA failure (PSAF).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An analysis was performed for all patients enrolled in RTOG 9202 defined as intermediate-risk (cT2 disease, PSA<10 ng/mL, and Gleason score = 7 or cT2 disease, PSA 10-20 ng/mL, and Gleason score <7). This review yielded 133 patients: 74 (STAD) and 59 (LTAD). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS; the cumulative incidence approach was used to estimate DSS and PSAF. A 2-sided test was used, with significance level defined to be .05.

RESULTS

With over 11 years of median follow-up, 39 STAD patients were alive and 33 LTAD patients were alive. There was no difference in OS (10-year estimates, 61% STAD vs 65% LTAD; P=.53), DSS (10-year DSS, 96% vs 97%; P=.72), or PSAF (10-year PSAF, 53% vs 55%; P=.99) between groups.

CONCLUSION

LTAD did not confer a benefit in terms of OS, DSS, or PSAF rates in the intermediate-risk subset in this study. Whereas the subset was relatively small, treatment assignment was randomly applied, and a trend in favor of LTAD would have been of interest. Given the small number of disease-specific deaths observed and lack of benefit with respect to our endpoints, this secondary analysis does not suggest that exploration of longer hormonal therapy is worth testing in the intermediate-risk prostate cancer subset.

Cardiovascular events associated with androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

A recently published meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) showed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) did not significantly increase cardiovascular mortality in prostate cancer patients. However, cardiovascular morbidity, which can impact quality of life, was not evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of cardiovascular morbidity associated with ADT in patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search from January 1960 to June 2012. RCT and large cohort studies that evaluated first-line endocrine therapy and ADT longer than 6 months were screened for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 126,898 patients were included in four cohort studies, and 10,760 patients were included in nine RCTs. Analysis of the RCTs showed no differences in the development of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 0.92-1.64; I (2): 0 %) among the patients receiving ADT or not. The analysis of randomized studies that reported other nonfatal cardiovascular events demonstrated a significant increase in such events in the group receiving ADT (OR 1.55; 95 % CI 1.09-2.20; I (2): 0 %). When the large cohort studies were included in the analysis, an increased risk of AMI among men with ADT was found (OR 2.01, 95 % CI 1.90-2.13; I (2): 91,3 %).

CONCLUSION

The use of ADT in prostate cancer patients corresponded with a significant increase in cardiovascular morbidity associated with AMI and with nonfatal events. Therefore, ADT is linked to a significant negative impact on quality of life. Periodic cardiovascular evaluation is required for these patients.

Efficacy and toxicity of external-beam radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many radiation regimens for treating prostate cancer have been used over the years, but which regimen is optimal for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer lacks consensus. We performed a network meta-analysis to identify the optimal radiation regimen.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed data from 27 randomised controlled trials and could group seven radiation regimens as follows: low- and high-dose radiation therapy (LDRT and HDRT), LDRT+ short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LDRT+SADT and LDRT+LADT), HDRT+SADT, hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and HFRT+SADT. The main outcomes were overall mortality (OM), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure, cancer-specific mortality, and adverse events.

RESULTS

For the network meta-analysis of 27 trials, LDRT+LADT and LDRT+SADT were associated with decreased risk of OM as compared with LDRT alone as was LDRT+LADT compared with HDRT. Apart from HFRT, all other treatments were associated with decreased risk of PSA failure as compared with LDRT. HFRT+SADT was associated with decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality as compared with HFRT, LDRT+SADT, HDRT, and LDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

HFRT+SADT therapy might be the most efficacious treatment but with worst toxicity for localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, and HDRT showed excellent efficacy but more adverse events.

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.

Treatment for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: controversial issues and the role of hyperthermia

For patients affected by intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, a single local therapy is not enough, and a more aggressive treatment, such as androgen suppression therapy (AST) and pelvic irradiation, is indicated. Biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and overall survival (OS) improve in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer using radiotherapy (RT) combined with AST as compared with the RT alone. Hyperthermia (HT), combined with RT for the treatment of prostate cancer with intermediate- and high-risk, has been defined as "promising". In the development of new strategies, the reduction of short and long-term treatment related toxicity is of primary importance. Quality of Life (QoL) has been previously investigated and the authors concluded that HT does not negatively impact QoL in patients treated with radiation and HT. The use of HT in treating advanced prostate cancer has been reported by many centres; several studies suggest the feasibility of HT added to conventional RT. In intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, the combination of RT plus a long-term androgen suppression provides good results in terms of OS and QoL. HT, improving the anti-cancer effects of irradiation, as demonstrated by experimental in vitro and in vivo studies, could increase the outcome in the treatment of locally advanced prostate tumours without adding toxicity. A randomised phase III trial comparing RT-AST combined treatment plus/minus HT is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of HT.

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.

Does local treatment of the prostate in advanced and/or lymph node metastatic disease improve efficacy of androgen-deprivation therapy? A systematic review

CONTEXT

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plays a pivotal role in the management of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). When and for how long to apply ADT have remained controversial issues.

OBJECTIVE

To review randomised studies of ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) in PCa-both immediate and deferred/adjuvant studies-to elucidate a possible interaction between local treatment and ADT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Published randomised studies on ADT in various stages of PCa were included in this review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Studies of immediate versus deferred ADT without local treatment consistently showed only limited benefit for overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97) and cancer-specific survival (CSS; HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89). In contrast, ADT as an adjuvant to radiation therapy in patients with high-risk localised disease or locally advanced disease was associated with substantial OS and CSS benefits. A similar benefit was seen in patients with proven systemic disease (node-positive patients after radical prostatectomy). Overall, the data suggest a clinically important survival benefit (HR for OS: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) when a local treatment has been applied to the primary tumour. Possible mechanisms of this therapeutic effect are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that an interaction between local treatment and ADT is suggested by this systematic review. In patients with advanced and aggressive disease who are at a high risk to die from PCa and who are treated for their primary tumour with curative intent, immediate and sustained ADT improves OS and CSS significantly. The local therapy in T3 and/or lymph node-positive disease is an essential part of the optimal treatment. However, this intensive treatment is unnecessary in a substantial number of patients with T3 and/or N1 disease with a slow natural history or high competing death risk.

Dose escalation using a hypofractionated, intensity-modulated radiation therapy boost for localized prostate cancer: preliminary results addressing concerns of high or low alpha/beta ratio

PURPOSE

The possibility that prostate cancers have a low alpha/beta ratio led to a schedule including a hypofractionated boost. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of this regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2002 and 2007, 125 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated. Median follow-up was 33 months. Radiation therapy was delivered to a planning target volume including the prostate and seminal vesicles with a 1-1.5 cm margin to block edge using a 6-field technique to 45 Gy in 25 fractions. This was followed by a 2.5-Gy/fraction intensity-modulated radiation therapy boost to the prostate alone to a total dose of 75 Gy in 61 low-risk patients and 77.5 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles in 64 high- and intermediate-risk patients.

RESULTS

There have been 2 (1.6%) biochemical failures, 1 death from prostate cancer, and 1 death in a patient with no evidence of disease. Rates of acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 1 and 2) for the whole group were 31.2% and 16%, respectively. Rates of chronic genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 1 and 2) for the whole group were 30.4% and 27.2%, respectively. There were 2 patients (1.6%) with grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity at 12 and 18 months' follow-up. They had radiation proctitis requiring laser cauterization.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results of this novel schedule were excellent. Given that the alpha/beta ratio is still in question, this technique addresses concerns regarding low and high ratios. This technique is a suitable alternative method of dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Radioterapia externa conformada 3D para o carcinoma de próstata: experiência do Instituto do Radium de Campinas com 285 pacientes

OBJETIVO: Reportar resultados de tratamentos do câncer de próstata com radioterapia conformada 3D realizados em uma única instituição. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: De julho de 1997 a janeiro de 2002, 285 pacientes consecutivos com câncer de próstata foram submetidos a radioterapia conformada 3D com dose mediana de 7.920 cGy na próstata e analisados retrospectivamente. A distribuição segundo o grupo de risco foi a seguinte: baixo risco - 95 (33,7%); risco intermediário - 66 (23,4%); alto risco - 121 (42,9%) pacientes. RESULTADOS: Em seguimento mediano de 53,6 meses (3,6-95,3 meses), sobrevidas atuariais global, causa específica, livre de metástases a distância e livre de recidiva bioquímica em cinco anos foram de 85,1%, 97,0%, 94,2% e 75,8%, respectivamente. Sobrevidas atuariais livre de toxicidade retal e urinária tardias em cinco anos foram de 96,4% e 91,1%, respectivamente. Ressecção transuretral pré-radioterapia conformada 3D e doses > 70 Gy em 30% do volume da bexiga implicaram maior toxicidade urinária tardia grau 2-3 em cinco anos (p = 0,0002 e p = 0,0264, respectivamente). CONCLUSÃO: A primeira experiência relatada de radioterapia conformada 3D no Brasil permitiu altas doses de radiação, com toxicidades retal e urinária aceitáveis. A existência de ressecção transuretral de próstata pré-radioterapia conformada 3D pode sinalizar maior risco de toxicidade urinária tardia grau 2-3 após irradiação. Restrição da dose < 70 Gy em 30% do volume da bexiga à tomografia de planejamento pode reduzir complicações urinárias tardias.

Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prostate cancer patients with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT [STAD] + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT [LTAD] + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms.

RESULTS

At 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P <or= .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein.

CONCLUSION

LTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Radical Prostatectomy Plus Endocrine Therapy versus External Beam Radiotherapy Plus Endocrine Therapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results at Median Follow-up of 102 Months

BACKGROUND

To investigate the optimal treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer, a prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare radical prostatectomy plus endocrine therapy versus external beam radiotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

METHODS

One hundred patients with T2b-3N0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled and 95 were evaluated. Of 95 cases, 46 underwent radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection and 49 were treated with external beam radiation by linear accelerator with 40-50 Gy to the whole pelvis and 20-Gy boost to the prostatic area. For all patients, endocrine therapy was initiated 8 weeks before surgery or radiotherapy and continued thereafter. The long-term outcome and morbidity were examined.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 102 months. At 10 years overall survival rates in the surgery group were better than the radiation group (76.2% versus 71.1% for biochemical progression-free rates; P=0.25, 83.5% versus 66.1% for clinical progression-free rates; P=0.14, 85.7% versus 77.1% for cause-specific survival rates; P=0.06, and 67.9% versus 60.9% for overall survival rates; P=0.30), although none of them reached statistical significance. Erectile dysfunction was recognized in almost all patients as a result of continuous endocrine therapy. Incontinence requiring more than one pad per day was observed more frequently in the surgery group than the radiation group (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, when combined with endocrine therapy, either radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes. The radiation dose of 60-70 Gy might not be enough for the local treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated patients at our institution who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer to determine their long-term clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed our prospective surgical database and identified 176 men who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer from 1983 to 2003. Clinical and pathological data were reviewed and evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model to determine preoperative predictors of biochemical recurrence. Clinical progression following biochemical recurrence was evaluated and clinical failure was defined as the development of clinical metastases or progression to hormone refractory prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 176 patients with cT3 prostate cancer 64 (36%) received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. At a mean followup of 6.4 years 84 (48%) patients had disease recurrence with a median time to biochemical recurrence of 4.6 years. The actuarial 10-year probability of freedom from recurrence was 44%. On multivariate analysis biopsy Gleason score, pretreatment serum prostate specific antigen and year of surgery were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was not a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence. Following biochemical recurrence clinical failure developed in 30 of 84 (36%) men with a median time of 11 years. Overall the 5, 10 and 15-year probabilities of death from prostate cancer were 6%, 15% and 24%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half (52%) of our patients remained free of disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. In our series neoadjuvant hormonal therapy offered no advantage with respect to disease recurrence. Radical prostatectomy remains an integral component in the treatment of select patients with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer.

Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy

BACKGROUND

Appropriate timing of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) for prostate cancer is controversial. Our aim was to determine whether immediate ADT extends survival in men with node-positive prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy compared with those who received ADT only once disease progressed.

METHODS

Eligible patients from 36 institutes in the USA were randomly assigned in 1988-93 to receive immediate ADT (n=47) or to be observed (n=51), with ADT to be given on detection of distant metastases or symptomatic recurrences. Patients were followed up every 3 months for the first year and every 6 months thereafter. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were overall and disease-specific survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. To ensure that the treatment groups were comparable, we did a retrospective central pathology review of slides and regraded the Gleason scores for available samples. This trial predates the requirement for clinical trial registration.

FINDINGS

At median follow-up of 11.9 years (range 9.7-14.5 for surviving patients), men assigned immediate ADT had a significant improvement in overall survival (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% CI 1.01-3.35], p=0.04), prostate-cancer-specific survival (4.09 [1.76-9.49], p=0.0004), and progression-free survival (3.42 [1.96-5.98], p<0.0001). Of 49 histopathology slides received (19 immediate ADT, 30 observation), 16 were downgraded from the original Gleason score (between groups < or = 6, 7, and > or = 8) and five were upgraded. We recorded similar proportions of score changes in each group (p=0.68), and no difference in score distribution by treatment (p=0.38). After adjustment for score, associations were still significant between treatment and survival (overall, p=0.02; disease-specific, p=0.002; progression-free survival, p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Early ADT benefits patients with nodal metastases who have undergone prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy, compared with those who receive deferred treatment. The beneficial effects of early ADT, rather than an imbalance in risk factors, are likely to explain the differences in outcomes between treatments.

External beam radiotherapy as curative treatment of prostate cancer

External beam radiotherapy (RT) has been used as a curative treatment of prostate cancer for more than 5 decades, with the "modern" era emerging more than 3 decades ago. Its history is marked by gradual improvements punctuated by several quantum leaps that are increasingly driven by advancements in the computer and imaging sciences and by its integration with complementary forms of treatment. Consequently, the contemporary use of external beam RT barely resembles its earliest form, and this must be appreciated in the context of current patient care. The influence of predictive factors on the use and outcomes of external beam RT is presented, as is a selected review of the methods and outcomes of external beam RT as a single therapeutic intervention, in association with androgen suppression, or as a postoperative adjunct. Thus, the "state of the (radiotherapeutic) art" is presented to enhance the understanding of this treatment approach with the hope that this information will serve as a useful resource to physicians as they care for patients with prostate cancer.

The efficacy of conventional external beam, three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, particle beam radiation, and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Technologic advances in radiation treatment planning and delivery have generated popular interest in the different radiation therapy techniques used in treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Throughout the past decade, high-energy (> 4 MV) linear accelerators have largely replaced Cobalt machines in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivery. Conventional EBRT has been used to treat prostate cancer successfully since the 1950s. By switching to computed tomography-based planning, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy provides better relative conformality of dose than does conventional EBRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has further refined dose conformality by spreading the low-dose region to a larger volume. However, the potential long-term risks of larger volumes of normal tissues receiving low doses of radiation in IMRT are unknown. Particle-beam radiation therapy offers unique dose distributions and characteristics with higher relative biologic effect and linear energy transfer. Transperineal prostate brachytherapy offers the shortest treatment time with equivalent efficacy without significant risk of radiation exposure. The addition of hormonal therapy to radiation therapy has been shown to improve the outcome of radiation therapy.

Early versus late hormonal therapy for prostate cancer

Hormonal therapy remains the critical therapeutic option for men with advanced prostate cancer. However, considerable uncertainty remains regarding the appropriate choice/timing and actual benefits of hormonal therapy in various situations. This article reviews the relevant studies of immediate versus deferred hormonal therapy in patients with prostate cancer. The evidence from the data supports that early treatment is beneficial to many patients. Significant survival benefit of early hormonal therapy has been observed among patients with asymptomatic metastatic disease, node-positive but clinically localized disease after radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy, and advanced local/regional disease during and after radiotherapy.

Pattern of Proliferative Index (Ki-67) After Anti-Androgen Manipulation Reflects the Ability of Irradiation to Control Prostate Cancer

Anti-androgen (AA) therapy will cause hormone-sensitive prostate cancer cells to undergo apoptosis and/or enter the resting phase of the cell cycle. Although the decrease of tumor burden would be an advantage for tumor control when irradiation is subsequently added, the cells in resting phase would seemingly be less vulnerable to the usual type of radiation-induced cell killing via DNA strand breakage. In this study of patients with prostate cancer, we examined the proliferative index via Ki-67 staining of biopsy material before, during, and after withdrawal of leuprolide. We studied 15 previously untreated patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Prostate biopsies were taken at three times: 1) initial diagnosis; 2) after 3 consecutive months of intramuscular 7.5 mg depot; and c) 6 weeks after the last dose. External beam radiation (EBRT) then delivered 66 Gy in 33 sessions to local fields. We used the ASTRO definition of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. We measured serum luteinizing hormone and total testosterone coinciding with each biopsy date. Immunohistochemical staining was performed using Ki-67 antibody clone MIB-1. The follow-up ranged from 36 to 73 months (median 52 months). We discerned two perturbation patterns of Ki-67 with hormonal manipulation. Pattern 1 demonstrated a drop of Ki-67 labeling after leuprolide was in effect and then after leuprolide withdrawal, the Ki-67 rebounded to less than 120% of baseline. Pattern 2 also showed an initial drop with leuprolide but rebounded to more than 120%. Among eight patients demonstrating pattern 1, only one patient had a PSA failure. In contrast among patients with pattern 2, six of seven failed biochemically (Fisher's exact, p = 0.018). All patients had a LH less than 1.0 during leuprolide effect that rose with its withdrawal. There was no correlation of PSA failure with whether total testosterone did or did not rise to more than 100 ng/dl by the time of the withdrawal phase biopsy. Neither the percent of PSA decline during leuprolide nor the minor PSA rebound 6 to 8 weeks after leuprolide withdrawal correlated with the Ki-67 pattern. The pattern of perturbation of immunohistochemical staining for Ki-67 predicts biochemical failure after moderate-dose EBRT in patients with prostate cancer. Several recent analyses of combined EBRT and AA suggest that some patients may benefit from more prolonged use of AA. Because AA can have substantial side effects and is expensive, a method to select patients likely to benefit from long-term AA would be useful. After neoadjuvant AA manipulation, the Ki-67 perturbation pattern, but not the early PSA changes, may help select patients for long-term AA. The Ki-67 pattern might also be used to select patients needing escalated radiation dosage. Further validation of these concepts beyond this pilot study is suggested.

Use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy to prevent or delay recurrence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing radiation treatment for prostate cancer

Multiple oncologic treatment modalities are often integrated into the curative treatment approach for the patient with a newly established diagnosis of cancer. The combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies with radiotherapy for the care of the patient with prostate cancer is no exception. There is clear evidence that neoadjuvant androgen suppression reduces the volume of tumor in preparation for radiotherapy, and it is an effective addition to conventional-dose external radiotherapy in patients with large-volume primary prostatic tumors. Adjuvant androgen suppression improves local and systemic tumor control and improves survival duration compared with radiotherapy alone for patients with locally advanced or node-positive prostate cancer, particularly in those with high-grade disease. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies is under intense scrutiny as several randomized clinical trials seek to optimize the combination of androgen suppression, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The historical precedent for combining androgen suppression with radiotherapy is described, as are the results of prior definitive trials and ongoing studies in this setting.

The timing of hormone therapy for men with asymptomatic advanced prostate cancer

The most appropriate time to introduce hormonal therapy for patients with advanced prostate cancer is a contentious issue. Recent prospective studies comparing immediate and deferred hormonal therapy (medical or surgical castration) on survival outcome are reviewed with the aim of redefining the most appropriate time to initiate hormonal therapy for individual patients. The evidence supports the use of immediate hormonal therapy in previously untreated patients with advanced disease (M1) and also the use of adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy for node-positive (but clinically localized) disease. Immediate hormonal therapy may also be advantageous in advanced local/regional disease when it is the primary treatment contemplated (i.e., without any definitive curative therapy to the prostate), although not all studies show this. Adjuvant hormonal therapy has significantly improved survival in some studies in the radiotherapy setting; the lack of statistically significant benefits in other studies may be a result of the timing of hormonal therapy in relation to the administration of external beam irradiation. Decisions on the immediate initiation of hormonal therapy should also take into account the patient's life expectancy and the side effects and long-term complications of androgen deprivation therapy. Recent epidemiological studies indicate that prostate cancer mortality has fallen in the USA. This decline in prostate cancer mortality is likely to be multifactorial with early application of hormonal therapy being one potential contributory factor. It is recommended that after an assessment of their disease risk, patients should be informed about the benefits and side effects of all potential treatment options and allowed to make an informed choice about their treatment.

Radiotherapy for t3 prostate cancer

Throughout the past decade, significant improvements in optimizing the management of T3 prostate cancer have been made. Phase III randomized studies have demonstrated the superiority of combined hormone therapy and radiation therapy over radiation therapy alone. Radiotherapy dose escalation using conformal techniques has improved local control and lowered toxicity. These advances have changed the approach to treatment of T3 prostate cancer from that directed at palliation of symptoms to earlier interventions directed at prolongation of survival. The contemporary role of radiation therapy in clinical T3 prostate cancer in the context of other treatment options is reviewed in this article.

High-risk localized prostate cancer: primary surgery and adjuvant therapy

High risk localized prostate cancer includes patients with palpable disease outside the capsule (clinical stage T3) as well as those with apparently localized disease but with adverse prognostic factors such as Gleason 8-10 tumors or very extensive disease on biopsy. The goals of therapy for these patients are to achieve both long-term local control and to remain free of metastatic disease. The ideal treatment to achieve these goals is unknown. We present a review of the outcome of contemporary reported series of such patients treated with primary radical prostatectomy, with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies. Over 80% of the patients overall achieved a 5-year disease-specific survival, though well under 50% have undetectable prostate specific antigen at that time point. We also review what is known about the choice and timing of adjuvant therapies, and describe current cooperative group studies underway to answer some of these questions.

Rotational 3D-conformal radiation therapy (conformation therapy) combined with hormone therapy for the treatment of stage B2/C prostate cancer in Japanese men

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In our institution, rotational 3D-conformal radiation therapy (also called conformation therapy) has been applied since the late 1970s to conform the target volume of high-dose radiation to the cancerous tissue while minimizing radiation to the surrounding normal tissues. This technique has been used most commonly to treat prostate cancers in combination with hormonal therapy. The results of Stage B2/C prostate cancer treated with this method were analyzed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 1997, 33 cases of prostate cancer were definitively treated with this method: 9 Stage B2 tumors and 24 Stage C tumors. Of these 33 tumors, 3 were well differentiated, 18 were moderately differentiated, and 12 were poorly differentiated. The average patient age was 75.6 years. The median pretreatment PSA value was 23.8 ng/ml. The total radiation dose ranged from 60 Gy to 70 Gy (average: 63.5 Gy) with conventional fractionation. Hormone therapy was administered permanently; the primary hormonal agent was diethylstilbestrol phosphate.

RESULTS

The overall survival rate after 5 years was 58.2% and that after 10 years was 29.6%. The biochemical relapse-free rate after 5 years was 87.0% and that after 10 years was still 87.0%. There were 4 cases of biochemical failure, but no cases of death from prostate cancer. Stage, differentiation, and pretreatment PSA value were not prognostic factors. One of the 2 cases with delayed complications was a case of RTOG Grade 3 gastrointestinal complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotational 3D-conformal radiation therapy combined with hormone therapy might be promising for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Primary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer in men is similar to breast cancer in women; both cancers rank first, respectively, in incidence and are normally responsive to radiation therapy. In addition, advances in mammography help detect earlier breast cancers, and the development and refinement of prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has resulted in early detection of low-stage localized prostate cancers. This has generated debate over the proper management of localized prostate cancer. While there have not been any controlled, prospective, randomized trials of sufficient power to compare the various local therapies, based on the current available data, the three commonly used local modalities, surgery, and external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy (radioactive seed implant), have similar efficacy controlling the disease up to 10 years in many patients. Technological advances in treatment delivery and planning have improved the treatment of prostate cancer with external-beam radiotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), ultrasound-guided transperineal implant, or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), as well as proton or neutron beam based therapies.

Pathologic evidence of dose-response and dose-volume relationships for prostate cancer treated with combined external beam radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

The clinical significance of postradiotherapy (RT) prostate biopsy characteristics is not well understood relative to the known prognostic factors. We performed a detailed pathologic review of posttreatment biopsy specimens in an attempt to clarify their relationship with clinical outcome and radiation dose.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1991 and 1998, 78 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were prospectively treated with external beam RT in combination with high-dose-rate brachytherapy at William Beaumont Hospital and had post-RT biopsy material available for a complete pathologic review. Patients with any of the following characteristics were eligible for study entry: pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level > or =10.0 ng/mL, Gleason score > or =7, or clinical Stage T2b-T3cN0M0. Pelvic external beam RT (46.0 Gy) was supplemented with three (1991-1995) or two (1995-1998) ultrasound-guided transperineal interstitial (192)Ir high-dose-rate implants. The brachytherapy dose was escalated from 5.50 to 10.50 Gy per implant. Post-RT prostate biopsies were performed per protocol at a median interval of 1.5 years after RT. All pre- and post-RT biopsy specimen slides from each case were reviewed by a single pathologist (N.S.G.). The presence and amount of residual cancer, most common RT-effect score, and least amount RT-effect score were analyzed. The median follow-up was 5.7 years. Biochemical failure was defined as three consecutive prostate-specific antigen rises.

RESULTS

Forty patients (51%) had residual cancer in the post-RT biopsies. The 7-year biochemical control rate was 79% for patients with negative biopsies vs. 62% for those with positive biopsies with marked RT damage vs. 33% for those with positive biopsies with no or minimal RT damage. A greater percentage of positive pre-RT biopsy cores (p = 0.01), lower total RT dose (p = 0.001), lower dose per implant (p = 0.001), and greater percentage of positive post-RT biopsy cores (p = 0.01) were each associated with biochemical failure (Cox regression, univariate analysis). For patients with <25% positive post-RT biopsy cores, the 7-year biochemical control rate was 81% vs. a 62% biochemical control rate for those with 25-49% positive cores and only 32% for those with > or =50% positive cores (p = 0.01). On Cox multiple regression analysis, only the percentage of positive pre-RT biopsy cores and RT dose remained significantly associated with biochemical failure. Of all the factors analyzed, only the pretreatment cancer volume and lower RT dose were significantly associated with residual cancer and/or residual cancer with no or minimal RT damage. A greater percentage of positive pre-RT biopsy cores was associated with both a positive post-RT biopsy (p = 0.08) and a greater percentage of positive post-RT biopsy cores (p = 0.04). A lower total RT dose was associated with both a positive post-RT biopsy (p = 0.08) and a greater percentage of positive post-RT biopsy cores (p = 0.02). For patients who received <80 Gy (equivalent in 2-Gy fractions), 73% had positive post-RT biopsies vs. a 56% biopsy positivity rate for those who received 84-90 Gy and only 39% for those who received > or =92 Gy (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Patients with positive post-RT biopsies are more likely to experience biochemical failure, especially when the RT damage is minimal. Patients who have a larger pretreatment tumor volume or receive a lower RT dose are more likely to demonstrate post-RT biopsy positivity and biochemical failure.

Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on survival in men treated with radiation for prostate cancer

A number of retrospective and randomized trials have studied the effect of external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on locally advanced/high-risk prostate cancer. Of 6 published randomized trials that have compared EBRT plus ADT with EBRT alone, 2 have shown a highly significant overall survival benefit for EBRT plus ADT, and 2 have demonstrated an advantage for the combination in patient subsets based on Gleason score. The results from the positive trials of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT alone, as well as a recent report of a comparison of short-term (6 months) ADT plus EBRT versus long-term (>6 months) ADT plus EBRT, suggest that short-term ADT plus EBRT preferentially lengthens the survival of patients with Gleason score 2 to 6 disease, whereas for Gleason score 8 to 10 disease, prolongation of survival requires long-term ADT plus EBRT. These data are far from clear-cut because there are factors that confound interpretation of the subgroup analyses. Retrospective data on patients with positive lymph node status support the assertion that EBRT plus ADT prolongs survival to a greater degree than either treatment given individually. The weight of the available investigations on the survival effect of EBRT plus ADT supports its use on a routine basis for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The results with long-term ADT are much more convincing than short-term ADT, and, as a consequence, 2 to 3 years are recommended.

Adjuvant androgen deprivation impacts late rectal toxicity after conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma

To evaluate whether androgen deprivation impacts late rectal toxicity in patients with localised prostate carcinoma treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. One hundred and eighty-two consecutive patients treated with 3DCRT between 1995 and 1999 at our Institution and with at least 12 months follow-up were analysed. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy consisted in 70-76 Gy delivered with a conformal 3-field arrangement to the prostate+/-seminal vesicles. As part of treatment, 117 patients (64%) received neo-adjuvant and concomitant androgen deprivation while 88 (48.4%) patients were continued on androgen deprivation at the end of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy as well. Late rectal toxicity was graded according to the RTOG morbidity scoring scale. Median follow up is 25.8 (range: 12-70.2 months). The 2-year actuarial likelihood of grade 2-4 rectal toxicity was 21.8+/-3.2%. A multivariate analysis identified the use of adjuvant androgen deprivation (P=0.0196) along with the dose to the posterior wall of the rectum on the central axis (P=0.0055) and the grade of acute rectal toxicity (P=0.0172) as independent predictors of grade 2-4 late rectal toxicity. The 2-year estimates of grade 2-4 late rectal toxicity for patients receiving or not adjuvant hormonal treatment were 30.3+/-5.2% and 14.1+/-3.8%, respectively. Rectal tolerance is reduced in presence of adjuvant androgen deprivation.

Practical application of biochemical failure definitions: what to do and when to do it

PURPOSE

The posttreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) profile can often be difficult to interpret after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. We performed an extensive analysis of post-radiotherapy PSA measurements to determine the clinical significance of biochemical failure (BF) and the correlation of BF with clinical failure (CF) and cause-specific death (CSD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 1997, 727 patients with clinical stage T1-T3 N0 M0 prostate cancer were treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy at William Beaumont Hospital and had at least five post-radiotherapy PSA levels and did not receive hormonal therapy for post-radiotherapy PSA elevations only (before evidence of CF). All patients received external beam radiotherapy alone (no adjuvant hormonal therapy) to a median total prostate dose of 66.6 Gy. More than 20 BF definitions were tested for their correlation with CF (any local failure or distant metastasis) and CSD. All BF definitions were tested for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative value of predicting subsequent CF and CSD. The median follow-up was 5.0 years.

RESULTS

Three consecutive PSA rises yielded a 73% sensitivity, 76% specificity, and 75% overall accuracy for predicting CF. The 10-year CF rate (from the completion of radiotherapy) for those 251 patients demonstrating three consecutive rises (BF) was 64% vs. 14% for those patients who did not have three rises (biochemically controlled). Defining BF as a post-nadir increase to >or=3 ng/ml above the nadir yielded the highest accuracy of 87%. In addition, this definition also seemed to provide the greatest separation in CF rates: 82% for BF vs. 5% for biochemically controlled at 10 years after radiotherapy. CF rates were also calculated from the date of BF (e.g., date of third rise). The CF rates at 6 months and 2 years after the third PSA rise were 9% and 27%, respectively. The CF rates at 6 months and 2 years after an increase to >or=3 ng/ml above the nadir were 23% and 54%, respectively. Once a patient was classified as a BF, regardless of the BF definition, the CF rate varied markedly, depending on the pretreatment characteristics. For each BF definition, younger age at diagnosis, higher pretreatment PSA, and higher Gleason score independently predicted for CF after BF on Cox multiple regression analysis. For instance, patients with a pretreatment PSA <4.0 ng/ml demonstrated an 11% CF rate at 2 years after the third PSA rise vs. 46% after three rises with a pretreatment PSA >or=20.0 ng/ml. Similarly, patients with Gleason 2-4 had a 2-year CF rate of only 3% after a nadir >or=1.0 ng/ml vs. 47% for Gleason 8-10 at 2 years after a nadir >or=1.0 ng/ml. Although the CF rate also coincided with pretreatment characteristics when using >or=3 ng/ml above the nadir, CF rates remained high even for low-risk patients (e.g., 2-year CF of 48% for PSA <10.0 ng/ml, 41% for Gleason 2-4). In addition, a shorter time interval from nadir to nadir + 1 ng/ml or from nadir to nadir + 3 ng/ml (corresponding to a steeper slope in the PSA profile) independently predicted for CF.

CONCLUSION

Once the post-radiotherapy PSA profile reaches >or=3 ng/ml above the nadir, there is a high risk of clinical failure within a relatively short time period, for which treatment intervention may be considered, regardless of pretreatment characteristics. After a nadir >or=1.0 ng/ml or three consecutive rises, some patients (especially with low-risk pretreatment characteristics) may be considered for further PSA observation before treatment intervention.

Timing hormonal therapy in prostate cancer

The history of the use of hormonal therapy to treat prostrate cancer is outlined, focusing on such treatments and disease scenarios as diethylstilboestrol therapy, androgen ablation alone or in conjunction with radiation, and the treatment of minimal disease burdens. Studies have pointed to the benefits of initiating androgen ablation therapy earlier in the treatment of prostate cancer; the greatest benefits of anti-androgen therapy may be gained when only tiny amounts of prostate cancer are present.

Perspectives on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment: a roundtable

This roundtable was held September 30, 2000. It addressed, first of all, the accuracy and proper interpretation of the available prostate-specific antigen assays. Dr. Brawer presented data to demonstrate the specificity of the complexed prostate-specific antigen assay. Dr. Stamey counterpoised evidence that pretreatment prostate-specific antigen levels less than 9 ng/mL are attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia and therefore are of little value as an indicator of when to initiate treatment for prostate cancer. The other roundtable participants offered reviews and new data regarding hormonal therapy as primary or adjunctive treatment of prostate cancer. Dr. Fowler presented a large retrospective series of men with locally advanced prostate cancer for whom androgen ablation was the primary therapy. Dr. Droller discussed his center's experience in integrating hormonal therapy with brachytherapy. Finally, Dr. Messing reviewed and critiqued the evidence that the combination of hormonal and radiation therapy improves survival.