Acute toxicity of conventional radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer in EORTC trial 22863

Phase I dose escalation trial of stereotactic radiotherapy prior to robotic prostatectomy in high risk prostate cancer

Background

The aim of the study was to investigate the safety of combining preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) for high risk prostate cancer (HRCaP). Many patients with HRCaP will require adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy after RP. The addition of preoperative SBRT before RP may spare patients from subsequent prolonged courses of RT.

Materials and methods

Eligible patients had NCC N HRCaP and received a total of 25 Gy or 30 Gy in five daily fractions of SBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by robotic RP with pelvic lymphadenectomy 31-45 days later. The primary endpoint was prevalence of acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and biochemical recurrence (BcR).

Results

Three patients received preoperative SBRT to 25 Gy and four received 30 Gy. Median follow-up was 18 months. Highest toxicity was grade 2 and 3 in six (85.7%) and one (14.3%) patients, respectively. All patients developed grade 2 erectile dysfunction and 4 of 7 (57%) developed grade 2 urinary incontinence (UI) within a month after surgery. One patient developed acute grade 3 UI, but there was no grade ≥ 4 toxicity. One patient experienced acute grade 2 hemorrhoidal bleeding. On QOL, acute GU complaints were common and peaked within 3 months. Bowel symptoms were mild. Two patients with pN+ experienced BcR.

Conclusions

Preoperative SBRT before robotic RP in HRCaP is feasible and safe. The severity of acute GU toxicity with preoperative SBRT may be worse than RP alone, while bowel toxicity was mild.

Early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy

CONTEXT

Depending on the pathologic tumour stage, up to 60% of prostate cancer patients who undergo radical prostatectomy will develop biochemical relapse and require further local treatment.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the results of early salvage radiation therapy (RT), defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values prior to RT ≤ 0.5 ng/ml in the setting of lymph node-negative disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Ten retrospective studies, including one multicentre analysis, were used for this analysis. Among them, we received previously unpublished patient characteristics and updated outcome data from five retrospective single-centre trials to perform a subgroup analysis for early salvage RT.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patients treated with early salvage RT have a significantly improved biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) rate compared with those receiving salvage RT initiated after PSA values are >0.5 ng/ml. Similarly, within the cohort of patients with pre-RT PSA values <0.5 ng/ml, improved BRFS rates were noted among those with lower rather higher pre-RT PSA levels. It is possible that higher RT dose levels and the use of adjunctive androgen-deprivation therapy improve biochemical control outcomes in the salvage setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a literature review, improved 5-yr BRFS rates are observed for patients who receive early salvage RT compared with patients treated with salvage RT with a pre-RT PSA value >0.5 ng/ml. Whether the routine application of early salvage RT in patients with initially undetectable PSA levels will be associated with demonstrable clinical benefit awaits the results of ongoing prospective trials.

Gastrointestinal radiation injury: Symptoms, risk factors and mechanisms

Ionising radiation therapy is a common treatment modality for different types of cancer and its use is expected to increase with advances in screening and early detection of cancer. Radiation injury to the gastrointestinal tract is important factor working against better utility of this important therapeutic modality. Cancer survivors can suffer a wide variety of acute and chronic symptoms following radiotherapy, which significantly reduces their quality of life as well as adding an extra burden to the cost of health care. The accurate diagnosis and treatment of intestinal radiation injury often represents a clinical challenge to practicing physicians in both gastroenterology and oncology. Despite the growing recognition of the problem and some advances in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of radiation injury, relatively little is known about the pathophysiology of gastrointestinal radiation injury or any possible susceptibility factors that could aggravate its severity. The aims of this review are to examine the various clinical manifestations of post-radiation gastrointestinal symptoms, to discuss possible patient and treatment factors implicated in normal gastrointestinal tissue radiosensitivity and to outline different mechanisms of intestinal tissue injury.

Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Men who have a radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer that does not involve lymph nodes, but extends beyond the prostate capsule into the seminal vesicles or to surgical margins, are at increased risk of relapse. In men with these high risk factors, radiotherapy (RT) directed at the prostate bed after surgery may reduce this risk, and be curative.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adjuvant RT following RP for prostate cancer in men with high risk features compared with RP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urological Cancers Specialised Register (23 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE (January 1966 to February 2011), PDQ® (Physician Data Query) trial registry databases for ongoing studies (2 November 2010), reference lists from selected studies and reviews, and handsearched relevant conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing RP followed by RT with RP alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and bias and extracted data for analysis. Authors were contacted to clarify data and obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three RCTs involving 1815 men. Adjuvant RT following prostatectomy did not affect overall survival at 5 years (RD (risk difference) 0.00; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), but improved survival at 10 years (RD -0.11; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.02). Adjuvant RT did not improve prostate cancer-specific mortality at 5 years (RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00). Adjuvant RT did not reduce metastatic disease at 5 years (RD -0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.03), but reduced it at 10 years (RD -0.11; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). It improved local control at 5 and 10 years (RD -0.10; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.06 and RD -0.14; 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07, respectively), and biochemical progression-free survival at 5 years and 10 years (RD -0.16; 95% CI -0.21 to -0.11 and RD -0.29; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, respectively). There were no data for clinical disease-free survival. Adjuvant RT increased acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity [do you have the rd for this?], urinary stricture (RD 0.05; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) and incontinence (RD 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08). It did not increase erectile dysfunction or degrade quality of life (RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.26), but with limited data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant RT after RP improves overall survival and reduces the rate of distant metastases, but these effects are only evident with longer follow up. At 5 and 10 years it improves local control and reduces the risk of biochemical failure, although the latter is not a clinical endpoint. Moderate or severe acute and late toxicity is minimal. There is an increased risk of urinary stricture and incontinence, but no detriment to quality of life, based on limited data. Given that the majority of men who have undergone a RP have a longer life expectancy, radiotherapy should be considered for those with high-risk features following radical prostatectomy. The optimal timing is unclear.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Patient-reported acute gastrointestinal toxicity in men receiving 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer with or without neoadjuvant androgen suppression therapy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of 2 months of neoadjuvant and 2 months of concurrent hormonal therapy on the acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities associated with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for prostate adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 80 men who underwent 3D-CRT with (n=40) or without (n=40) neoadjuvant and concurrent hormonal therapy. Computerized tomography-based planning occurred after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. All patients completed a previously validated, quality-of-life self-assessment tool on 7 GI symptoms, including diarrhea, urgency, pain, rectal bleeding, cramping, mucus, and tenesmus, at baseline and weekly during radiation therapy.

RESULTS

Patients who received hormonal therapy were more likely to have T2b, T2c, T3a, or T3b (P<0.001) or Gleason score 7, 8, or 9 (P=0.02) disease compared to those that did not. The dose delivered to the planning target volume was 70 Gy for both groups. Median radiation treatment volume was numerically smaller for the hormone group but not to a statistically significant degree (949 vs. 1043 cc, P=0.30). Patients who received hormonal therapy had less rectal pain (P<0.01) and tenesmus (P=0.02) but more rectal mucus (P=0.03) compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate gland volume reduction after androgen suppression therapy may reduce patient-reported acute GI toxicities associated with 3D-CRT for prostate cancer.

Late toxicity following conventional radiotherapy for prostate cancer: analysis of the EORTC trial 22863

Late toxicity and other serious adverse events (SAE) were analysed in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22863. The study evaluated the value of adjuvant endocrine treatment for locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. From 1987 to 1995, 415 patients were randomised. There was long-term toxicity information for 377 patients (91%). Median age was 70 years (range 50-80 years). Median follow-up for late toxicity was 42 months (range 3-136 months). Toxicity was graded according to a modified Radiotherapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. Other late SAE, that was not classified as severe treatment toxicity, but were still life-threatening, were also assessed. There were 72 patients with grade 2, 10 patients with grade 3 and 4 patients with grade 4 toxicity. There were 20 patients with other late SAE, who were grouped according to their relationship to treatment; likely related (n = 1), unrelated (n = 7) and not assessable (n = 12). Although four treatment-related deaths (1%) occurred, grade 3 or 4 late complications were less than 5%.

Acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant maximal androgen deprivation (MAD) to patients treated with external beam radiation for locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 2000, 818 patients with locally advanced, but non-metastatic, prostate cancer were entered into a randomised clinical trial (TROG 96.01), which compared radiation treatment alone with the same radiation treatment and 3 or 6 months neo-adjuvant MAD with goserelin and flutamide. Relevant symptoms, and how troublesome they were to the patient, were scored using a self-assessment questionnaire. This was completed by the patient at registration, and at specified times during and after treatment. Patients taking flutamide had liver function tests checked at regular intervals.

RESULTS

All patients have completed at least 12 months follow-up after treatment. Nearly all patients completed planned treatment with goserelin, but 27% of patients in the 6-month MAD treatment arm, and 20% in the 3-month arm, had to stop flutamide early. This was mainly due to altered liver function (up to 17% patients) and bowel side effects (up to 8% patients). However, although flutamide resulted in more bowel symptoms for patients on MAD, there was significant reduction in some urinary symptoms on this treatment. Acute bowel and urinary side effects at the end of radiation treatment were similar in all treatment arms. Side effect severity was unrelated to radiation target volume size, which was reduced by MAD, but symptomatology prior to any treatment was a powerful predictor. Of the 36% of patients who were sexually active before any treatment, the majority became inactive whilst on MAD. However, sexual activity at 12 months after radiation treatment was similar in all treatment arms, indicating that the effects of short term MAD on sexual function are reversible.

CONCLUSION

Despite temporary effects on sexual activity, and compliance difficulties with flutamide, short-term neo-adjuvant MAD was not perceived by patients to be a major inconvenience. If neo-adjuvant MAD in the way tested can be demonstrated to lead to improved biochemical control and/or survival, then patients would view these therapeutic gains as worthwhile. Compliance with short-term goserelin was excellent, confirming that LH-RH analogues have a potential role in more long-term adjuvant treatment. However, for more protracted androgen deprivation, survival advantages and deleterious effects need to be assessed in parallel, in order to determine the optimal duration of treatment.