Short-term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 randomised controlled trial

Significance of androgen-deprivation therapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with high-dose radiotherapy: A literature review

The real-world benefits of adding androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and its optimal duration when combined with current standard high-dose radiation therapy (RT) remain unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy of and toxicities associated with ADT in the setting of combination with high-dose RT for intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). This article is a modified and detailed version of the commentary on Clinical Question 8 described in the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer (ver. 2023). A qualitative systematic review was performed according to the Minds Guide. All relevant published studies between September 2010 and August 2020, which assessed the outcomes of IR or HR PCa treated with high-dose RT, were screened using two databases (PubMed and ICHUSHI). A total of 41 studies were included in this systematic review, mostly consisting of retrospective studies (N = 34). The evidence basically supports the benefit of adding ADT to high-dose RT to improve tumor control. Regarding IR populations, many studies suggested the existence of a subgroup for which adding ADT had no impact on either overall survival or the BF-free duration. On the other hand, regarding HR populations, several studies suggested the positive impact of adding ADT for ≥1 year on overall survival. Adding ADT increases not only the risk of sexual dysfunction but also that of cardiovascular toxicities or bone fracture. Although the benefit of adding ADT was basically suggested for both IR and HR populations, further investigations are warranted to identify subgroups of patients for whom ADT has no benefit, as well as the appropriate duration of ADT for those who do derive benefit.

PRIORITI: Phase 4 study of triptorelin or active surveillance in high-risk prostate cancer

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triptorelin after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with negative lymph nodes.

METHODS

PRIORITI (NCT01753297) was a prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 4 study conducted in China and Russia. Patients with high-risk (Gleason score ≥ 8 and/or pre-RP prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥ 20 ng/mL and/or primary tumor stage 3a) prostate adenocarcinoma without evidence of lymph node or distant metastases were randomized to receive triptorelin 11.25 mg at baseline (≤ 8 weeks after RP) and at 3 and 6 months, or active surveillance. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), defined as the time from randomization to biochemical relapse (BR; increased PSA > 0.2 ng/mL). Patients were monitored every 3 months for at least 36 months; the study ended when 61 BRs were observed.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 226 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 65.3 [6.4] years), of whom 109 and 117 were randomized to triptorelin or surveillance, respectively. The median BRFS was not reached. The 25th percentile time to BRFS (95% confidence interval) was 39.1 (29.9-not estimated) months with triptorelin and 30.0 (18.6-42.1) months with surveillance (p = 0.16). There was evidence of a lower risk of BR with triptorelin versus surveillance but this was not statistically significant at the 5% level (p = 0.10). Chemical castration was maintained at month 9 in 93.9% of patients who had received triptorelin. Overall, triptorelin was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSION

BRFS was observed to be longer with triptorelin than surveillance, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Long-term outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy without hormone therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Until March 2018, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer had been administered high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without additional hormone therapy (HT) at our institution. In this study, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of this treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer who received HDR-BT and EBRT between April 1997 and March 2021 and who were followed up for at least 6 months were included in the study. High-risk groups were classified into five levels according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The EBRT and HDR-BT doses were 39-45 Gy/13-25 fractions. and 16.5-22 Gy/2-4 fractions, respectively. None of the patients received HT during initial treatment. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate biochemical freedom from failure (bFFF), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates. Biochemical failure was also determined.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study, with a median follow-up of 91.9 months. The median age and initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level were 71 years and 10.95 ng/mL, respectively. The median biologically effective dose for HDR-BT plus EBRT was 270.3 Gy. The 5- and 7-year bFFF, CSS, and OS rates were 85.2 and 74.2%, 100 and 100%, and 95.7 and 91.9%, respectively. Only the iPSA ≤ 20 group was associated with the higher bFFF rate. The 7-year bFFF rates in the groups with iPSA ≤ 20 and iPSA > 20 were 86.6 and 48.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HDR-BT plus EBRT without HT might be an alternative treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and iPSA levels ≤ 20. Further studies are required to validate the efficacy of this treatment strategy.

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted.

INTERVENTION

Short-term ADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175 (22.8%) had a low omega score. The overall discordance in risk classification was 26.1%. Both standard criteria and omega score identified significant interactions for the effect of ADT on cancer-related events and late mortality in low- versus high-risk subgroups. Within the low-risk/FIR subgroup, a higher omega score identified patients in whom ADT significantly reduced cancer events and improved event-free survival. Limitations are the need for external/prospective validation and lower RT doses than contemporary standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Stratification based on competing event risk is useful for identifying prostate cancer patients who selectively benefit from ADT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We analysed the effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localised prostate cancer among patients, defined by the relative risk (RR) for cancer versus noncancer events. Among patients with traditional low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk disease, those with a higher RR benefitted from short-term ADT.

Cardiovascular Mortality and Duration of Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-term Update of NRG/RTOG 9202

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

Analytical dosimetric study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency among four techniques to explore the preferred technique in prostate treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

7 IMRT, 9 IMRT, 1 ARC, and 2 ARC plans were created for 30 prostate cancer patients using the Eclipse™ treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). All the plans were designed to deliver 80.0 Gy in 40 fractions to the prostate planning target volume (PTV). Target coverage, organs at risk (OARs), number of monitor units, homogeneity, and conformity were compared across the four techniques to assess the quality of the plans.

RESULTS

The study revealed better Planning Target Volume (PTV) dose coverage in the VMAT-2A than in the other plans. At the same time, VMAT-2A plans were found to be significantly lower in terms of Bladder and rectum doses than other techniques. In addition, VMAT has the advantage of considerably reducing the number of monitor units and treatment time.

CONCLUSION

For prostate cancer, VMAT may offer a favorable dose gradient profile, conformity, and MU and treatment time compared to IMRT.

Neoadjuvant versus Concurrent Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate on the optimal sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Recent data favors concurrent ADT and RT over the neoadjuvant approach.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases assessing the combination and optimal sequencing of ADT and RT for Intermediate-Risk (IR) and High-Risk (HR) PCa.

FINDINGS

Twenty randomized control trials, one abstract, one individual patient data meta-analysis, and two retrospective studies were selected. HR PCa patients had improved survival outcomes with RT and ADT, particularly when a long-course Neoadjuvant-Concurrent-Adjuvant ADT was used. This benefit was seen in IR PCa when adding short-course ADT, although less consistently. The best available evidence indicates that concurrent over neoadjuvant sequencing is associated with better metastases-free survival at 15 years. Although most patients had IR PCa, HR participants may have been undertreated with short-course ADT and the absence of pelvic RT. Conversely, retrospective data suggests a survival benefit when using the neoadjuvant approach in HR PCa patients.

INTERPRETATION

The available literature supports concurrent ADT and RT initiation for IR PCa. Neoadjuvant-concurrent-adjuvant sequencing should remain the standard approach for HR PCa and is an option for IR PCa.

Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial

PURPOSE

CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ2 trend test.

RESULTS

Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.

The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation

PURPOSE

The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis.

RESULTS

The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the necessity of androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of articles was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biological Medicine, Wanfang, and VIP Databases published between February 1988 and April 2022. Studies comparing the survival of patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated with androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone were included. Data were extracted and analyzed with the RevMan software (version 5.3) and the Stata software (version 17).

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and nine retrospective studies, including 6853 patients (2948 in androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy group and 3905 in radiotherapy alone group) were enrolled. Androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy did not provide an overall survival (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.12, p=0.04) or biochemical recurrence-free survival (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.39, P=0.001) advantage to intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy did not show some advantages in terms of overall survival and biochemical recurrence-free survival and radiotherapy alone may be the effective therapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-8-0095/, identifier 202280095.

Recent trend of androgen deprivation therapy in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: Comparing between high- and middle-income Asian countries

The number of newly diagnosed prostate cancer cases varies across Asia, with higher mortality-to-incidence ratio reported in developing nations. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), alone or in combination, remains the mainstay of first-line treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Key findings of extensive research and randomized controlled trials have shaped current clinical practice and influenced clinical guideline recommendations. We describe here the recent trend of ADT in newly diagnosed prostate cancer for Asia focusing on Japan (high-income country) and Malaysia (middle-income country) based on the Asian Prostate Cancer (A-CaP) Study. The combination of radiotherapy and ADT or ADT alone was common in patients with intermediate-to-high risk localized and locally advanced disease. For metastatic prostate cancer, maximum androgen blockade (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone [GnRH] agonist/antagonist plus antiandrogen) was prevalent among the Japanese patients while primary ADT alone with GnRH agonist/antagonist was widely practiced in the Malaysian cohort. Upfront combined therapy (ADT plus docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitor) has significantly improved the outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer. Its application, however, remains low in our cohorts due to patients' financial capacity and national health insurance coverage. Early detection remains the cornerstone in prostate cancer control to improve treatment outcome and patient survival.

Androgen-deprivation therapy and the risk of newly developed fractures in patients with prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Korea

We evaluated the risk of osteoporosis and fractures associated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use and duration in men with prostate cancer. From the nationwide claims database in South Korea, a total of 218,203 men with prostate cancer were identified between 2008 and 2017. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 144,670 patients were included in the analysis. To adjust for comorbidities between cohorts, 1:1 propensity score matching was used. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of events associated with ADT, after controlling for potential confounding factors. In the matched cohort, there were differences in the incidence of newly developed osteoporosis (8.79% in the ADT group vs. 7.08% in the non-ADT group, p < 0.0001) and fractures (8.12% in the ADT group vs. 5.04% in the non-ADT group, p < 0.0001). Age-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that the ADT group had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis (HR, 1.381; 95% CI, 1.305–1.461; p < 0.0001) and fractures (HR, 1.815; 95% CI, 1.703–1.935; p < 0.0001) compared to the non-ADT group. Furthermore, the risk of osteoporosis and fractures increased as the duration of ADT increased. The ADT was associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures in prostate cancer patients. Clinicians who administer ADT for patients with prostate cancer should always be mindful of the risk of osteoporosis and fracture, avoid unnecessary ADT, and perform regular bone health check-ups.

Favorable prognosis of patients who received adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy after radiotherapy achieving undetectable levels of prostate-specific antigen in high- or very high-risk prostate cancer

Introduction

To determine the prognostic significance of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (A-ADT) over 1 year in achieving undetectable levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 0.001 ng/mL in prostate cancer patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radiotherapy (RT).

Materials and methods

A total of 197 patients with prostate cancer received RT, with a follow-up of ≥12 months. Biochemical failure was defined as PSA ≥nadir + 2 ng/mL after RT. We analyzed clinical outcomes, including survival, failure patterns, and prognostic factors affecting outcomes.

Results

Biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS), clinical failure-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were 91.1%, 95.4%, 96.9%, 99.5%, and 89.1%, respectively. Administration of long-term A-ADT significantly predicted favorable BCFFS (p = 0.027) and OS (p < 0.001) in multivariate analysis. Nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL was an independent prognostic factor for BCFFS (p = 0.006) and OS (p = 0.021). The use of long-term A-ADT significantly affected nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL (p < 0.001). The patients with A-ADT for 1 year or longer had better BCFFS or OS than those for less than 1 year or those without A-ADT (p < 0.001). The best prognosis was demonstrated in patients treated with long-term A-ADT and nadir PSA ≤0.001 ng/mL in BCFFS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The addition of long-term A-ADT over 1 year to RT demonstrated good treatment outcomes in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Achieving a nadir PSA value ≤0.001 ng/mL using combination therapy with RT and A-ADT is a powerful clinical predictor of treatment outcomes.

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) administered to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing NHT plus RP or RT with RP or RT alone, administered to patients with HRPCa. We used a random-effects model to compute risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quantified heterogeneity using the I "2" statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. We selected 16 studies. NHT before RP significantly decreased lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.87) and increased the rates of pathological downstaging (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.22-5.61) and organ-confinement (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.25), but did not improve overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). The administration of NHT before RT to patients with HRPCa was associated with significant benefits for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), disease-free survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.60), and bPFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.46-0.64). Short-term NHT combined with RT administered to patients with HRPCa conferred significant improvements. Although the advantage of local control was observed when NHT was administered before RP, there was no significant survival benefit associated with HRPCa. Therefore, short-term NHT combined with RT is recommended for implementation in standard clinical practice but not for patients who undergo RP.

Long- versus short-term androgen deprivation therapy with high-dose radiotherapy for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Radical prostatectomy is a well-established treatment option in the management of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. An extended lymphadenectomy is performed in case of substantial risk for lymph node involvement. When biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is performed. The benefit in terms of BCR-free survival (FS) and metastasis-FS by adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with SRT only has already been established. Retrospective evidence suggests that a longer schedule of ADT may be more beneficial compared with 6 months. This multicenter open-label randomized trial will include patients who need SRT after experiencing BCR post-radical prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy and pN0-status. Patients will be randomized for ADT duration (6 vs 24 months). Primary end point is distant metastasis-FS.

Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04242017 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

The Oral Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist Relugolix as Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy to External Beam Radiotherapy in Patients with Localised Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomised, Open-label, Parallel-group Phase 2 Trial

BACKGROUND

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015.

INTERVENTION

Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone <1.73nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone <0.7nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males' Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.

Oncological outcomes for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant endocrine and external-beam radiation therapy followed by adjuvant continuous/intermittent endocrine therapy in an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

To date, research has not determined the optimal procedure for adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) treated for 6 months with neoadjuvant ADT and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial enrolled 303 patients with locally advanced PCa between 2001 and 2006. Participants were treated with neoadjuvant ADT for 6 months. Then, 280 patients whose prostate-specific antigen levels were less than pretreatment levels and less than 10 ng/mL were randomized. All 280 participants were treated with 72 Gy of EBRT in combination with adjuvant ADT for 8 months. Thereafter, participants were assigned to long-term ADT (5 years in all; arm 1) or intermittent ADT (arm 2). The primary endpoint was modified biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) with respect to nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) progression, clinical relapse, or any cause of death.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time after randomization was 8.2 years. Among the 136 and 144 men assigned to trial arms 1 and 2, respectively, 24 and 30 progressed to nmCRPC or clinical relapse, and 5 and 6 died of PCa. The 5-year modified bRFS rates were 84.8% and 82.8% in trial arms 1 and 2, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.132; 95% confidence interval, 0.744-1.722).

CONCLUSIONS

Although modified bRFS data did not demonstrate noninferiority for arm 2, intermittent adjuvant ADT after EBRT with 14 months of neoadjuvant and short-term adjuvant ADT is a promising treatment strategy, especially in a population of responders after 6 months of ADT for locally advanced PCa.

Optimizing the role of androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer: Challenges beyond the guidelines

BACKGROUND

For specific clinical indications, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will induce disease prostate cancer (PC) regression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival; however, ADT has a well-described range of side effects, which may have a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life, necessitating additional interventions or changes in PC treatment. The risk-benefit analysis for initiating ADT in PC patients throughout the PC disease continuum warrants review.

METHODS

A 14-member panel comprised of urologic and medical oncologists were chosen for an expert review panel, to provide guidance on a more judicious use of ADT in advanced PC patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their academic and community experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, and were tasked with addressing the role of ADT in specific PC settings.

RESULTS

This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel for the use of ADT throughout the PC disease continuum, as well as an algorithm summarizing the key recommendations. The target for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting.

CONCLUSION

The panel has provided recommendations for monitoring PC patients while on ADT, recognizing that PC patients will progress despite testosterone suppression and, therefore, early identification of conversion from castrate-sensitive to castration resistance is critical. Also, the requirement to both identify and mitigate side effects of ADT as well as the importance of quality of life maintenance are essential to the optimization of patient care, especially as more combinatorial therapeutic strategies with ADT continue to emerge.

Is prospective MRI mapping of the changes in the volume of the prostate gland in prostate cancer patients undergoing 6 months of neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy a step towards a trial to determine those who may benefit from treatment intensification or extended duration?

INTRODUCTION

Neo-adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy prior to radiotherapy (RT) causes shrinkage of the prostate gland, but the changes in volume have never been mapped over time in detail, nor have the associations between volume reduction and testosterone escape or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics been determined.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with prostate cancer were treated with 6 months of triptorelin prior to definitive RT. The volume of the prostate gland was measured at the outset and every 6-7 weeks thereafter using MRI scans. The volumes were calculated using a planimetric method, and inter-rater reliability was checked. Factors associated with a large initial volume and greater reductions in it were assessed.

RESULTS

The median volume at the outset was 45 cc, and the median reductions every 6 weeks thereafter were 23, 18, 9 and 5%. The inter-rater agreement was high (r > 0.9, P < 0.001). There were no baseline clinical factors associated with a high initial prostate volume, but the initial volume was associated with greater volume reduction. Testosterone escape had no effect on the reduction, and changes in volume were not reflected in PSA response kinetics.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in volume continue throughout a 6-month course of neo-adjuvant therapy but are greatest during the first 6 weeks. Although individualisation of the duration or intensity of the hormone treatment warrants further investigation, the role of prostate gland volume reduction remains uncertain. More detailed studies of tumour volume might be possible if the imaging required was acceptable and accessible to patients.

Achieving PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before Radiation Therapy Is a Strong Predictor of Treatment Success in Patients with High-Risk Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Background

To predict long-term treatment outcome of radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer.

Methods

In total, 204 patients with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk locally advanced prostate cancer (PSA > 20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≧ 8, clinical T stage ≧ 3a) were treated with definitive RT with ADT. Median follow up period was 113 months (IQR: 95–128). Median neoadjuvant ADT and total ADT duration were 7 months (IQR: 6–10) and 27 months (IQR: 14–38), respectively.

Results

PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were 84.1%, 98.5%, and 93.6%, respectively, and 67.9%, 91.2%, and 78.1%, respectively, at 10 years. Pre-RT PSA less than 0.2 ng/ml was associated with superior outcomes of PSA-RFS (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.70, p = 0.001), CSS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09–0.82, p = 0.013), and OS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26–0.91, p = 0.021). On multivariate analysis, age (≥70 y.o.) and pre-RT PSA (≥0.2 ng/ml) were factors predictive of poorer OS (p = 0.032) , but iPSA, T stage, Gleason score, number of NCCN high-risk criteria, a combination with anti-androgen therapy and neoadjuvant ADT duration were not predictive of treatment outcome.

Conclusion

In patient with high-risk prostate cancer, RT plus ADT achieved good oncologic outcomes. PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before radiation therapy is a strong independent predictor for long overall survival.

Landmarks in prostate cancer

The field of prostate cancer has been the subject of extensive research that has resulted in important discoveries and shaped our appreciation of this disease and its management. Advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, anatomy, detection, diagnosis, grading, staging, imaging, and management of prostate cancer have changed clinical practice and influenced guideline recommendations. The development of the Gleason score and subsequent modifications enabled accurate prediction of prognosis. Increased anatomical understanding and improved surgical techniques resulted in the development of nerve-sparing surgery for radical prostatectomy. The advent of active surveillance has changed the management of low-risk disease, and chemotherapy and hormonal therapy have improved the outcomes of patients with distant disease. Ongoing research and clinical trials are expected to yield more practice-changing results in the near future.

Radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy in intermediate risk prostate cancer?

Objective

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is beneficial for unfavorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer patients receiving curative radiotherapy (RT). However, for favorable IR patients the latest NCCN guidelines recommends RT alone. We retrospectively studied treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with IR prostate cancer in our institution over the past two decades.

Materials and methods

Three hundred seventy-three IR prostate cancer patients treated with definitive RT between 5/2002–5/2016 were identified in an institutional review board approved database. All patients received conformal RT to the prostate while the vast majority did not receive nodal radiation. ADT was commenced 2 months prior to RT and was continued for 4 months after RT.

Results

Compared to RT alone, patients receiving combined RT+ ADT had more positive biopsy cores, higher pre-radiation PSA, more IR factors, and were more likely to receive pelvic lymph node radiation. However, there were no differences in failure either biochemical, local or distal, nor on survival between the favorable RT alone and the unfavorable RT+ ADT cohorts, suggesting a beneficial role for ADT. On multivariate analysis, patients 70 years or younger receiving RT alone were at increased risk for biochemical failure during a 6-year follow-up (HR 3.06, P = 0.025). Biochemical relapse free survival in patients ≤70 years who received RT alone was 82.1% vs 94.0% for RT + ADT (P = 0.030). There was no difference for combined treatment modality in patients > 70 years (P = 0.87).

Conclusions

Men 70 years or younger with favorable IR prostate cancer treated with RT alone to 78 Gy are at increased risk of biochemical failure. Short term ADT should be considered in this cohort of men.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1298-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Associations of Luminal and Basal Subtyping of Prostate Cancer With Prognosis and Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy

Importance

There is a clear need for a molecular subtyping approach in prostate cancer to identify clinically distinct subgroups that benefit from specific therapies.

Objectives

To identify prostate cancer subtypes based on luminal and basal lineage and to determine associations with clinical outcomes and response to treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The PAM50 classifier was used to subtype 1567 retrospectively collected (median follow-up, 10 years) and 2215 prospectively collected prostate cancer samples into luminal- and basal-like subtypes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Metastasis, biochemical recurrence, overall survival, prostate cancer–specific survival, associations with biological pathways, and clinicopathologic variables were the main outcomes.

Results

Among the 3782 samples, the PAM50 classifier consistently segregated prostate cancer into 3 subtypes in both the retrospective and prospective cohorts: luminal A (retrospective, 538 [34.3%]; prospective, 737 [33.3%]), luminal B (retrospective, 447 [28.5%]; prospective, 723 [32.6%]), and basal (retrospective, 582 [37.1%]; prospective, 755 [34.1%]). Known luminal lineage markers, such as NKX3.1 and KRT18, were enriched in luminal-like cancers, and the basal lineage CD49f signature was enriched in basal-like cancers, demonstrating the connection between these subtypes and established prostate cancer biology. In the retrospective cohort, luminal B prostate cancers exhibited the poorest clinical prognoses on both univariable and multivariable analyses accounting for standard clinicopathologic prognostic factors (10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival [bRFS], 29%; distant metastasis-free survival [DMFS], 53%; prostate cancer-specific survival [PCSS], 78%; overall survival [OS], 69%), followed by basal prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 39%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 86%; OS, 80%) and luminal A prostate cancers (10-year bRFS, 41%; DMFS, 73%; PCSS, 89%; OS, 82%). Although both luminal-like subtypes were associated with increased androgen receptor expression and signaling, only luminal B prostate cancers were significantly associated with postoperative response to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a subset analysis in our retrospective cohorts (n = 315) matching patients based on clinicopathologic variables (luminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 33% vs untreated, 55%; nonluminal B 10-year metastasis: treated, 37% vs untreated, 21%; P = .006 for interaction).

Conclusions and Relevance

Luminal- and basal-like prostate cancers demonstrate divergent clinical behavior, and patients with luminal B tumors respond better to postoperative ADT than do patients with non–luminal B tumors. These findings contribute novel insight into prostate cancer biology, providing a potential clinical tool to personalize ADT treatment for prostate cancer by predicting which men may benefit from ADT after surgery.

Long-term outcomes in 1121 Australian prostate cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Optimal definitive treatment of prostate cancer is controversial, especially in high-risk patients. We report the largest prospective cohort of Australian patients treated with radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer.

METHODS

One thousand, one hundred and twenty-one patients with prostate cancer were prospectively registered and treated to a dose of 70-74 Gy. Patients were classified as low, intermediate or high risk based on PSA, clinical staging and Gleason score. Intermediate-risk patients were treated with 0-6 months of hormonal therapy (ADT) and high-risk patients were offered neoadjuvant and adjuvant ADT. Overall survival (OS) and biochemical relapse-free survival (bNED) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 92 months. Eight-year OS and bNED were 78.4% and 68.1% respectively in the entire cohort. OS for the low, intermediate and high-risk groups was 84.5%, 78.4% and 68% respectively. For these risk groups, bNED was 80.3%, 65.7% and 53.7% respectively. In the intermediate and high-risk group, OS and bNED decreased with increasing number of risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Definitive radiotherapy is an effective treatment for prostate cancer, including in high-risk cases.

Efficacy characteristics of different therapeutic modalities for locally advanced prostate cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Though previous studies have investigated the efficacy characteristics of several different therapeutic modalities for locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPCa) patients, the available results remained unestablished. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was conducted to clarify such differences.

Methods

The online PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for relevant studies published before September 1st, 2017, and eventually eleven relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. The hazard odds ratios (HRs) with 95% credible interval (CI) were utilized to evaluate the efficacy characteristics of several different therapeutic modalities for LAPCa patients by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.

Results

Five different therapeutic modalities were ultimately enrolled to shed light on the efficacy characteristics for LAPCa patients and seven different clinical outcomes were finally analyzed in this study. The cumulative rank probability of overall survival (OS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) from best to worst was radiotherapy (RT) + orchiectomy, RT + long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LTADT), RT + short-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT), LTADT and RT; RT + LTADT, RT + orchiectomy, RT + STADT, LTADT and RT, respectively. Meanwhile, in the terms of progression-free survival (PFS), biochemical failure rate (BFR), disease-free survival (DFS), local progression rate (LPR) and metastasis rate (MR), RT + LTADT as well as RT + STADT had a higher, whereas RT alone or LTADT had a relatively lower treatment effect.

Conclusions

All in all, our results indicated that RT + LTADT or RT + orchiectomy was among the best two therapeutic regimens in the prognostic aspects of the patients with LAPCa. Furthermore, in consideration of reducing invasive treatment of eligible patients, RT + LTADT could yield better survival benefit of LAPCa patients, compared with others. In addition, the results of our analysis might provide a reference in the clinical selection. Larger sample sizes of strictly designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were wanted to validate our findings.

Chemotherapy and radiation for prostate cancer

Over the past few decades there is growing appreciation for the role of chemotherapy in treatment of prostate cancer. Initial successful phase III randomized trials in castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have led to additional successful trials in earlier presentations of disease. Given the established role of radiation in management of locally advanced disease and demonstrated efficacy of taxanes in treatment of prostate cancer, optimal combination of radiation and chemotherapy in this patient population has garnered increased attention. Successful phase III trials in this space have given additional stimulus to further exploring combination therapy with radiation. New directions include assessment of additional chemotherapeutic agents including cabazitaxel and PARP inhibitors as well as personalization of therapy with use of genomic testing and other emerging markers to guide therapeutic decisions.

The use of Hormonal Therapy to Augment Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an important adjunctive therapy to external beam radiation therapy (RT) for the definitive management of prostate cancer. The role of ADT is well-established for locally advanced or high-risk disease in conjunction with standard doses of RT, but less defined for intermediate-risk disease or with dose-escalated RT. The goal of this review is to summarize evidence evaluating the combination of ADT/RT, focusing on recent trials and current controversies as they pertain to the practicing clinician.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefit of ADT on biochemical control is maintained with dose-escalated RT according to recently reported phase III studies. Furthermore, there is now prospective, randomized evidence to support the addition of ADT to RT in the post-prostatectomy setting. ADT continues to play an important role for prostate cancer patients receiving dose-escalated RT. Future research is needed to identify subgroups most likely to benefit from this combination.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

High-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) represents a heterogeneous disease with potential risk for local and distant progression. In these patients, a multi-modal approach consisting of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies has been proposed. The aim of this review is to summarize the emerging roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HRPCa patients. Areas covered: This review collects the most relevant phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for HRPCa patients. Specifically, the review examines the benefit provided by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy (CHT), and novel antiandrogen agents in this setting. A search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Expert commentary: Three decades of RCTs demonstrated that adjuvant ADT is fundamental in HRPCa treated with RT. Conversely, ADT and CHT did not improve the survival of HRPCa patients managed with RP. The recent introduction of novel antiandrogen agents combined with an appropriated selection of patients at risk of cancer progression, may ultimately extend the indication of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in surgical- and radio-treated patients.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

In the contemporary scene, less than 5% of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PC) have metastases at first presentation, compared to 20-25%, more than 20 years ago. Nonetheless, the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has increased over the years, suggesting that patients in Europe and United States may receive ADT in cases of lower disease burden, and not always according to evidence based indications. Nonetheless, PC remains the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer in American men. Thus, there is a need for more effective, specific and well tolerated agents which can provide a longer and good quality of life while avoiding the side effects related to disease and treatment morbidity.After mentioning the current knowledge on the endocrinology of androgens and androgen receptor, relevant to PC development, as well as the possible events occurring during PC initiation, we will compare different hormonal compounds available for the treatment of PC, both from a pharmacological standpoint, and in terms of contemporary clinical indications.

Clinical outcome and toxicity evaluation of simultaneous integrated boost pelvic IMRT/VMAT at different dose levels combined with androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients

Background

The role of dose escalation in patients receiving long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is still a controversial issue. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether dose escalation for ≥76–80 Gy had any advantage in terms of biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), or overall survival outcomes over the dose levels from 70 to <76 Gy.

Patients and methods

The study included a cohort of 24 patients classified with high- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. All patients received ADT, starting at 4–6 months before radiation therapy and continued for a total period of 12–24 months in high-risk patients. The treatment plan was given in two phases. In the first phase, the nodal planning target volume (PTV) and the prostate PTV received 48.6 and 54 Gy, respectively, over 27 fractions. The treatment was applied through intensity-modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost technique.

Results

More than half of the patients were in T3–T4 stage, 79.1% of the patients were in the high-risk category, and all patients received ADT. The rate of acute grade II gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities in all patients were 41.7% and 62.5%, respectively. The rate of freedom from grade II rectal toxicity at 2 years was 89% and 83% for patients treated with dose levels <76 and ≥76 Gy, respectively. The rate of BDFS at 2 years was 90% and 85% for doses <76 and ≥76 Gy, respectively. The DMFS at 2 years was 100% and 76% for dose levels <76 and ≥76 Gy, respectively.

Conclusion

In the current study, there were no significant differences in the BDFS and DMFS between patients treated with a dose of <76 and ≥76 Gy, including elective pelvic lymph nodes irradiation combined with ADT.

Efficacy of a multi-component exercise programme and nutritional supplementation on musculoskeletal health in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer (IMPACT): study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in developed countries. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a systemic treatment shown to increase survival in selected patients with prostate cancer. The use of ADT continues to increase for all stages and grades of prostate cancer despite known treatment-induced adverse effects. The primary aim of this study is to examine the efficacy of a targeted, multi-component resistance and impact-loading exercise programme together with a daily protein-, calcium- and vitamin D-enriched supplement on bone health in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer. Secondary aims are to determine the effects of this intervention on measures of total body and regional body composition, cardiometabolic risk, inflammatory markers, health-related quality of life and cognitive function.

Methods

This study is a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Men currently treated with ADT for prostate cancer will be randomised to either a 52-week, community-based, exercise training and nutritional supplementation intervention (n = 51) or usual care control (n = 51). Participants will be assessed at baseline, 26 weeks and 52 weeks for all measures. The primary outcome measures are proximal femur and lumbar spine areal bone mineral density (BMD). Secondary outcomes comprise: changes in tibial and radial bone structure and strength, total body and regional body composition, muscle strength and function, as well as cardiometabolic health, catabolic/inflammatory and anabolic/anti-inflammatory cytokines, health-related quality of life and cognitive function.

Discussion

This study investigates whether a multi-component intervention incorporating a targeted bone and muscle-loading programme in combination with a protein-, calcium- and vitamin D-enriched supplement can ameliorate multiple adverse effects of ADT when compared to usual care. The results will contribute to the development of exercise training and nutrition guidelines for optimising overall health in men treated with ADT for prostate cancer.

Trial registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ID: ACTRN12614000317695. Registered on 25 march 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2185-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

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

Radiotherapy in prostate cancer treatment: results of the patterns of care study in Korea

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer in Korea.

Materials and Methods

A questionnaire about radiation treatment technique and principles in 2013 was sent to 83 radiation oncologists and data from 57 hospitals were collected analyzed to find patterns of RT for prostate cancer patients in Korea.

Results

The number of patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive RT ranged from 1 to 72 per hospital in 2013. RT doses and target volumes increased according to risk groups but the range of radiation doses was wide (60 to 81.4 Gy) and the fraction size was diverse (1.8 to 5 Gy). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was used for definitive treatment in 93.8% of hospitals. Hormonal therapy was integrated with radiation for intermediate (63.2%) and high risk patients (77.2%). Adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy was performed in 46 hospitals (80.7%). Indications of adjuvant RT included positive resection margin, seminal vesicle invasion, and capsular invasion. The total dose for adjuvant RT ranged from 50 to 72 Gy in 24–39 fractions. Salvage RT was delivered with findings of consecutive elevations in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA level over 0.2 ng/mL, or clinical recurrence. The total radiation doses ranged from 50 to 80 Gy with a range of 1.8 to 2.5 Gy per fraction for salvage RT.

Conclusion

This nationwide patterns of care study suggests that variable radiation techniques and a diverse range of dose fractionation schemes are applied for prostate cancer treatment in Korea. Standard guidelines for RT in prostate cancer need to be developed.

Androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of locally advanced, nonmetastatic prostate cancer: practical experience and a review of the clinical trial evidence

Following new scientific insights, initial management for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer has changed considerably and rapidly over the last few years. Several clinical and pathologic variables should be taken into account when deciding the best treatment choice for those patients. These variables are summarized and discussed in detail. High radiation doses to the prostate are essential to achieve good local control in patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease. Addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy has significantly improved overall survival and cancer-specific survival compared with radiation therapy alone without significantly increasing toxicity. Long-term neo(adjuvant) ADT (2-3 years) to radiation therapy significantly improved cancer-specific survival compared with short-term ADT (4-6 months). Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection is considered a reasonable option in experienced hands. ADT alone is an inappropriate treatment option for patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease. Management decisions for these patients should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Lifestyle guidelines for managing adverse effects on bone health and body composition in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: an update

Background:

Men treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer are prone to multiple treatment-induced adverse effects, particularly with regard to a deterioration in bone health and altered body composition including decreased lean tissue mass and increased fat mass. These alterations may partially explain the marked increased risk in osteoporosis, falls, fracture and cardiometabolic risk that has been observed in this population.

Methods:

A review was conducted that assessed standard clinical guidelines for the management of ADT-induced adverse effects on bone health and body composition in men with prostate cancer.

Results:

Currently, standard clinical guidelines exist for the management of various bone and metabolic ADT-induced adverse effects in men with prostate cancer. However, an evaluation of the effectiveness of these guidelines into routine practice revealed that men continued to experience increased central adiposity, and, unless pharmacotherapy was instituted, accelerated bone loss and worsening glycaemia occurred.

Conclusions:

This review discusses the current guidelines and some of the limitations, and proposes new recommendations based on emerging evidence regarding the efficacy of lifestyle interventions, particularly with regard to exercise and nutritional factors, to manage ADT-related adverse effects on bone health and body composition in men with prostate cancer.

The very-high-risk prostate cancer: a contemporary update

BACKGROUND

Treatment of high-risk prostate cancer has evolved considerably over the past two decades, yet patients with very-high-risk features may still experience poor outcome despite aggressive therapy. We review the contemporary literature focusing on current definitions, role of modern imaging and treatment alternatives in very-high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database for all clinical trials or practice guidelines published in English between 2000 and 2016, with the following search terms: 'prostatic neoplasms' (MeSH Terms) AND ('high risk' (keyword) OR 'locally advanced' (keyword) OR 'node positive' (keyword)). Abstracts pertaining to very-high-risk prostate cancer were evaluated and 40 pertinent studies served as the basis for this review.

RESULTS

The term 'very'-high-risk prostate cancer remains ill defined. The European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines provide the only available definitions, categorizing those with clinical stage T3-4 or minimal nodal involvement as very high risk irrespective of PSA level or biopsy Gleason score. Modern imaging with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography-prostate-specific membrane antigen scans has a role in pre-treatment assessment. Local definitive therapy by external beam radiation combined with androgen deprivation is supported by several randomized clinical trials, whereas the role of surgery in the very-high-risk setting combined with adjuvant radiation/androgen deprivation therapy is emerging. Growing evidence suggest neoadjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in the context of a multimodal approach may be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with very-high-risk tumors may benefit from local definitive treatment in the setting of a multimodal regimen, offering local control and possibly cure in well selected patients. Further studies are necessary to better characterize the 'very'-high-risk category and determine the optimal therapy for the individual patient.

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.

Evidence-based recommendations on androgen deprivation therapy for localized and advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The management of prostate cancer (PC) is still evolving. Although, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option, particularly in patients with disseminated disease, important data regarding hormonal manipulation have recently emerged. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence on ADT, make recommendations and address areas of controversy associated with its use in men with PC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An expert panel was convened. Areas related to the hormonal management of patients with PC requiring evidence review were identified and questions to be addressed by the panel were determined. Appropriate literature review was performed and included a search of online databases, bibliographic reviews and consultation with experts.

RESULTS

The panel was able to provide recommendations on: 1) which patients with localised PC should receive androgen deprivation in conjunction with radiotherapy (RT); 2) what standard initial treatment should be used in metastatic hormone-naïve PC (MHNPC); 3) efficacy of androgen deprivation agents; 4) whether ADT should be continued in patients with castration resistant PC (CRPC). However, no recommendations could be made for combined ADT and very high-dose RT in patients with an intermediate-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

ADT remains the cornerstone of treatment for both metastatic hormone-naïve and castration-resistant PC. According to the expert panel's opinion, based on the ERG report, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists might not be equivalent but this needs to be confirmed in long-term data. The combined use of ADT and RT improves outcome and survival in men with high-risk localised disease. The benefits in patients with intermediate-risk disease, particularly those subject to escalated dose RT are controversial.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Depression in Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may contribute to depression, yet several studies have not demonstrated a link. We aimed to determine whether receipt of any ADT or longer duration of ADT for prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with an increased risk of depression.

METHODS

We identified 78,552 men older than age 65 years with stage I to III PCa using the SEER-Medicare-linked database from 1992 to 2006, excluding patients with psychiatric diagnoses within the prior year. Our primary analysis was the association between pharmacologic ADT and the diagnosis of depression or receipt of inpatient or outpatient psychiatric treatment using Cox proportional hazards regression. Drug data for treatment of depression were not available. Our secondary analysis investigated the association between duration of ADT and each end point.

RESULTS

Overall, 43% of patients (n = 33,882) who received ADT, compared with patients who did not receive ADT, had higher 3-year cumulative incidences of depression (7.1% v 5.2%, respectively), inpatient psychiatric treatment (2.8% v 1.9%, respectively), and outpatient psychiatric treatment (3.4% v 2.5%, respectively; all P < .001). Adjusted Cox analyses demonstrated that patients with ADT had a 23% increased risk of depression (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.31), 29% increased risk of inpatient psychiatric treatment (AHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.41), and a nonsignificant 7% increased risk of outpatient psychiatric treatment (AHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.17) compared with patients without ADT. The risk of depression increased with duration of ADT, from 12% with ≤ 6 months of treatment, 26% with 7 to 11 months of treatment, to 37% with ≥ 12 months of treatment (P trend < .001). A similar duration effect was seen for inpatient (P trend < .001) and outpatient psychiatric treatment (P trend < .001).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacologic ADT increased the risk of depression and inpatient psychiatric treatment in this large study of elderly men with localized PCa. This risk increased with longer duration of ADT. The possible psychiatric effects of ADT should be recognized by physicians and discussed with patients before initiating treatment.

Evolving Paradigm of Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Current Consensus and Continuing Controversies

High-risk prostate cancer is an aggressive form of the disease with an increased risk of distant metastasis and subsequent mortality. Multiple randomized trials have established that the combination of radiation therapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared to either treatment alone. Standard of care for men with high-risk prostate cancer in the modern setting is dose-escalated radiotherapy along with 2-3 years of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). There are research efforts directed towards assessing the efficacy of shorter ADT duration. Current research has been focused on assessing hypofractionated and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques. Ongoing randomized trials will help assess the utility of pelvic lymph node irradiation. Research is also focused on multimodality therapy with addition of a brachytherapy boost to external beam radiation to help improve outcomes in men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Can we avoid high levels of dose escalation for high-risk prostate cancer in the setting of androgen deprivation?

Aim

Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, there is little evidence specifically evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving ADT, particularly for EBRT doses >74 Gy. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improves outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving long-term ADT.

Patients and methods

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated on an institutional protocol prescribing 3–6 months neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, followed by 2 years of adjuvant ADT. Between 2006 and 2012, EBRT doses were escalated from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy. We interrogated our electronic medical record to identify these patients and analyzed our results by comparing dose levels.

Results

In all, 479 patients were treated with a 68-month median follow-up. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survivals for the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups were 87.8%, 86.9%, and 91.6%, respectively. The metastasis-free survivals were 95.5%, 94.5%, and 93.9%, respectively, and the prostate cancer-specific survivals were 100%, 94.4%, and 98.1%, respectively. Dose escalation had no impact on any outcome in either univariate or multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

There was no benefit of DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of high-risk prostate patients treated with long-term ADT. As dose escalation has higher risks of radiotherapy-induced toxicity, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation beyond 74 Gy in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose escalation for high-risk patients receiving ADT should be considered.

Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy.

METHODS

In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162).

FINDINGS

Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3-6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5-91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2-95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30-1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm.

INTERPRETATION

Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.