Predicting long-term survival, and the need for hormonal therapy: a meta-analysis of RTOG prostate cancer trials

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.

Prostate cancer

The management of prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, with substantial advances being made in understanding the genomic landscape and biology underpinning both primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Similarly, the emergence of more sensitive imaging methods has improved diagnostic and staging accuracy and refined surveillance strategies. These advances have introduced personalised therapeutics to clinical practice, with treatments targeting genomic alterations in DNA repair pathways now clinically validated. An important shift in the therapeutic framework for metastatic disease has taken place, with metastatic-directed therapies being evaluated for oligometastatic disease, aggressive management of the primary lesion shown to benefit patients with low-volume metastatic disease, and with several novel androgen pathway inhibitors significantly improving survival when used as a first-line therapy for metastatic disease. Research into the molecular characterisation of localised, recurrent, and progressive disease will undoubtedly have an impact on clinical management. Similarly, emerging research into novel therapeutics, such as targeted radioisotopes and immunotherapy, holds much promise for improving the lives of patients with prostate cancer.

Optimal Androgen Deprivation Therapy Combined with Proton Beam Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results from a Multi-Institutional Study of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy benefits intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. The optimal ADT duration in combination with high-dose proton beam therapy (PBT) remains unknown. Methods: Intermediate- and high-risk PC patients treated with PBT combined with ADT for various durations were analyzed retrospectively. To assess the relationship between ADT and biochemical relapse-free (bRF) rate, Cox proportional hazards models including T stage, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score (GS), and total radiation dose were used. Results: In the intermediate-risk PC patients (n = 520), ADT use improved bRF (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26–0.93; p = 0.029), especially in those with multiple intermediate-risk factors (T2b–2c, PSA 10–20 ng/mL, and GS 7). In the high-risk PC patients (n = 555), a longer ADT duration (>6 months) conferred a benefit for bRF (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.90; p = 0.018), which was most apparent in patients with multiple high-risk factors (T3a–4, PSA > 20 ng/mL, and GS ≥ 8) treated with ADT for ≥21 months. Conclusions: Short-term (≤6 months) ADT is beneficial for intermediate-risk PC patients, but likely unnecessary for those with a single risk factor, whereas ADT for >6 months is necessary for high-risk PC patients and ADT for ≥21 months might be optimal for those with multiple risk factors in combination of high-dose PBT.

Particle therapy for prostate cancer: The past, present and future

Although prostate cancer control using radiotherapy is dose‐dependent, dose–volume effects on late toxicities in organs at risk, such as the rectum and bladder, have been observed. Both protons and carbon ions offer advantageous physical properties for radiotherapy, and create favorable dose distributions using fewer portals compared with photon‐based radiotherapy. Thus, particle beam therapy using protons and carbon ions theoretically seems suitable for dose escalation and reduced risk of toxicity. However, it is difficult to evaluate the superiority of particle beam radiotherapy over photon beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, as no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes between the two types of therapy due to the limited number of facilities using particle beam therapy. The Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology organized a joint effort among research groups to establish standardized treatment policies and indications for particle beam therapy according to disease, and multicenter prospective studies have been planned for several common cancers. Clinical trials of proton beam therapy for intermediate‐risk prostate cancer and carbon‐ion therapy for high‐risk prostate cancer have already begun. As particle beam therapy for prostate cancer is covered by the Japanese national health insurance system as of April 2018, and the number of facilities practicing particle beam therapy has increased recently, the number of prostate cancer patients treated with particle beam therapy in Japan is expected to increase drastically. Here, we review the results from studies of particle beam therapy for prostate cancer and discuss future developments in this field.

Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy

Radiation therapy is a commonly used curative modality for prostate cancer. The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the curative potential of prostate radiotherapy (RT) in multiple subsets of patients. In addition to having an independent cytotoxic effect, current evidence suggests that androgen deprivation synergistically works with radiation therapy by preventing DNA repair. Given the wide-ranging toxicities of this therapy, clinicians must judiciously choose which patients may benefit from ADT and also consider the appropriate length of treatment. With recent advances in RT delivery, higher doses of radiation are currently used when compared with the dose used in historic trials, leading to the unanswered question of how RT dose interacts with ADT. Current and future clinical studies are attempting to further define the appropriate indications and patient populations for which ADT represents a clinically appropriate addition to prostate RT.

High-Dose Radiotherapy plus Prolonged Hormone Therapy in CT2-3 Prostatic Carcinoma: Is it Useful?

Aims and background

Clinical studies published in the last decade have shown the possible improvement in prognosis of patients with prostatic carcinoma undergoing radiation therapy with dose escalation or in combination with hormone therapy. However, in studies on hormone therapy, moderate doses of radiation therapy have been used, whereas in studies with high-dose radiotherapy, hormone therapy usually was not administered. Therefore, it is not clear whether the concomitant use of high doses and prolonged hormone therapy could determine an additional beneficial effect. The aim of the present study was therefore to evaluate the relative prognostic role of different dose levels (<70 versus >70 Gy) of external beam radiotherapy and of different hormone therapies (neoadjuvant only versus neoadjuvant + adjuvant).

Methods

A total of 426 patients (median age, 71 yrs; range, 51-87 yrs) underwent external beam radiotherapy (70 Gy median dose to prostate volume ± 45 Gy to pelvic lymph nodes) and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (bicalutamide for 30 days; goserelin, 3.6 mg every 28 days starting two months before radiotherapy and for its entire duration). Dose to the prostate was <70 Gy in 44.8% of patients and >70 Gy in 55.2%. A total of 244 patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy. The distribution according to the clinical stage was 48.1% T2 and 51.9% T3. The distribution according to the Gleason score was 14.3% grades 2-4, 66.7% grades 5-7 and 19.0% grades 8-10. The distribution according to pretreatment prostate-specific antigen levels (in ng/mL) was 7.0% for 0-4, 29.3% for 4-10, 30.3% for 10-20, and 33.3% for >20.

Results

With a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 1-151), 81 patients (19.0%) showed biochemical recurrence, 17 patients (4.0%) showed local disease progression, and 12 patients (2.8%) showed distant metastases. Overall, 23 patients (5.4%) showed disease progression. Four patients (0.9%) died. At the time of this writing, no patient has died from prostatic carcinoma. At univariate analysis, the radiation dose delivered to the tumor and the administration of adjuvant hormone therapy were shown to be significantly correlated with biochemical disease-free survival. At multivariate analysis, the single parameter significantly correlated with biochemical disease-free survival was the radiation dose delivered to the tumor. In the subset of patients not treated with adjuvant hormone therapy, there was a significant correlation between radiation dose and biochemical disease-free survival at univariate and multivariate analysis. A similar correlation between adjuvant hormone therapy and biochemical disease-free survival was observed in the subset of stage cT3 patients at univariate and multivariate analysis. In patients undergoing combined treatment without adjuvant hormone therapy, a significant correlation was observed between clinical stage and biochemical disease-free survival, at univariate and at multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

The results of the study confirmed the positive impact of radiotherapy doses >70 Gy and of adjuvant hormone therapy in patients with locally advanced prostatic carcinoma. Owing to the lack of evidence of a correlation between radiation dose and biochemical outcome in patients undergoing prolonged hormone therapy, the role of further dose escalation in patients undergoing combined hormone and radiation therapy is still unclear.

Androgen Ablation Therapy Does not Increase the Risk of Late Morbidity following 3D-conformal Radiotherapy of Organ-confined Prostate Cancer: The Experience of the European Institute of Oncology

Aims and Background

Androgen ablation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy-neoadjuvant and adjuvant – has consistently been shown to be associated with improved biochemical and local control, whereas controversy still remains as regards its benefit in terms of overall survival. The objective of this study is to determine the impact of androgen ablation in combination to 3D-conformal radiotherapy on late treatment-related toxicity.

Methods

236 patients were treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy to a total dose ranging from 70 and 78.6 Gy. Fifty-six patients did not receive any form of androgen ablation whereas 176 were given at least 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen ablation. Of these, 64 stayed on androgen ablation for a median time of 6 months post-radiotherapy. Acute toxicity was evaluated weekly during the course of treatment. Late toxicity was assessed at 3-months intervals during the follow-up. Toxicity was scored according to the RTOG criteria.

Results

The median follow-up was 24.6 months (range, 12-62). The incidence of late genitourinary toxicity was: 3% G2, 3.5% G3, 0.5% G4. The incidence of late gastrointestinal toxicity was: 12% G2, 2% G3, 1% G4. No association was observed between the use of androgen ablation and late treatment-related toxicity. High-risk patients who continued on androgen ablation long-term were not found to have an increased risk of developing late toxicity with respect to those who never had any form of androgen ablation or those only treated neoadjuvantly.

Conclusions

In our experience, the use of androgen ablation does not impact on late toxicity following high dose 3D-conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Hormono-Radiotherapy in Prostatic Carcinoma: Prognostic Factors and Implications for Combined Modality Treatment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of several clinical variables in a patient population undergoing neoadjuvant hormonotherapy (NHT) with external beam radiotherapy (ERT) to identify subsets of patients with an unfavorable prognosis who require intensified therapy. Eighty-four patients (mean age, 68.2 +/– 6.1 years; range, 52–81 years) underwent ERT (45 Gy to pelvic volume; 65 Gy mean dose to prostate volume) and NHT (oral flutamide: 250 mg three times daily for 30 days; LH-RH analogue: one vial every 28 days starting two months before radiotherapy and for its entire duration). The distribution according to clinical stage was T2: 46.4%, T3: 50.0%, T4: 3.6%. The distribution according to the Gleason score was grade 2–4: 17.9%; grade 5–7: 53.6%; grade 8–10: 28.5%. The distribution according to pretreatment PSA levels (in ng/mL) was 0–4: 5.9%; 4–10: 26.2%; 10–20: 16.7%; ≥20: 51.2%. With a median follow-up of 36 months, 3.6% of patients died; hematogenous metastases and local disease progression were found in 16.7% and 6% of patients, respectively. Overall, the incidence of disease progression was 17.9%. 32.9% of patients showed biochemical failure during follow-up. Overall, metastasis-free, local progression-free and biochemical failure-free actuarial survival at five years was 89.2%, 66.5%, 85.0% and 41.9%, respectively. At univariate analysis (log-rank) clinical stage (cT) was shown to be significantly correlated with the incidence of metastasis (P = 0.0004), local progression (P <0.0001) and disease-free survival (P = 0.0005). At multivariate analysis (Cox) the correlations between clinical stage and metastasis (P = 0.0175), local progression (P = 0.0200) and disease-free survival (P = 0.0175) were confirmed. Gleason score and pretreatment PSA levels did not show any significant correlation with these endpoints. These results confirm the indications of the recent literature, which, in prostate carcinoma at higher clinical stages, suggest the use of prolonged hormonal therapy after radiotherapy.

The role of androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has a long and illustrious history in the treatment for prostate cancer and continues to be a mainstay treatment for locally advanced and high-risk patients. Because the survival for even high-risk prostate patients is lengthy, details of treatment such as duration and timing must be considered carefully and weighed against the various side effects.

AREAS COVERED

In the following article, we discuss the evolution of ADT from its initial applications in metastatic prostate cancer to its more recent incorporation into front line treatment in conjunction with radiation therapy (RT) for intermediate and high risk disease. We emphasize the results of phase III trials, which have defined the role of ADT in combination with RT in this patient population. We emphasize not only the potential benefits of ADT with RT, but also the potential risks, and underscore the need to consider both in order to maximize the therapeutic ration for each patient. Studies were identified via a search of PubMed as well as the bibliographies of articles discussed herein. Expert commentary: Even with advanced radiation techniques and dose escalation, adjuvant ADT continues to confer an overall survival benefit in intermediate and high-risk patients, although some evidence suggest that duration of treatment may be shortened, particularly for the high-risk group. The coming years will shed further information on this complicated topic with maturing of results from several ongoing trials.

Fortifying the Treatment of Prostate Cancer with Physical Activity

Over the past decade, significant data have shown that obese men experience a survival detriment after treatment for prostate cancer. While methods to combat obesity are of utmost importance for the prostate cancer patient, newer data reveal the overall metabolic improvements that accompany increased activity levels and intense exercise beyond weight loss. Along these lines, a plethora of data have shown improvement in prostate cancer-specific outcomes after treatment accompanied with these activity levels. This review discusses the metabolic mechanisms in which increased activity levels and exercise can help improve both outcomes for men treated for prostate cancer while lowering the side effects of treatment.

Outcomes of hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy boost for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Treatment of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer with a high BED has been shown to increase recurrence free survival (RFS). While high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, given as a boost is effective in delivering a high BED, many patients are not candidates for the procedure or wish to avoid an invasive procedure. We evaluated the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a boost, with dosimetry modeled after HDR-boost.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty patients were treated with two fractions of SBRT (9.5-10.5 Gy/fraction) after 45 Gy external-beam radiotherapy, with 48 eligible for analysis at a median follow-up of 42.7 months.

RESULTS

The Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical control post-radiation therapy (95 % Confidence Interval) at 3, 4 and 5 years were 95 % (81-99 %), 90 % (72-97 %) and 90 % (72-97 %), respectively (not counting 2 patients with a PSA bounce as failures). RFS (defined as disease recurrence or death) estimates at 3, 4 and 5 years were 92 % (77-97 %), 88 % (69-95 %) and 83 % (62-93 %) if patients with PSA bounces are not counted as failures, and were 90 % (75-96 %), 85 % (67-94 %) and 75 % (53-88 %) if they were. The median time to PSA nadir was 26.2 months (range 5.8-82.9 months), with a median PSA nadir of 0.05 ng/mL (range <0.01-1.99 ng/mL). 2 patients had a "benign PSA bounce", and 4 patients recurred with radiographic evidence of recurrence beyond the RT fields. Treatment was well tolerated with no acute G3 or higher GI or GU toxicity and only a single G3 late GU toxicity of urinary obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT boost is well-tolerated for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients with good biochemical outcomes and low toxicity.

Biochemical progression-free survival in localized prostate cancer patients treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy

Introduction

Prostate cancer is now the third most frequent noncutaneous malignancy in Iranian men and the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Measurement of total serum prostate specific antigens (PSAs) has been one of the strongest predictors of biochemical progression and overall survival in determining the efficacy of definitive external beam radiation therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. The aim of this research was to identify the 5-year biochemical progression-free survival (BFS) and related prognostic and predictive factors of localized prostate cancer patients who were treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy.

Methods

This study analyzed 192 localized prostate cancer patients from stage T1aN0M0 to stage T3N0M0; they were treated with definitive radiation therapy and followed up in the radiation-oncology ward of Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital in Tehran (Iran) between 2006 and 2013. The 5-year BFS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. For multivariate analysis, the Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the strengths of various factors for 5-year BFS.

Results

The follow-up period was between 14–81 months, with a median of 31 months. The median cumulative prostate dose in our series was 64 Gray (Gy) (range 62 to 78 Gy). The 5-year BFS for all patients was 65.1%, and 5-year BFS in low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were 100%, 86.5%, and 54.9% respectively. Multivariate analysis found statistically significant relation between 5-year BFS and initial PSA>20, Gleason score 8–10, high risk group, TNM stage≥T2cN0M0, radiotherapy dose<70 Gy, radiotherapy with 2D technique and hormonal therapy in high-risk group (p=0.003, p=0.032, p=0.014, p=0.001, p=0.035, p=0.035, p=0.022 respectively).

Conclusion

Our seven years’ experience of follow-up with PSA showed that PSA was the strongest predictor of biochemical progression survival in patients with prostate cancer who were treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy.

Clinical Significance of Neoadjuvant Combined Androgen Blockade for More Than Six Months in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostate Brachytherapy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to clarify the clinical significance of neoadjuvant combined androgen blockade (CAB) for ≥ 6 months in patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 431 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent prostate brachytherapy (BT) with or without neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months with mean follow-up time of 64.6 months (range 24-108 months) were evaluated retrospectively. Of those 431, 232 patients received BT in combination with neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months. Biochemical recurrence-free rates (BRFRs) in 364 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up were evaluated by log-rank test.

RESULTS

BRFR in patients with low-, intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were 98.1, 94.2 and 89.1%, respectively. In patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer only, neoadjuvant CAB was significantly associated with BRFR (p = 0.0468). Especially in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with radiation dose received by 90% of the prostate (D90) < 180 Gy, neoadjuvant CAB exerted a favorable impact on BRFR (p = 0.0429). On multivariate analyses, neoadjuvant CAB and D90 were independent predictors of BRFR (p = 0.0061 and p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CAB for ≥ 6 months has a favorable impact on BRFR in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, particularly in patients with relatively low radiation doses of D90.

Predictors of survival in prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis and extremely high prostate-specific antigen levels

PURPOSE

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a surrogate marker of disease progression; however, its predictive ability in the extreme ranges is unknown. We determined the predictors of survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer (BMPCa) and with extremely high PSA levels.

METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients (n = 248) diagnosed with BMPCa between December 2002 and June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinicopathological features at diagnosis, namely age, body mass index, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and PSA levels, PSA nadir, time to PSA nadir and its maintenance period, PSA declining velocity, Gleason grade, clinical T stage, pain score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS), and the number of bone metastases were assessed. The patients were stratified according to PSA ranges of <20 ng/mL, 20-100 ng/mL, 100-1000 ng/mL, and 1000-10,000 ng/mL. Study endpoints were castration-resistant PCa (CRPC)-free survival and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

Patients with higher PSA and ALP levels showed more bone lesions (P < 0.001). During the follow-up period (median, 39.9 months; interquartile range, 21.5-65.9 months), there were no differences between the groups in terms of the survival endpoints. High ALP levels, shorter time to PSA nadir, and pain were associated with an increased risk of progression to CRPC, and high ALP levels, ECOG PS ≥ 1, and higher PSA nadir independently predicted CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA response to androgen deprivation therapy and serum ALP are reliable predictors of survival in patients with BMPCa presenting with extremely high PSA levels. These patients should not be deterred from active treatment based on baseline PSA values.

Is neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy beneficial in prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy?

PURPOSE

To determine whether neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) improves clinical outcomes in patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 201 patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy between January 1991 and December 2008. Of these, 156 patients with more than 3 years of follow-up were the subjects of this study. The median duration of follow-up was 91.2 months. NADT was given in 103 patients (66%) with median duration of 3.3 months (range, 1.0 to 7.7 months). Radiation dose was escalated gradually from 64 Gy to 81 Gy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique.

RESULTS

Biochemical relapse-free survival (BCRFS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients were 72.6% and 90.7% at 5 years, respectively. BCRFS and OS of NADT group were 79.5% and 89.8% at 5 years and those of radiotherapy alone group were 58.8% and 92.3% at 5 years, respectively. Risk group (p = 0.010) and radiation dose ≥70 Gy (p = 0.017) affected BCRFS independently. NADT was a significant prognostic factor in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis (p = 0.073). Radiation dose ≥70 Gy was only an independent factor for OS (p = 0.007; hazard ratio, 0.261; 95% confidence interval, 0.071-0.963).

CONCLUSION

NADT prior to definitive radiotherapy did not result in significant benefit in terms of BCRFS and OS. NADT should not be performed routinely in the era of dose-escalated radiotherapy.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥10 μg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b-4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation--stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost--to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5-8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9-11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6-11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3-7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0-22·1), 18·9% (14·6-24·2), 19·4% (15·0-24·7), and 13·9% (10·3-18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6-39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6-45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8-34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8-31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7-9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5-3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7-6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8-11·1), 14·6% (10·6-19·2), 8·4% (5·5-12·2), and 7·6% (4·8-11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14-3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7-19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0-22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3-18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6-15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5-30·9), 28·9% (23·5-34·5), 20·7% (16·1-25·9), and 15·3% (11·3-20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8-10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8-10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.

Current trends for the use of androgen deprivation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, localized, and locally advanced prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is now a well-established standard of care in combination with definitive radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk to high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. It is also well established that combination modality treatment with ADT and radiotherapy is superior to either of these modalities alone for the treatment of patients with high-risk locally advanced disease. Current treatment guidelines for prostate cancer in the United States are based on the estimated risk of recurrence and death. This review examines the clinical evidence underpinning the use of ADT and radiotherapy among patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced disease in the United States. This review also considers the rationale for moving from traditional luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists to more recently developed gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists.

[Radiation therapy in locally advanced and/or relapsed urological tumors]

Radiation therapy (RT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of locally advanced and/or relapsed urological tumors, as well as in palliation, or as definitive treatment, and even where integrated into a multi-modal approach. In operated renal tumors, positive margins or extracapsular extension show a positive impact of postoperative RT, with a reduction of relapses between 100% and 30%, while, in the case of palliation, treatments with RT at high doses are preferred. In advanced cancers of the upper urinary tract, RT plays a limited role, even if it seems to increase the level of disease control locally and, with the combination of cisplatin, survival rates too. An important reduction in the recurrence is also observed in locally advanced tumors of the urethra, with a recurrence of 60% after surgery, 36% after RT and 25% after pairing of the two. In locally advanced tumors of the penis, RT shows poorer results than surgery, and the addition of postoperative RT does not seem to add any further outcome, except where, in the presence of a positive inguinal dissection, the postoperative RT reduces lymph node recurrences by 60%-11%. Interesting data for the preservation of the organ are reported with reference to the combination with chemotherapy. In the tumors of the testis, it is still disputable whether the treatment of residual masses after chemotherapy may be appropriate, with a view to a possible salvage radiotherapy. In the treatment of the prostate, the role of RT is consolidated and evolving with the progress of dose escalation, the association with hormonal therapy, new technologies, new possibilities of IMRT and proton therapy and various studies on multi-modal approaches (hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy). Cystectomy is the gold standard for the treatment of locally advanced bladder cancer, even though there is a revived interest in multimodal treatments (transurethral resection, chemotherapy, RT) that may allow the organ preservation. Postoperative radiotherapy, which can reduce by 50% to 20%-5% local recurrences that are highly correlated with distance failure and with survival, should be revised in the light of modern RT techniques that can further increase local control levels and reduce the toxicity significantly.

Salvage therapy of small volume prostate cancer nodal failures: a review of the literature

New imaging modalities may be useful to identify prostate cancer patients with small volume, limited nodal relapse ("oligo-recurrent") potentially amenable to local treatments (radiotherapy, surgery) with the aim of long-term control of the disease, even in a condition traditionally considered prognostically unfavorable. This report reviews the new diagnostic tools and the main published data about the role of surgery and radiation therapy in this particular subgroup of patients.

Improving outcomes in high-risk prostate cancer with radiotherapy

There have been significant improvements in the radiotherapeutic management of patients with high risk prostate cancer. Randomized trials have clearly demonstrated improved outcomes with the combination of radiotherapy in conjunction with androgen deprivation. While these trials have utilized low doses of radiotherapy in the range of 70 Gy, recent studies have suggested that significant benefits of combined androgen deprivation therapy with dose escalated radiotherapy are also observed. The use of high radiation dose levels in the setting of high risk prostate cancer is important, and strategies which combine external beam radiotherapy with a brachytherapy boost may provide an opportunity for even greater intensification of the radiation dose to the prostate target. Systemic therapies, second generation anti-androgen therapy and novel targeted agents integrated with radiotherapy will open up new vistas and challenges for further improved outcomes in patients with high-risk disease.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria prostate cancer--pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous male malignancy in the United States. The use of serum prostate-specific antigen as a screening tool is complicated by a significant fraction of nonlethal cancers diagnosed by biopsy. Ultrasound is used predominately as a biopsy guidance tool. Combined rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen testing, and histology from ultrasound-guided biopsy provide risk stratification for locally advanced and metastatic disease. Imaging in low-risk patients is unlikely to guide management for patients electing up-front treatment. MRI, CT, and bone scans are appropriate in intermediate-risk to high-risk patients to better assess the extent of disease, guide therapy decisions, and predict outcomes. MRI (particularly with an endorectal coil and multiparametric functional imaging) provides the best imaging for cancer detection and staging. There may be a role for prostate MRI in the context of active surveillance for low-risk patients and in cancer detection for undiagnosed clinically suspected cancer after negative biopsy results. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

High-dose conformal radiotherapy reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality: results of a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine in a meta-analysis whether prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), biochemical or clinical failure (BCF), and overall mortality (OM) in men with localized prostate cancer treated with conformal high-dose radiotherapy (HDRT) are better than those in men treated with conventional-dose radiotherapy (CDRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The MEDLINE, Embase, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the proceedings of annual meetings, were systematically searched to identify randomized, controlled studies comparing conformal HDRT with CDRT for localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Five randomized, controlled trials (2508 patients) that met the study criteria were identified. Pooled results from these randomized, controlled trials showed a significant reduction in the incidence of PCSM and BCF rates at 5 years in patients treated with HDRT (p = 0.04 and p < 0.0001, respectively), with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of PCSM and BCF at 5 years of 1.7% and 12.6%, respectively. Two trials evaluated PCSM with 10 years of follow up. The pooled results from these trials showed a statistical benefit for HDRT in terms of PCSM (p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, trials that used androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) showed an ARR for BCF of 12.9% (number needed to treat = 7.7, p < 0.00001), whereas trials without ADT had an ARR of 13.6% (number needed to treat = 7, p < 0.00001). There was no difference in the OM rate at 5 and 10 years (p = 0.99 and p = 0.11, respectively) between the groups receiving HDRT and CDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis is the first study to show that HDRT is superior to CDRT in preventing disease progression and prostate cancer-specific death in trials that used conformational technique to increase the total dose. Despite the limitations of our study in evaluating the role of ADT and HDRT, our data show no benefit for HDRT arms in terms of BCF in trials with or without ADT.

Advanced clinical states in prostate cancer

The classification of clinical disease states within advanced prostate cancer is set apart from other solid tumors largely through measurement of prostate-specific antigen in the blood. This testing has allowed the distinction between the castration-sensitive and the castration-resistant states, to complement radiographic distinction within advanced prostate cancer. This has paved the way for advances in prognostication and treatment of patients within a heterogeneous disease group. Currently used clinical classifications have limitations and continue to evolve. The authors define the current disease states and discuss implications for prognosis and treatment decisions, as well as the limitations of existing classifications and emerging discoveries.

A review of update clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy

Among various types of ion species, carbon ions are considered to have the most balanced, optimal properties in terms of possessing physically and biologically effective dose localization in the body. This is due to the fact that when compared with photon beams, carbon ion beams offer improved dose distribution, leading to the concentration of the sufficient dose within a target volume while minimizing the dose in the surrounding normal tissues. In addition, carbon ions, being heavier than protons, provide a higher biological effectiveness, which increases with depth, reaching the maximum at the end of the beam's range. This is practically an ideal property from the standpoint of cancer radiotherapy. Clinical studies have been carried out in the world to confirm the efficacy of carbon ions against a variety of tumors as well as to develop effective techniques for delivering an efficient dose to the tumor. Through clinical experiences of carbon ion radiotherapy at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences and Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, a significant reduction in the overall treatment time with acceptable toxicities has been obtained in almost all types of tumors. This means that carbon ion radiotherapy has meanwhile achieved for itself a solid place in general practice. This review describes clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy together with physical, biological and technological aspects of carbon ions.

Treatment outcome of high-dose image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy using intra-prostate fiducial markers for localized prostate cancer at a single institute in Japan

Background

Several studies have confirmed the advantages of delivering high doses of external beam radiotherapy to achieve optimal tumor-control outcomes in patients with localized prostate cancer. We evaluated the medium-term treatment outcome after high-dose, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using intra-prostate fiducial markers for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

In total, 141 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with image-guided IMRT (76 Gy in 13 patients and 80 Gy in 128 patients) between 2003 and 2008 were enrolled in this study. The patients were classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined risk groups. Thirty-six intermediate-risk patients and 105 high-risk patients were included. Androgen-deprivation therapy was performed in 124 patients (88%) for a median of 11 months (range: 2–88 months). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse was defined according to the Phoenix-definition (i.e., an absolute nadir plus 2 ng/ml dated at the call). The 5-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival, the 5-year distant metastasis-free survival, the 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS), the 5-year overall survival (OS) outcomes and the acute and late toxicities were analyzed. The toxicity data were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. The median follow-up was 60 months.

Results

The 5-year PSA relapse-free survival rates were 100% for the intermediate-risk patients and 82.2% for the high-risk patients; the 5-year actuarial distant metastasis-free survival rates were 100% and 95% for the intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively; the 5-year CSS rates were 100% for both patient subsets; and the 5-year OS rates were 100% and 91.7% for the intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. The Gleason score (<8 vs. ≥8) was significant for the 5-year PSA relapse-free survival on multivariate analysis (p = 0.044). There was no grade 3 or 4 acute toxicity. The incidence of grade 2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were 1.4% and 8.5%, respectively. The 5-year actuarial likelihood of late grade 2–3 GI and GU toxicities were 6% and 6.3%, respectively. No grade 4 GI or GU late toxicity was observed.

Conclusions

These medium-term results demonstrate a good tolerance of high-dose image-guided IMRT. However, further follow-up is needed to confirm the long-term treatment outcomes.

Quality of life in men receiving radiotherapy and neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: results from a prospective longitudinal study

AIM

To report a study measuring the quality of life and side effects in men receiving radiotherapy and hormone ablation for prostate cancer up to 1 year after treatment.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer incidence is increasing with the result that more men are living longer with the disease and the side effects of treatment. It is important to know the effects this has on their quality of life.

DESIGN

Survey.

METHOD

Between September 2006-September 2007, all men who were about to undergo radical conformal radiotherapy ± neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer were invited to participate in the study; 149 men were recruited. They completed the European Organization on Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire C-30 and Prostate Cancer module PR25 at four time-points.

RESULTS

At 4-6 weeks after radiotherapy, participants experienced the biggest relative decline in global quality of life, social, physical, and role functioning and an increase in treatment side effects. At 6 months postradiotherapy the majority of men experienced an improvement in their side effects. However, a minority of men were experiencing severe side effects of radiotherapy at 1 year post-treatment. Single men and men who had a low quality of life prior to radiotherapy, reported a lower quality of life at 1 year after treatment in comparison to married men.

CONCLUSION

Men with prostate cancer suffer limitations due to the symptoms they experience and disruption to their quality of life. It is essential that nurses develop and deliver follow-up care which is flexible and appropriate to the individual needs of these men.

Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether short-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) before and during radiotherapy improves cancer control and overall survival among patients with early, localized prostate adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

From 1994 through 2001, we randomly assigned 1979 eligible patients with stage T1b, T1c, T2a, or T2b prostate adenocarcinoma and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 20 ng per milliliter or less to radiotherapy alone (992 patients) or radiotherapy with 4 months of total androgen suppression starting 2 months before radiotherapy (radiotherapy plus short-term ADT, 987 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included disease-specific mortality, distant metastases, biochemical failure (an increasing level of PSA), and the rate of positive findings on repeat prostate biopsy at 2 years.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 9.1 years. The 10-year rate of overall survival was 62% among patients receiving radiotherapy plus short-term ADT (the combined-therapy group), as compared with 57% among patients receiving radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death with radiotherapy alone, 1.17; P=0.03). The addition of short-term ADT was associated with a decrease in the 10-year disease-specific mortality from 8% to 4% (hazard ratio for radiotherapy alone, 1.87; P=0.001). Biochemical failure, distant metastases, and the rate of positive findings on repeat prostate biopsy at 2 years were significantly improved with radiotherapy plus short-term ADT. Acute and late radiation-induced toxic effects were similar in the two groups. The incidence of grade 3 or higher hormone-related toxic effects was less than 5%. Reanalysis according to risk showed reductions in overall and disease-specific mortality primarily among intermediate-risk patients, with no significant reductions among low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stage T1b, T1c, T2a, or T2b prostate adenocarcinoma and a PSA level of 20 ng per milliliter or less, the use of short-term ADT for 4 months before and during radiotherapy was associated with significantly decreased disease-specific mortality and increased overall survival. According to post hoc risk analysis, the benefit was mainly seen in intermediate-risk, but not low-risk, men. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; RTOG 94-08 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002597.).

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.

Individualized decision-making for older men with prostate cancer: balancing cancer control with treatment consequences across the clinical spectrum

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent non-skin cancer among men and is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. PCa has an increased incidence and prevalence in older men. Age-associated incidence is on the rise due to increased screening in the older population. This has led to a sharp rise in the detection of early stage PCa. Given the indolent nature of many prostatic malignancies, a large proportion of older men with PCa will ultimately die from other causes. As a result, physicians and patients are faced with the challenge of identifying optimal treatment strategies for localized PCa, biochemically recurrent PCa and later-stage PCa. Age-related changes can impact tolerance of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in men with metastatic disease and shift the risk-benefit ratio of these treatments. Tools such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) can help estimate remaining life expectancy and can help predict treatment-related morbidity and mortality in older men. Application of CGA in older men with PCa is important to help individualize and optimize treatment strategies. Research that integrates multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment of PCa and the patient's overall health status is needed.

Impact of hormonal treatment duration in combination with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Hormone therapy plus radiotherapy significantly decreases recurrences and mortality of patients affected by locally advanced prostate cancer. In order to determine if difference exists according to the hormonal treatment duration, a literature-based meta-analysis was performed.

Methods

Relative risks (RR) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (biochemical failure, BF; cancer-specific survival, CSS), and secondary outcomes (overall survival, OS; local or distant recurrence, LR/DM) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity, a meta-regression for clinic-pathological predictors and a correlation test for surrogates were conducted.

Results

Five trials (3,424 patients) were included. Patient population ranged from 267 to 1,521 patients. The longer hormonal treatment significantly improves BF (with significant heterogeneity) with an absolute benefit of 10.1%, and a non significant trend in CSS. With regard to secondary end-points, the longer hormonal treatment significantly decrease both the LR and the DM with an absolute difference of 11.7% and 11.5%. Any significant difference in OS was observed. None of the three identified clinico-pathological predictors (median PSA, range 9.5-20.35, Gleason score 7-10, 27-55% patients/trial, and T3-4, 13-77% patients/trial), did significantly affect outcomes. At the meta-regression analysis a significant correlation between the overall treatment benefit in BF, CSS, OS, LR and DM, and the length of the treatment was found (p≤0.03).

Conclusions

Although with significant heterogeneity (reflecting different patient' risk stratifications), a longer hormonal treatment duration significantly decreases biochemical, local and distant recurrences, with a trend for longer cancer specific survival.

Evidence-based medicine: comparative analysis of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues in combination with external beam radiation and surgery in the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues are a cornerstone in the management of many clinical situations in prostate cancer patients. The multiplicity of drugs make it difficult to decide which is the best drug to prescribe to each patient. Whether or not the different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues belong to the same drug class is only merely supposed. This study adds a systematic review of the literature in order to determine whether or not the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues available for prescription belong to the same drug class (same family, similar chemical structure, mechanism of action, and efficacy). The current evidence available is not enough to support a presumed drug class effect of the various analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

• To study whether luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues are agents of the same pharmacological class, i.e. whether they have the same clinical effect, using an evidence-based medicine approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

• We reviewed the evidence on the alleged 'drug class effect' among analogues and the existing bibliographic support for their use in various medical indications. We used PubMed as the main search source. Evidence level and degree of recommendation were assigned to each conclusion based on the 'Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network'.

RESULTS

• There are no studies designed to answer the question of class effect between LHRH analogues or agonists. Reviews and meta-analyses have been performed on many other issues related to therapeutic management either with analogues alone, or in combination with radiation therapy and surgery. • Direct comparisons do not allow definitive conclusions to be reached. Indirect evidence is obtained from randomized studies comparing the different LHRH analogues with other treatments used to obtain androgen deprivation. Other issues related to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics that can support either the existence or non-existence of class effect were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

• The current available evidence is not enough to support a presumed class effect of the drug among the different analogues in the treatment of prostate carcinoma in its various clinical situations.

Impact of ultrahigh baseline PSA levels on biochemical and clinical outcomes in two Radiation Therapy Oncology Group prostate clinical trials

PURPOSE

To assess ultrahigh (UH; prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels ≥50 ng/ml) patient outcomes by comparison to other high-risk patient outcomes and to identify outcome predictors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Prostate cancer patients (PCP) from two Phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials (studies 9202 and 9413) were divided into two groups: high-risk patients with and without UH baseline PSA levels. Predictive variables included age, Gleason score, clinical T stage, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and biochemical failure (BF). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using either the Cox or Fine and Gray's regression model with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values.

RESULTS

There were 401 patients in the UH PSA group and 1,792 patients in the non-UH PSA PCP group of a total of 2,193 high-risk PCP. PCP with UH PSA were found to have inferior OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.39, p = 0.02), DM (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92; p = 0.0006), and BF (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.73; p < 0.0001) compared to other high-risk PCP. In the UH cohort, PSA level was found to be a significant factor for the risk of DM (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.001-1.02) but not OS and BF. Gleason grades of 8 to 10 were found to consistently predict for poor OS, DM, and BF outcomes (with HR estimates ranging from 1.41-2.36) in both the high-risk cohort and the UH cohort multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

UH PSA levels at diagnosis are related to detrimental changes in OS, DM, and BF. All three outcomes can be modeled by various combinations of all predictive variables tested.

Long-term outcomes of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NAHT) in Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who initiated salvage hormonal therapy (SHT) at a relatively early phase were evaluated.

METHODS

Between April 1998 and April 2003, 70 Japanese patients with T3N0M0 prostate cancer who received radical 3D-CRT treatment were evaluated. The median age, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and duration of NAHT were 73 years old, 26.3 ng/ml, and 4 months, respectively. Seventy grays were given in 35 fractions that were confined to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Adjuvant hormonal therapy was not administered after 3D-CRT in any of the cases.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 64.9 months. The median PSA value at the time of initiation of SHT was 5.0 ng/ml (range 0.1-21.6 ng/ml). Overall, disease-specific, PSA failure-free (based on the Phoenix definition) and SHT-free survival rates at 5 years were 90.3% (95% CI 86.5-94.0), 96.5% (94.0-98.9), 60.5% (48.2-72.7), and 63.5% (57.2-69.8), respectively. Therefore, two-thirds of the patients were still hormone-free at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA control rates in our series of Japanese patients with stage T3N0M0 prostate cancer treated with the standard dose of 3D-CRT combined with NAHT seemed higher than expected. This approach involving 3D-CRT combined with NAHT with the initiation of SHT at PSA values of around 5 ng/ml may be one option for Japanese patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, although further prospective study is required to confirm the validity.

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.

Predictors of androgen deprivation therapy efficacy combined with prostatic irradiation: the central role of tumor stage and radiation dose

PURPOSE

To evaluate the response of clinically localized prostate cancer to various durations of planned androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and to investigate subgroups predicting response.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Data of 3,666 prostate cancer patients treated with either combined ADT and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT alone at four institutions were examined. ADT consisted of neoadjuvant, concurrent, or adjuvant ADT or combinations of these regimens. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure (nadir plus 2 ng/ml), assessed from the end of therapy. Factors predictive for the need for ADT were examined with interaction analyses.

RESULTS

The impact of increasing ADT duration was nonlinear with, on average, 6 months of adjuvant ADT resulting in a reduction of the risk of biochemical failure by 38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29%-46%), while 12, 24, and 36 months of ADT resulted in a 58% (95% CI, 47%-67%), 66% (95% CI, 55%-75%), and 66% (95% CI, 51%-77%) relative failure reduction, respectively. Patients with higher T stage cancers and those treated with lower radiation doses had a significantly greater benefit for increasing ADT duration (interaction, p=0.016 and p=0.007, respectively). Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen values, Gleason score, age, and risk group did not modify the response to ADT.

CONCLUSIONS

The known ADT efficacy derived from randomized studies can be generalized to patients with different features, and individual predictions of potential benefit from ADT use and duration may be calculated to aid patient and physician decision making. Tumor stage and radiation dose variations were related to significantly different ADT duration effects. The validity of these predictive factors requires prospective evaluation.

The multi-disciplinary management of high-risk prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Such men can experience a continuum of disease presentations from indolent to highly aggressive. For physicians who care for these men, a significant challenge has been and continues to be identifying and treating those men with localized cancer who are at a higher risk of dying from their disease. We discuss the risk stratification of patients in order to better identify those patients at higher risk of progression. A comprehensive review of the literature was then performed reviewing the roles of surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and chemotherapy, as well as combinations of these modalities, in treating these challenging patients. An integrated approach combining local and systemic therapies can be beneficial in the management of high-risk localized prostate cancer. The choice of therapy or combination of therapies is dependant upon many considerations, including patient preference and quality of life aspects. It is becoming clearer that the addition of hormonal therapies or chemotherapies to established therapies, such as radiotherapy or surgery, will have significant benefits. As evidence accumulates regarding the efficacy of these new regimens, our hope is that the challenge of optimizing the management of high-risk prostate cancer will be delivered. However, many important questions remain unresolved regarding the optimal type, combination, timing of therapy, and duration of therapy. Such questions will only be answered with large, well-designed prospective clinical trials.

Benefit of whole pelvic radiotherapy combined with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for the high-risk prostate cancer

AIM

To study whether use of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (N-ADT) combined with whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) for high-risk prostate cancer patients was associated with survival benefit over prostate radiotherapy (PORT) only.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 1999 and 2004, 162 high-risk prostate cancer patients were treated with radiotherapy combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (L-ADT). Patients were prospectively assigned into two groups: A (N-ADT + WPRT + L-ADT) n = 70 pts, B (PORT + L-ADT) n = 92 pts.

RESULTS

The 5-year actuarial overall survival (OS) rates were 89% for A and 78% for B (P = .13). The 5-year actuarial cause specific survival (CSS) rates were A = 90% and B = 79% (P = .01). Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) rates were 52% versus 40% (P = .07), for groups A and B, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The WPRT combined with N-ADT compared to PORT for high-risk patients resulted in improvement in CSS and bPFS; however no OS benefit was observed.

Predictive models in external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Predictive models are being used increasingly in effort to allow physician and patient expectations to be aligned with outcomes that are based on available data. Most predictive models for men who receive external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer are based on Gleason score, clinical tumor classification, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. More sophisticated models also have been developed that incorporate treatment-related variables, such as the dose of radiation and the use of androgen-deprivation therapy. Most of the predictive models applied to prostate cancer were derived using PSA recurrence rates as the major endpoint, but clinical endpoints have been incorporated increasingly into predictive models. Biomarkers also are increasingly being added to predictive models in an effort to strengthen them. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) has completed studies on a wide range of markers using tissue from 2 phase 3 trials (RTOG 8610 and 9202). To date, preliminary assessments of p53; DNA ploidy; p16/retinoblastoma 1 protein; Ki-67; mouse double-minute p53 binding protein homolog; Bcl-2/Bcl-2-associated X protein; cytosine, adenine, and guanine repeats; cyclooxygenase-2; signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; cytochrome P450 3A4; and protein kinase A have been completed. Although they are not ready for widespread, routine use, there are reasons to believe that future models will combine these markers with traditional pretreatment and treatment-related variables and will improve our ability to predict outcome and select the optimal treatment. Cancer 2009;115(13 suppl):3112-20. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.