Long-Term Followup of a Randomized Study of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated With Combined Orchiectomy and External Radiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone

ESTRO-ACROP recommendations for evidence-based use of androgen deprivation therapy in combination with external-beam radiotherapy in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is no consensus concerning the appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) during primary and postoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Thus, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines seeks to present current recommendations for the clinical use of ADT in the various indications of EBRT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE PubMed that evaluated EBRT and ADT in prostate cancer. The search focused on randomized, Phase II and III trials published in English from January 2000 to May 2022. In case topics were addressed in the absence of Phase II or III trials, recommendations were labelled accordingly based on the limited body of evidence. Localized PCa was classified according to D'Amico et al. classification in low-, intermediate and high risk PCa. The ACROP clinical committee identified 13 European experts who discussed and analyzed the body of evidence concerning the use of ADT with EBRT for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Key issues were identified and are discussed: It was concluded that no additional ADT is recommended for low-risk prostate cancer patients, whereas for intermediate- and high-risk patients four to six months and two to three years of ADT are recommended. Likewise, patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are recommended to receive ADT for two to three years and when ≥ 2 high-risk factors (cT3-4, ISUP grade ≥ 4 or PSA ≥ 40 ng/ml) or cN1 is present ADT for three years plus additional Abiraterone for two years is recommended. For postoperative patients no ADT is recommended for adjuvant EBRT in pN0 patients whereas for pN1 patients adjuvant EBRT with long-term ADT is performed for at least 24 to 36 months. In the setting of salvage EBRT ADT is performed in biochemically persistent PCa patients with no evidence of metastatic disease. Long-term ADT (24 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with high risk of further progression (PSA ≥ 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group ≥ 4) and a life expectancy of over ten years, whereas short-term ADT (6 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with lower risk profile (PSA < 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group 4). Patients considered for ultra-hypofractionated EBRT as well as patients with image based local recurrence within the prostatic fossa or lymph node recurrence should participate in appropriate clinical trials evaluating the role of additional ADT.

CONCLUSION

These ESTRO-ACROP recommendations are evidence-based and relevant to the use of ADT in combination with EBRT in PCa for the most common clinical settings.

Narrative review of management strategies and outcomes in node-positive prostate cancer

Pelvic nodal involvement is present in 13% of new prostate cancer diagnoses each year and is associated with a poor prognosis compared to localized disease. Grouped as stage IV along with distant metastatic disease, node-positive nonmetastatic patients historically received systemic therapy alone as primary treatment. This treatment paradigm has shifted as data have demonstrated that these patients may benefit from aggressive locoregional therapy and are potentially curable. There is currently a lack of randomized evidence to define the optimal management for node-positive patients. While a few trials have included node-positive patients, the majority of data are derived from large multi-institutional series or population-based series. This narrative review summarizes the current literature supporting curative-intent management strategies for patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic clinically node-positive prostate cancer (cN1M0), as well as patients found to have pathologic nodal disease at the time of surgery (pN1M0). Treatment of both scenarios requires multimodality considerations including surgery, radiation therapy (RT) and systemic therapy to minimize the risks of both locoregional and distant recurrence. Future considerations include developments in enhanced imaging and systemic therapy. Inclusion of node-positive patients on prospective, randomized trials such as NRG GU 008 is needed to enhance our understanding of optimal management strategies.

Pathologically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Casting for Cure When the Die Is Cast?

The postoperative management of men with lymph node involved prostate cancer (pN+) remains a challenge as there is a general lack of randomized trial data and a range of management strategies. Retrospective studies suggest a variable clinic course for patients with pN+ prostate cancer. Some men progress rapidly to metastatic disease despite further therapies, whereas other men can have a period of prolonged quiescence without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radiation therapy (RT). For men who have undergone radical prostatectomy, randomized trial data indicate that the addition of ADT in pN+ disease extends metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival. Additional retrospective studies suggest that adding RT is potentially beneficial in this setting, improving overall and cancer-specific survival especially in men with certain pathologic parameters. Conversely, men with lower disease burden in their lymph nodes have longer times to progression and may be candidates for observation and salvage therapy as opposed to adjuvant ADT/RT.

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.

The effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of additional chemotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a controversy. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk PCa.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about additional chemotherapy for high-risk PCa were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We extracted HRs of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for each trial and performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 4,007 patients were included. Data from four trials, which could collect OS, showed that additional chemotherapy could not significantly improve the OS in patients with high-risk PCa (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.09; P=0.37). However, the pooled analysis suggested significantly longer PFS in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional chemotherapy (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90; P<0.0001). The meta-analysis showed additional chemotherapy to androgen-deprivation therapy improved PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91; P=0.0002). Greater improvement in PFS was found in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.83; P<0.00001). No prolonged PFS was observed in high-risk PCa patients with non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83-1.14; P=0.74).

CONCLUSION

Additional chemotherapy, especially docetaxel-based chemotherapy, could significantly improve the PFS in high-risk PCa patients. More evidence about the effect of additional chemotherapy on OS is needed. Further investigations in PCa should also focus on the suitable population for chemotherapy as well as optimal use of chemotherapy.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Extended pelvic lymph-node dissection and radiotherapy with curative intent in high-risk lymph-node-positive prostate cancer: a possible curative strategy?

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the outcome with a treatment strategy for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) using extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (eLND) followed by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in lymph-node-positive (LNpos) and lymph-node-negative (LNneg) cases compared with the strategy with limited pelvic lymph-node dissection (lLND) and only giving EBRT to LNneg cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2000 to 2006, 124 men with high-risk PCa underwent lLND and initiated androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before planned EBRT. LNpos patients were excluded from EBRT following the SPCG-7 study strategy (group I). From 2007 to 2013, 111 patients underwent eLND and started ADT before EBRT, and LNneg and most LNpos patients received EBRT (group II). Using Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression, biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were compared during a 10 year follow-up.

RESULTS

PSA progression-free survival rates after 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years were 78%, 66%, 52%, 45% and 41% in group I, and 88%, 83%, 78%, 69% and 69% in group II (p < 0.001), respectively. Group II had a lower risk of PSA progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27,0.69, p = 0.001], metastasis development (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.27,0.97, p = 0.040) and overall mortality (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26,0.92, p = 0.027), but not of PCa-specific death (HR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.19,1.08, p = 0.074).

CONCLUSION

A treatment strategy for high-risk PCa with eLND combined with EBRT in LNneg and LNpos cases may improve outcome compared to a strategy with lLND and offering EBRT only to LNneg cases but ADT to LNpos cases.

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.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

[Role of radiotherapy in the management of node-positive prostate cancer]

Node-positive prostate cancer patients represent a small proportion of all prostate cancers for whom limited prospective information is available. Most retrospective or cohort data strongly suggest however that radiotherapy combined with androgen-depriving therapies is the preferable treatment in this setting. Only randomized clinical trials would be able to better define both radiotherapy (dose? volume? fractionation?) and androgen-depriving therapies (duration? role of novel androgen-depriving therapy?) modalities.

Management of Node-Positive and Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer

Historically, stage IV prostate cancer was considered incurable. Although node-positive and oligometastatic prostate cancers are both classified as stage IV, these likely represent distinct clinical groups, and some patients may be curable with aggressive multimodality treatments. There is a lack of randomized evidence, but retrospective studies suggest that radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy may improve survival in these patients. This is an area of great current research interest and prospective randomized trials are needed to help define the optimal treatments for these patients.

Long-term Outcomes Following Radiation Therapy For Prostate Cancer Patients With Lymph Node Metastases at Diagnosis Treated With and Without Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) treated with radiotherapy at the University of California San Francisco.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All newly diagnosed PCa patients with LNI treated with radiotherapy as primary therapy or after surgery, each with and without hormonal therapy (HT) between 1988 and 2009 were included.Thirty-five patients (38%) were managed with external beam radiotherapy alone (eRT), 18 patients (20%) with radical prostatectomy (RP)+adjuvant radiotherapy, and 38 patients (42%) with RP+salvage radiotherapy. Overall 82% of the study sample received HT with similar proportions among radiation therapy (RT) subsets (P=0.83).

RESULTS

The median follow-up (FU) was 65, 42, and 86 months for patients treated with eRT, adjuvant radiotherapy, and salvage radiotherapy, respectively.The 10-year estimates from start of primary therapy for patients with LNI for overall survival (OS) was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-88%) and for cause-specific survival was 89% (95% CI, 78%-95%). The 5-year estimates from the start of RT for biochemically no evidence of disease was 68% (95% CI, 56%-78%) and for disease-free survival was 67% (95% CI, 54%-77%). There was no difference in any of these outcomes among the 3 RT groups.Patients treated with HT were more likely to have a better 10-year OS (82% vs. 66%; log rank: P=0.001).Multivariate analysis indicated that only age and Gleason score were significant predictors for biochemically no evidence of disease and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with PCa with LNI who were treated with RT with or without a prior surgery had relatively favorable long-term outcomes.

High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Radiation Therapy

Up to 12% of European men aged 55-69 years diagnosed with prostate cancer have high-risk disease and thus are at increased risk of mortality. There remains a lack of consensus on definitive treatment for prostate cancer, although both radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy are frequently utilized. Furthermore, the different types of radiation and surgical options also increase the complexity of deciding on a single treatment, as does the use of multimodal treatment plans. Here, we provide an overview of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy in treating high-risk prostate cancer.

Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the pelvic lymph nodes with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate--first results of the PLATIN 1 trial

Background

Definitive, percutaneous irradiation of the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is the alternative to prostatectomy plus lymphadenectomy. To date, the role of whole pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) has not been clarified especially taking into consideration the benefits of high conformal IMRT (intensity modulated radiotherapy) of complex-shaped target volumes.

Methods

From 2009 to 2012, 40 patients of high-risk prostate cancer with an increased risk of microscopic lymph node involvement were enrolled into this prospective phase II trial. Patients received at least two months of antihormonal treatment (AT) before radiotherapy continuing for at least 2 years. Helical IMRT (tomotherapy) of the pelvic lymph nodes (51.0 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated, moderate hypofractionated boost (single dose of 2.25 Gy) to the prostate (76.5 Gy) was performed in 34 fractions. PSA levels, prostate-related symptoms and quality of life were assessed at regular intervals for 24 months.

Results

Of the 40 patients enrolled, 38 finished the treatment as planned. Overall acute toxicity rates were low and no acute grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity occurred. 21.6 % of patients experienced acute grade 2 but no late grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Regarding GU side effects, results showed 48.6 % acute grade 2 and 6.4 % late grade 2 toxicity. After a median observation time of 23.4 months the PLATIN 1 trial can be considered as sufficiently safe meeting the prospectively defined aims of the trial. With 34/37 patients free of a PSA recurrence it shows promising efficacy.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy of the pelvic lymph nodes with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate can be performed safely and without excessive toxicity. The combined irradiation of both prostate and pelvic lymph nodes seems to be as well tolerated as the irradiation of the prostate alone.

Trial registration

Trial Numbers: ARO 2009–05, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01903408.

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.

Impact of androgen suppression and zoledronic acid on bone mineral density and fractures in the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 03.04 Randomised Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (RADAR) randomized controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To study the influence of adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates on incident vertebral and non-spinal fracture rates and bone mineral density (BMD) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2003 and 2007, 1071 men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly allocated, using a 2 × 2 trial design, to 6 months i.m. leuprorelin (androgen suppression [AS]) before radiotherapy alone ± 12 months additional leuprorelin ± 18 months zoledronic acid (ZdA), commencing at randomization. The main endpoint was incident thoraco-lumbar vertebral fractures, which were assessed radiographically at randomization and at 3 years, then reassessed by centralized review. Subsidiary endpoints included incident non-spinal fractures, which were documented throughout follow-up, and BMD, which was measured in 222 subjects at baseline, 2 years and 4 years.

RESULTS

Incident vertebral fractures at 3 years were observed in 132 subjects. Their occurrence was not increased by 18 months' AS, nor reduced by ZdA. Incident non-spinal fractures occurred in 72 subjects and were significantly related to AS duration but not to ZdA. Osteopenia and osteoporosis prevalence rates at baseline were 23.4 and 1.4%, respectively, at the hip. Treatment for 6 and 18 months with AS caused significant reductions in hip BMD at 2 and 4 years (P < 0.01) and ZdA prevented these losses at both time points.

CONCLUSION

In an AS-naïve population, 18 months of ZdA treatment prevented the sustained BMD losses caused by 18 months of AS treatment; however, the study power was insufficient to show that AS duration or ZdA influenced vertebral fracture rates.

Multimodality therapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: current status and future directions

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and second most common cause of cancer death in American men. Although high-risk disease accounts for less than 15% of diagnoses, high-risk prostate cancer patients have a cancer-specific mortality rate of 15% at 10 years. There is currently no consensus on the optimal management of high-risk disease because (1) there are different primary modalities available (ie, surgery, radiation), for which there are no randomized trials comparing efficacy; and (2) unstandardized timing of different therapies (ie, neoadjuvant v concurrent v adjuvant), which makes comparisons of efficacy problematic. Increased understanding into the mechanisms leading to the formation of advanced metastatic disease has spurred the development of agents to target these pathways. However, new questions regarding optimal management of disease arise with regard to the role of these therapies in combination with "conventional" primary modalities for earlier stage, high-risk prostate cancer patients. In this article, we review the transforming world of multimodality therapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

Volumetric-Modulated arc Therapy for a Pelvic Lymph Node Metastasis from Prostate Cancer: A Case Report

A 50-year-old patient had an early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and androgen deprivation therapy and castration. An anti-1-amino-3-[18F] fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan showed a single pelvic lymph node metastasis. The patient was given volume-modulated arc therapy with a cumulative dose of 50 Gy for the volume with pelvic lymph nodes and 78 Gy to the boost volume for the lymph node metastasis. He experienced only a transitory mild toxicity from the rectum and the urinary bladder and had a partial remission for 16 months.

Early versus deferred androgen suppression therapy for patients with lymph node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy with curative intent: a systematic review

Background

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal timing for androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer that have undergone local therapy with curative intent but are proven to have node-positive disease without signs of distant metastases at the time of local therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the benefits and harms of early (at the time of local therapy) versus deferred (at the time of clinical disease progression) androgen suppression therapy for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy.

Methods

The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42011001221; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, as well as reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences, and three trial registers, to identify randomized controlled trials (search update 04/08/2012). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

Results

Four studies including 398 patients were identified for inclusion. Early androgen suppression therapy lead to a significant decrease in overall mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64), and clinical progression at 3 or 9 years (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52 at 3 years and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.67 at 9 years). One study showed an increase of adverse effects with early androgen suppression therapy. All trials had substantial methodological limitations.

Conclusions

The data available suggest an improvement in survival and delayed disease progression but increased adverse events for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy treated with early androgen suppression therapy versus deferred androgen suppression therapy. However, quality of data is low. Randomized controlled trials with blinding of outcome assessment, planned to determine the timing of androgen suppression therapy in node-positive prostate cancer using modern diagnostic imaging modalities, biochemical testing, and standardized follow-up schedules should be conducted to confirm these findings.

Castration therapy results in decreased Ku70 levels in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant castration improves response to radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Here, we determine whether castration therapy impairs nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) by downregulating Ku70 protein expression.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Twenty patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were enrolled, and 6 to 12 needle core biopsy specimens were taken from the prostate of each patient before treatment. Bilateral orchidectomy was conducted in eight patients and 12 patients were treated with a GnRH agonist. After castration, two to four similar biopsies were obtained, and the levels of Ku70 and γ-H2AX foci were determined by immunofluorescence in verified cancer tissues.

RESULTS

We observed that the androgen receptor binds directly to Ku70 in prostate tissue. We also found a reduction of the Ku70 protein levels in the cell nuclei in 12 of 14 patients (P < 0.001) after castration. The reduction in Ku70 expression correlated significantly with decreased serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after castration, suggesting that androgen receptor activity regulates Ku70 protein levels in prostate cancer tissue. Furthermore, a significant correlation between the reductions of Ku70 after castration versus changes induced of castration of γ-H2AX foci could be seen implicating a functional linkage of decreased Ku70 levels and impaired DNA repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Castration therapy results in decreased levels of the Ku70 protein in prostate cancer cells. Because the Ku70 protein is essential for the NHEJ repair of DSBs and its downregulation impairs DNA repair, this offers a possible explanation for the increased radiosensitivity of prostate cancer cells following castration.

Androgen deprivation therapy toxicity and management for men receiving radiation therapy

Androgen deprivation therapy is commonly used in combination with radiotherapy as part of the definitive treatment for men with clinically localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation has been associated with a wide range of iatrogenic effects impacting a variety of body systems including metabolic, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, neurocognitive, and sexual. This review aims to provide the radiation oncology community with the knowledge to monitor and manage androgen deprivation therapy toxicity in an effort to provide the highest level of care for patients and to minimize the iatrogenic effects of androgen deprivation as much as possible.

Guideline-discordant androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer: patterns of use in the medicare population and cost implications

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in localized prostate cancer improves overall survival and is recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in certain situations. However, ADT is without benefit in other situations and can actually cause harm. This study examines recent trends in the ADT use and quantifies the cost of guideline-discordant ADT. Patients and methods Patients, aged 66-80 years, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database with non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were included for analysis. Prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and stage were used to define D'Amico risk categories. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with guideline-discordant ADT. Annual direct cost was estimated using 2011 Medicare reimbursement for ADT. Results Of 28 654 men included, 12.4% received guideline-discordant ADT. In low-risk patients, 14.9% received discordant ADT, mostly due to simultaneous ADT with radiation. Discordant use was seen in 7.3% of intermediate and 14.9% of high-risk patients, mostly from ADT as primary therapy. The odds of receiving guideline-discordant ADT decreased over time (2007 versus 2004; OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.76). The estimated annual direct cost from discordant ADT is $42 000 000. Conclusion Approximately one in eight patients received ADT discordant with published guidelines. Elimination of discordant use would result in substantial savings.

Redefining hormone sensitive disease in advanced prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. For decades, the cornerstone of medical treatment for advanced prostate cancer has been hormonal therapy, intended to lower testosterone levels, known as Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT). The development of hormone-resistant prostate cancer (now termed castration-resistant prostate cancer:CRPC) remains the key roadblock in successful long-term management of prostate cancer. New advancements in medical therapy for prostate cancer have added to the hormonal therapy armamentarium. These new therapeutic agents not only provide a survival benefit but also show potential for reversing hormonal resistance in metastatic CRPC, and thus redefining hormonally sensitive disease.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Contemporary role of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

CONTEXT

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease.

OBJECTIVE

Review the published experience with currently available ADT approaches in various contemporary clinical settings of PCa and reported serious treatment-related adverse events. This review addresses the level of evidence associated with the use of ADT in PCa, focusing upon survival outcome measures. Furthermore, this paper discusses evolving approaches targeting androgen receptor signaling pathways and emerging evidence from clinical trials with newer compounds.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed, focusing on data from the last 10 yr (January 2000 to July 2011) and using the terms androgen deprivation, hormone treatment, prostate cancer and adverse effects. Abstracts from trials reported at international conferences held in 2010 and 2011 were also evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data from randomized controlled trials and population-based studies were analyzed in different clinical paradigms. Specifically, the role of ADT was evaluated in patients with nonmetastatic disease as the primary and sole treatment, in combination with radiation therapy (RT) or after surgery, and in patients with metastatic disease. The data suggest that in men with nonmetastatic disease, the use of primary ADT as monotherapy has not shown a benefit and is not recommended, while ADT combined with conventional-dose RT (<72Gy) for patients with high-risk disease may delay progression and prolong survival. The postoperative use of ADT remains poorly evaluated in prospective studies. Likewise, there are no trials evaluating the role of ADT in patients with biochemical relapses after surgery or RT. In patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear benefit in terms of quality of life, reduction of disease-associated morbidity, and possibly survival. Treatment with bilateral orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy, with and without antiandrogens has been associated with various serious adverse events, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and skeletal complications that may also affect mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADT is an effective treatment of PCa, consistent long-term benefits in terms of quality and quantity of life are predominantly evident in patients with advanced/metastatic disease or when ADT is used in combination with RT (<72Gy) in patients with high-risk tumors. Implementation of ADT should be evidence based, with special consideration to adverse events and the risk-benefit ratio.

Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The TROG 96.01 trial assessed whether 3-month and 6-month short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) decreases clinical progression and mortality after radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. Here we report the 10-year results.

METHODS

Between June, 1996, and February, 2000, 818 men with T2b, T2c, T3, and T4 N0 M0 prostate cancers were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT plus radiotherapy, or 6 months of NADT plus radiotherapy. The radiotherapy dose for all groups was 66 Gy, delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles (excluding pelvic nodes) in 33 fractions of 2 Gy per day (excluding weekends) over 6·5-7·0 weeks. NADT consisted of 3·6 mg goserelin given subcutaneously every month and 250 mg flutamide given orally three times a day. NADT began 2 months before radiotherapy for the 3-month NADT group and 5 months before radiotherapy for the 6-month NADT group. Primary endpoints were prostate-cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Treatment allocation was open label and randomisation was done with a minimisation technique according to age, clinical stage, tumour grade, and initial prostate-specific antigen concentration (PSA). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial has been closed to follow-up and all main endpoint analyses are completed. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12607000237482.

FINDINGS

802 men were eligible for analysis (270 in the radiotherapy alone group, 265 in the 3-month NADT group, and 267 in the 6-month NADT group) after a median follow-up of 10·6 years (IQR 6·9-11·6). Compared with radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT decreased the cumulative incidence of PSA progression (adjusted hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90; p=0·003) and local progression (0·49, 0·33-0·73; p=0·0005), and improved event-free survival (0·63, 0·52-0·77; p<0·0001). 6 months of NADT further reduced PSA progression (0·57, 0·46-0·72; p<0·0001) and local progression (0·45, 0·30-0·66; p=0·0001), and led to a greater improvement in event-free survival (0·51, 0·42-0·61, p<0·0001), compared with radiotherapy alone. 3-month NADT had no effect on distant progression (0·89, 0·60-1·31; p=0·550), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·86, 0·60-1·23; p=0·398), or all-cause mortality (0·84, 0·65-1·08; p=0·180), compared with radiotherapy alone. By contrast, 6-month NADT decreased distant progression (0·49, 0·31-0·76; p=0·001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·49, 0·32-0·74; p=0·0008), and all-cause mortality (0·63, 0·48-0·83; p=0·0008), compared with radiotherapy alone. Treatment-related morbidity was not increased with NADT within the first 5 years after randomisation.

INTERPRETATION

6 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined radiotherapy is an effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly in men without nodal metastases or pre-existing metabolic comorbidities that could be exacerbated by prolonged androgen deprivation.

FUNDING

Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, Hunter Medical Research Institute, AstraZeneca, and Schering-Plough.

[Combined external radiotherapy and hormone therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: predictive factors of genitourinary toxicity]

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation are an established treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer. We evaluate outcomes in efficacy and toxicity for patients treated with this combined therapy at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 80 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy combined with neo-adjuvant (2 months) and adjuvant (24 months) androgen deprivation. We studied the clinical variables and side effects. We evaluated treatment outcomes using PSA nadir and biochemical failure, and recorded acute and late gastrointestinal and urinary toxicity. We assessed the correlation between clinical variables and urinary toxicity by means of univariate and multivariate analyses (multiple logistic regression).

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 68 ± 5.81 years; the initial PSA was 20.05 ± 16.27 ng/ ml and the mean prostate volume 43.7 ± 27.57 cc. The clinical stage was T3a in 33% and T3b in 66%. The Gleason score was <7 in 39%, 7 in 46% and ≥8 in 15%. The mean follow-up was 44.4 months and biochemical failure was observed in 3 cases. Acute urinary toxicity was recorded in 90% of the patients (chronic in 35%) and acute gastrointestinal toxicity in 75% (late in 32%). In a univariate analysis, prostate volume and urinary symptoms were statistically correlated to acute and late urinary toxicity. Both prostate volume and urinary symptoms were independently associated with an increase in urinary toxicity in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Hormone-radiotherapy is a valid option to locally treat advanced prostate cancer with optimal short-term outcomes, although it is not devoid of side effects. Prostate volume and urinary symptoms before treatment can predict genitourinary toxicity.

External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study

BACKGROUND

We did a randomised phase 3 trial assessing the benefit of addition of long-term androgen suppression with a luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist to external irradiation in patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk. In this report, we present the 10-year results.

METHODS

For this open-label randomised trial, eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had newly diagnosed histologically proven T1-2 prostatic adenocarcinoma with WHO histological grade 3 or T3-4 prostatic adenocarcinoma of any histological grade, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Treatment allocation was open label and used a minimisation algorithm with institution, clinical stage of the disease, results of pelvic-lymph-node dissection, and irradiation fields extension as minimisation factors. Patients were irradiated externally, once a day, 5 days a week, for 7 weeks to a total dose of 50 Gy to the whole pelvis, with an additional 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The LHRH agonist, goserelin acetate (3·6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks), was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (50 mg orally three times a day) was given for 1 month starting a week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849082.

FINDINGS

Between May 22, 1987, and Oct 31, 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in the analysis (208 radiotherapy alone, 207 combined treatment). Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·1-12·6). 10-year clinical disease-free survival was 22·7% (95% CI 16·3-29·7) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 47·7% (39·0-56·0) in the combined treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33-0·55, p<0·0001). 10-year overall survival was 39·8% (95% CI 31·9-47·5) in patients receiving radiotherapy alone and 58·1% (49·2-66·0) in those allocated combined treatment (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·45-0·80, p=0·0004), and 10-year prostate-cancer mortality was 30·4% (95% CI 23·2-37·5) and 10·3% (5·1-15·4), respectively (HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·24-0·60, p<0·0001). No significant difference in cardiovascular mortality was noted between treatment groups both in patients who had cardiovascular problems at study entry (eight of 53 patients in the combined treatment group had a cardiovascular-related cause of death vs 11 of 63 in the radiotherapy group; p=0·60) and in those who did not (14 of 154 vs six of 145; p=0·25). Two fractures were reported in patients allocated combined treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk, immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH agonist given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves 10-year disease-free and overall survival without increasing late cardiovascular toxicity.

Long-term quality of life following primary treatment in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the changes of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during the 5 years after radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer (cT3PC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 750 patients who underwent RP (n = 575) or EBRT (n = 175) participated in our longitudinal outcomes study. Of these patients, 48 RP patients (8%) and 63 EBRT patients (36%) presented with cT3PC and were included in this analysis. Patients completed the general and disease-specific HRQOL with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, respectively.

RESULTS

When examining the mean SF-36 values by time, there was significant impact on treatment outcomes for several items of the general HRQOL in the RP subjects. Those who underwent EBRT reported no significant changes in the general HRQOL throughout the follow-up period. With regard to disease-specific HRQOL, the RP subjects had significantly worse urinary HRQOL post-operatively than the EBRT subjects (P < 0.001). The scores for sexual function declined over the 60 months, but more so in the RP group. The two groups showed similar bowel HRQOL scores throughout the follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Both primary treatments for cT3PC can offer satisfactory functional outcomes from the HRQOL perspective, except for a persistent decrease in the sexual activity score. These results may guide the treatment selection and clinical management of patients with HRQOL impairments after treatment for cT3PC.

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.

Controversies in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer--what is the optimal combination of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy: a review of literature

BACKGROUND

In high-risk prostate carcinoma, there is controversy whether these patients should be treated with escalated-dose (> or =74 Gy) or conventional-dose radiotherapy (<74 Gy) combined with hormonal therapy. Furthermore, the issue of the optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy are not well crystallized.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A search for evidence from randomized- and large non-randomized studies in order to address these issues, was therefore initiated. For this purpose, MedLine, EMbase, and PubMed and the data base of the Dutch randomized dose-escalation trial, were consulted.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

From this search it was concluded that the benefit of hormonal therapy in combination with conventional-dose radiotherapy (<74 Gy) in high-risk prostate cancer is evident (Level 2 evidence); Levels 2 and 3 evidence were provided by several studies supporting the use of escalated-dose radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer. For the combination of hormonal therapy with escalated-dose radiotherapy in these patients, there is Level 2 evidence for moderately escalated dose (74 Gy) and high escalated dose (> or =78 Gy). The optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy are not well defined. More randomized-controlled trials and meta-analyses are therefore needed to clearly determine the independent role of dose-escalation in high-risk patients treated with hormonal therapy and the optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy.

Prostate cancer: local control and radiotherapy matter in prostate cancer

In a study published in The Lancet, long-term androgen suppression (AS) combined with radiotherapy, compared with AS alone, improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced but nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The combined therapy significantly reduced prostate-cancer-specific deaths at 10 years from 23.9% to 11.9% (P <0.001), and improved overall survival.

Radiation therapy approaches to the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

Radiation therapy modalities have been shown to offer patients a nonoperative option for definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer as well as options for adjuvant or salvage therapy in high-risk prostate cancer patients. In patients with high-risk, localized disease, radiation therapy with or without adjuvant hormonal therapy is considered an excellent treatment option because of its efficacy within the prostate and among local periprostatic structures, addressing micrometastatic disease. Following radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk or recurrent disease, radiotherapy can increase oncologic efficacy in both the adjuvant and salvage setting. Continued studies are underway to address ongoing concerns of sparing surrounding tissues unnecessary radiation while administering high-dose radiation to the prostate and targeted periprostatic structures. Newer technologies are using real-time imaging and computer-simulated motion calculation to adjust for physiological organ motion with respect to bony landmarks classically used to map areas of radiation administration.