Amini A, Jones BL, Yeh N, Rusthoven CG, Armstrong H, Kavanagh BD. Survival Outcomes of Whole-Pelvic Versus Prostate-Only Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients With Use of the National Cancer Data Base.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015;
93:1052-63. [PMID:
26581142 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.006]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2015] [Revised: 08/25/2015] [Accepted: 09/08/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES
The addition of whole pelvic (WP) compared with prostate-only (PO) radiation therapy (RT) for clinically node-negative prostate cancer remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the survival benefit of adding WPRT versus PO-RT for high-risk, node-negative prostate cancer, using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated from 2004 to 2006, with available data for RT volume, coded as prostate and pelvis (WPRT) or prostate alone (PO-RT) were included. Multivariate analysis (MVA) and propensity-score matched analysis (PSM) were performed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) based on overall survival (OS) using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was also conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 14,817 patients were included: 7606 (51.3%) received WPRT, and 7211 (48.7%) received PO-RT. The median follow-up time was 81 months (range, 2-122 months). Under MVA, the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients had no OS benefit compared with PO-RT (HR 1.05; P=.100). On subset analysis, patients receiving dose-escalated RT also did not benefit from WPRT (HR 1.01; P=.908). PSM confirmed no survival benefit with the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients (HR 1.05; P=.141). In addition, RPA was unable to demonstrate a survival benefit of WPRT for any subset. Other prognostic factors for inferior OS under MVA included older age (HR 1.25; P<.001), increasing comorbidity scores (HR 1.46; P<.001), higher T stage (HR 1.17; P<.001), PSA (HR 1.81; P<.001), and GS (HR 1.29; P<.001), and decreasing median county household income (HR 1.15; P=.011). Factors improving OS included the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (HR 0.92; P=.033), combination external beam RT plus brachytherapy boost (HR 0.71; P<.001), and treatment at an academic/research institution (HR 0.84; P=.002).
CONCLUSION
In the largest reported analysis of WPRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated in the dose-escalated era, the addition of WPRT demonstrated no survival advantage compared with PO-RT.
Collapse