Contemporary management of prostate cancer: a practice survey of Ontario genitourinary radiation oncologists

Patients at high risk of progression after radical prostatectomy: Do they all benefit from immediate post-operative irradiation? (EORTC trial 22911)

EORTC trial 22911 demonstrated that immediate postoperative irradiation significantly improved biochemical failure free survival (BPFS) compared to wait-and-see (W and S) until relapse in patients with pT2-3 tumours and pathological risk factors after radical prostatectomy. In this study, we have investigated the heterogeneity of the treatment benefit across defined subgroups of patients. Data from 972 patients were used. A risk model was developed in the W and S group and the Log-rank test for heterogeneity was applied (alpha=0.05). Positive surgical margin (SM+), seminal vesicle invasion (SV+), WHO differentiation grade, pre- and post-operative PSA were independent predictors for BPFS in the W and S group. Men with SV+ were at higher risk of relapse whereas those with SM+ but no capsule infiltration (ECE-) did not seem to differ from those with SM-ECE+ or with SM+ECE+. Postoperative irradiation improved biochemical progression-free survival in all patient groups. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the endpoint of clinical progression-free survival.

Adjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: current practice in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To survey UK urologists and radiation oncologists in the evaluation and treatment of localised prostate cancer in the adjuvant and salvage setting.

METHODS

Postal questionnaires were mailed to 292 urologists and 98 radiation oncologists in the UK.

RESULTS

In all, 188 (48%) questionnaires were returned. In total, 72/128 (56%) of the urologist respondents and 58/60 (97%) of the oncologist respondents perform routine radical prostate treatment. Among 43 (60%) of the urologist, 40 (69%) recommended adjuvant treatment, which could be radiotherapy, hormonal treatment or combined hormonal and radiation treatment. There is no significant difference between the modality of treatment recommended. The poor prognostic factors that would influence the decision to offer adjuvant treatment include a detectable postoperative PSA, seminal vesicle involvement, positive margins, Gleason score>8 and pathological T3. With regard to the choice of hormonal treatment, most urologists preferred antiandrogens, whereas most oncologists prefer lutienising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue (P=0.03). Regarding salvage treatment, there is a wide variation in the PSA threshold and number of PSA rises before initiation of investigations and treatment. Significantly more urologists recommended salvage radiotherapy (P=0.02), whereas oncologists recommended combined hormonal radiation therapy (P=0.03). There is a wide variation of practice regarding the duration of hormonal treatment, the type of investigations initiated, range of radiotherapy doses and treatment volumes.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variation in practice among UK clinicians.