Late Radiation and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects After Androgen Deprivation and High-Dose Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Results From the DART 01/05 Randomized Phase 3 Trial

Japanese clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer 2023

This fourth edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2023 is compiled. It was revised under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, with members selected from multiple academic societies and related organizations (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, the Department of EBM and guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Japanese Society of Pathology, and the patient group (NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association)), in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2020 ver. 3.0). The most important feature of this revision is the adoption of systematic reviews (SRs) in determining recommendations for 14 clinical questions (CQs). Qualitative SRs for these questions were conducted, and the final recommendations were made based on the results through the votes of 24 members of the guideline development group. Five algorithms based on these results were also created. Contents not covered by the SRs, which are considered textbook material, have been described in the general statement. In the general statement, a literature search for 14 areas was conducted; then, based on the general statement and CQs of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2016, the findings revealed after the 2016 guidelines were mainly described. This article provides an overview of these guidelines.

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.

Association between duration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist use and cardiovascular risks: A population-based competing-risk analysis

BACKGROUND

Although androgen deprivation therapy has known cardiovascular risks, it is unclear if its duration is related to cardiovascular risks. This study thus aimed to investigate the associations between gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist use duration and cardiovascular risks.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with prostate cancer receiving GnRH agonists in Hong Kong during 1999-2021. Patients who switched to GnRH antagonists, underwent bilateral orchidectomy, had <6 months of GnRH agonist, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or prior stroke was excluded. All patients were followed up until September 2021 for a composite endpoint of MI and stroke. Multivariable competing-risk regression using the Fine-Gray subdistribution model was used, with mortality from any cause as the competing event.

RESULTS

In total, 4038 patients were analyzed (median age 74.9 years old, interquartile range (IQR) 68.7-80.8 years old). Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years (IQR 2.1-7.5 years), longer GnRH agonists use was associated with higher risk of the endpoint (sub-hazard ratio per year 1.04 [1.01-1.06], p = 0.001), with those using GnRH agonists for ≥2 years having an estimated 23% increase in the sub-hazard of the endpoint (sub-hazard ratio 1.23 [1.04-1.46], p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Longer GnRH agonist use may be associated with greater cardiovascular risks.

125I Interstitial brachytherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy among unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To determine if patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR), high-risk (HR), or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We reviewed our institutional database of patients with UIR, HR, or VHR PCa, per 2018 NCCN risk classification, treated with definitive ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy with or without ADT from 1998-2017. Outcomes including biochemical failure (bF), distant metastases (DM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed with Fine-Gray competing-risk regression.

RESULTS

Of 1033 patients, 262 (25%) received ADT and 771 (75%) did not. Median ADT duration was 6 months. By risk group, 764 (74%) patients were UIR, 219 (21%) HR, and 50 (5%) VHR. ADT was more frequently given to HR (50%) and VHR (56%) patients compared to UIR (16%; p<0.001), to older patients (p<0.001), corresponding with increasing PSA (p<0.001) and Grade Group (p<0.001). Median follow-up was 4.9 years (0.3-17.6 years). On multivariable analysis accounting for risk group, age, and year of treatment, ADT was not associated with bF, DM, PCSM, or OS (p≥0.05 each).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa, the addition of ADT to ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy was not associated with improved outcomes, and no subgroup demonstrated benefit. Our findings do not support the use of ADT in combination with ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy. Prospective studies are required to elucidate the role of ADT for patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa treated with prostate brachytherapy.

Salvage local treatment for localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer: a narrative review and future perspectives

Although dose escalation protocols have improved biochemical control in prostate cancer radiotherapy, 10-45% of patients will experience disease recurrence. The prostate and seminal vesicles are the most frequent site of the first relapse. Traditionally, these patients have been managed with hormonal therapy, which is not curative. Recent improvements in diagnostic tests (e.g., multiparametric magnetic resonance and molecular imaging, including PET/CT scan with choline or Ga-PSMA) and new treatment techniques (e.g., stereotactic body radiation therapy or other minimally invasive alternatives like high-intensity focus ultrasound, cryoablation or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) offer new therapeutic strategies with the potential to cure some patients with limited adverse effects. In this narrative review, the authors present the most recent evidence to help identify the most suitable candidates for salvage treatment.

Impact of Radiation on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Older Resectable Esophageal Cancer Patients With Medicare

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative radiotherapy improves outcomes for operable esophageal cancer patients, though the proximity of the heart to the esophagus puts patients at risk of radiation-induced cardiovascular disease. This study characterizes the impact of radiotherapy and different radiation techniques on cardiovascular morbidity among a cohort of esophageal cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 1125 patients aged 65 and older diagnosed between 2000 and 2011 with esophageal cancer who received surgery alone, or surgery preceded by either preoperative chemotherapy or preoperative chemoradiation from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. We used Medicare claims to identify severe perioperative and late cardiovascular events. Multivariable logistic regression and Fine-Gray models were used to determine the effect of presurgery treatment on the risk of perioperative and late cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

Preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation did not significantly increase the risk of perioperative cardiovascular complications compared with surgery alone. Patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation had a 36% increased risk of having a late cardiovascular event compared with patients treated with surgery alone (subdistribution hazard ratio [SDHR]: 1.36; P=0.035). There was no significant increase in late cardiovascular events among patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy (SDHR: 1.18; P=0.40). Among patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation, those receiving intensity modulated radiotherapy had a 68% decreased risk of having a late cardiovascular event compared with patients receiving conventional radiation (SDHR: 0.32; P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates an increased risk of cardiovascular complications among operative esophageal cancer patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation, though these risks might be reduced with more cardioprotective radiation techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Prognostic value of testosterone castration levels following androgen deprivation and high-dose radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: Results from a phase III trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The optimal prognostic value of testosterone following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is controversial. We studied the effect of serum testosterone levels on clinical outcome in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with ADT and high-dose radiotherapy (HRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The DART01/05 trial randomized 355 men with intermediate and high-risk PCa to 4 months of ADT plus HRT (STADT, N = 178) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of ADT (LTADT, N = 177). This study included patients treated with LTADT who had at least 3 determinations of testosterone during ADT (N = 154). Patients were stratified into 3 subgroups by testosterone level: minimum <20 ng/dL; median 20-49 ng/dL; and maximum ≥50 ng/dL. Kaplan-Meyer and Cox regression analysis were used for overall survival (OS) and Fine & Gray regression model for metastasis free survival (MFS), biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and time to TT recovery.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in 10-year bDFS, MFS, or OS between the <20 ng/mL and 20-49 ng/dL subgroups. Multivariate analysis showed that a median testosterone ≥50 ng/dL was significantly associated with a decrease in bDFS (HR: 6.58, 95%CI 1.28-33.76, p = 0.03). Time to testosterone recovery after ADT did not correlate with bDFS, MFS, or OS and was not significantly associated with any of the testosterone subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not support the concept that additional serum testosterone suppression below 20 ng/dL is associated with better outcomes than 20-49 ng/dL. Time to testosterone recovery after ADT and HRT did not impact clinical failure.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19

PURPOSE

During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches.

RESULTS

Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19

PURPOSE

During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches.

RESULTS

Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Hormonal prostate cancer therapies and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Therapeutic intervention for prostate cancer mostly relies on eliminating circulating androgen or antagonizing its effect at the cellular level. As the use of endocrine therapies grows, an under-reported incidence of cardiovascular toxicities occurs in prostate cancer patients. In this review, we summarize data of clinical studies, investigating the cardiovascular and metabolic alterations associated with the use of old and new endocrine drugs (gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] agonists and antagonists, androgen receptor inhibitors, 17α-hydroxylase/c-17,20-lyase [CYP17] inhibitor) in prostate cancer. To date, studies looking for links between cardiovascular complications and hormone-mediated therapies in prostate cancer have reached conflicting results. Several confounding factors, such as age of patients and related cardiovascular liability, other comorbidities, and use of concomitant drugs, have to be carefully evaluated in future clinical trials. Further research is needed given the continuous advancements being made in prostate cancer treatment.

Association of Presalvage Radiotherapy PSA Levels After Prostatectomy With Outcomes of Long-term Antiandrogen Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer

Importance

In men with recurrent prostate cancer, addition of long-term antiandrogen therapy to salvage radiotherapy (SRT) was associated with overall survival (OS) in the NRG/RTOG 9601 study. However, hormone therapy has associated morbidity, and there are no validated predictive biomarkers to identify which patients derive most benefit from treatment.

Objective

To examine the role of pre-SRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels to personalize hormone therapy use with SRT.

Interventions

Men were randomized to SRT plus high-dose nonsteroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, 150 mg/d) or placebo for 2 years.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of the multicenter RTOG 9601 double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted from 1998 to 2003 by a multinational cooperative group, men with a positive surgical margin or pathologic T3 disease after radical prostatectomy with pre-SRT PSA of 0.2 to 4.0 ng/mL were included. Analysis was performed between March 4, 2019, and December 20, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included distant metastasis (DM), other-cause mortality (OCM), and grades 3 to 5 cardiac and neurologic toxic effects. Subgroup analyses were performed using the protocol-specified PSA stratification variable (1.5 ng/mL) and additional PSA cut points, including test for interaction. Competing risk analyses were performed for DM and other-cause mortality (OCM).

Results

Overall, 760 men with PSA elevation after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included. The median (range) age of particpants was 65 (40-83) years. Antiandrogen assignment was associated with an OS benefit in the PSA stratum greater than 1.5 ng/mL (n = 118) with a 25% 12-year absolute benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.81), but not in the PSA of 1.5 ng/mL or less stratum (n = 642) (1% 12-year absolute difference; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.16). In a subanalysis of men with PSA of 0.61 to 1.5 (n = 253), there was an OS benefit associated with antiandrogen assignment (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94). In those receiving early SRT (PSA ≤0.6 ng/mL, n = 389), there was no improvement in OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79-1.70), an increased OCM hazard (subdistribution HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.17-3.20; P = .01), and an increased odds of late grades 3 to 5 cardiac and neurologic toxic effects (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.09-15.97; P = .05).

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that pre-SRT PSA level may be a prognostic biomarker for outcomes of antiandrogen treatment with SRT. In patients receiving late SRT (PSA >0.6 ng/mL, hormone therapy was associated with improved outcomes. In men receiving early SRT (PSA ≤0.6 ng/mL), long-term antiandrogen treatment was not associated with improved OS. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to determine hormonal therapy benefit in this population.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002874.

Why the UK Should Consider Gene Expression Testing in Prostate Cancer

There is an increase in the use of prognostic gene expression biomarkers in the USA for the personalisation of treatment for men with localised and recurrent prostate cancer. However, these are not available in the UK. This overview will cover the need to shift from subjective histological phenotypes (e.g. Gleason grade) to more objective biological genotypes, review the suboptimal performance of clinical and pathological variables to accurately risk stratify patients and discuss the growing body of consistent work that has shown that genomic classifiers more accurately discriminate which men harbour indolent or biologically aggressive disease, independently of grade or stage. Overall, we will discuss the need for improved prognostic biomarkers and why the UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines should move beyond the now 20-year-old three-tier D'Amico risk classification schema to guide the management of prostate cancer in the modern era.

Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) entails lowering serum testosterone levels to castrate levels and forms a cornerstone of the management of hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer; however, the benefit of ADT is partially offset by its detrimental metabolic and cardiovascular adverse effects. ADT decreases insulin sensitivity while promoting dyslipidemia and sarcopenic obesity, which leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and potentially mortality. The risk seems to be highest in elderly patients who have had recent cardiovascular events before starting ADT. It is prudent to engage in an individualized risk-benefit discussion and develop a cohesive multidisciplinary management plan to medically optimize and closely observe these patients before and during treatment with ADT.

Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is now the most common definitive treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. Unfortunately, many men will have residual microscopic disease after surgery alone. Despite level 1 evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), <10% of men with adverse pathology (positive margins or T3 disease) receive ART in the USA. Early salvage radiation therapy (eSRT) at the time of biochemical recurrence has been proposed as an alternative strategy despite the lack of published randomized trials to support this approach. Multiple randomized trials are ongoing or recently completed to compare ART to eSRT, but given the long natural history of prostate cancer, long-term oncologic outcomes from these trials will not be reported for several years. In this review, we discuss the shifting trends in the diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer given a decline in PSA screening, use of RP for high-risk disease, and compare and contrast the retrospective and randomized evidence regarding ART and SRT.

Developments in urologic oncology «OncoForum»: The best of 2016

OBJECTIVE

To put forth new findings of urologic oncology with impact on clinical practice presented during 2016 in the main annual meetings.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

This document reviews abstracts on prostate, kidney and bladder cancer presented at the congresses of 2016 (EAU, AUA, ASCO, ESMO and ASTRO) and publications with the highest impact in this period valued with the highest scores by the OncoForum committee.

SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE

In High-Risk Renal-Cell carcinoma after nephrectomy, disease-free survival was significantly greater for sunitinib than placebo group, with adverse events more frequents. In locally advanced and metastatic urotherial carcinoma patients, aletozumab achieved overall response rate in all subgroups of patients, included poor prognostic. In localized prostate cancer, the difference of prostate-cancer-specific mortality among active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy was not significant (P=0,48). In TERRAIN study, with castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, adverse events was reported in 31% and 23% of patients treated with enzalutamide and bicalutamide, respectively. Moreover, enzalutamide significantly improved median progression-free survival (15.7 months) compared bicalutamide (5.8 months) (P<.0001). In SRTIVE study, Enzalutamide reduced the risk of progression or death by 76% compared with bicalutamide (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy, sunitinb has been considered as treatment choice. In localized prostate cancer, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy). In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer new results of treatment with enzalutamide and abiraterone has been published, wich have been shown beneficial effects in metastatic and no metastatic patients.

Survival and Complications Following Surgery and Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Review

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of treatment options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains among the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Surgery and radiotherapy (RT) are the two interventions most commonly used.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a critical narrative review of evidence of the comparative effectiveness and harms of surgery and RT in the treatment of localized PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative critical narrative review of the literature was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Evidence to clearly guide treatment choice in PCa remains insufficient. Randomized trials are underpowered for clinically meaningful endpoints and have demonstrated no difference in overall or PCa-specific survival. Observational studies have consistently demonstrated an absolute survival benefit for men treated with radical prostatectomy, but are limited by selection bias and residual confounding errors. Surgery and RT are associated with comparable health-related quality of life following treatment in three randomized trials. Randomized data regarding urinary, erectile, and bowel function show few long-term (>5 yr) differences, although short-term continence and erectile function were worse following surgery and short-term urinary bother and bowel function were worse following RT. There has been recent recognition of other complications that may significantly affect the life trajectory of those undergoing PCa treatment. Of these, hospitalization, the need for urologic, rectoanal, and other major surgical procedures, and secondary cancers are more common among men treated with RT. Androgen deprivation therapy, frequently co-administered with RT, may additionally contribute to treatment-related morbidity. Technological innovations in surgery and RT have shown inconsistent oncologic and functional benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to underpowered randomized control studies and the selection biases inherent in observational studies, the question of which treatment provides better PCa control cannot be definitively answered now or in the near future. Complications following PCa treatment are relatively common regardless of treatment approach. These include the commonly identified issues of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and others including hospitalization and invasive procedures to manage complications and secondary malignancies. Population-based outcome studies, rather than clinical trial data, will be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the relative benefits and risks of each therapeutic approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Surgery and radiotherapy are the most common interventions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Comparisons of survival after these treatments are limited by various flaws in the relevant studies. Complications are common regardless of the treatment approach.