Long-term outcomes from dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with androgen deprivation: encouraging results for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

Outcomes of dose-escalated IMRT and ADT in Octogenarians with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated long-term outcomes for octogenarians with localised prostate cancer treated using dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at our institution.

METHODS

The charts of octogenarians treated for localised prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCaSS), toxicity rates and changes from baseline were collected.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 97 months. Of 107 eligible patients, 27.1% had intermediate-risk and 72.9% had high-risk localised prostate cancer. Median dose was 78Gy, and 97.2% received ADT. OS was 91.4% and 67.2% at 5 and 10 years. PCaSS was 98.0% and 88.7% at 5 and 10 years. In all, 39 (36.4%) of patients died, with the cause of death known in 30: in 26.7% of these patients, prostate cancer was the cause of death. Grade ≥ 2 late GI and GU toxicity was 0.9% and 24.3% respectively. In all, 11.2% and 22.4% of patients reported worsening of GI or GU function from baseline, and 13.1% and 21.5% reported improvement in GI and GU function compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Selected octogenarian patients with localised prostate cancer appear to benefit from radiation therapy and ADT. Despite excellent long-term PCaSS, 26.7% of patients died of prostate cancer. Rates of GI and GU toxicity were acceptable, and deterioration of urinary and bowel function compared to baseline was just as common as improvement in function from baseline.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes for Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the United States: Results of the CancerMPact® Survey 2018

Purpose

We describe patterns of care and treatment outcomes for non-metastatic PCa (nmPCA), either hormone-sensitive or castration-resistant, in the United States of America (USA) in 2018.

Methods

A survey (CancerMPact^®) recruited physicians nationwide to answer an online questionnaire about how they treated patients with nmPCA. Questions covered aspects of treatment at all disease stages. Board-certified urologists and oncologists with at least five years of clinical practice and who treated at least 30 PCa patients monthly were included.

Results

The survey included responses from ninety-four physicians with an average of 17.5 years of clinical practice, who had treated a combined average of 4415 patients with nmPCA per month in 2018. Approximately 40% of patients in stage I were managed with either active surveillance or observation/no therapy, decreasing to 20%, 8% and 6% in stages II, III and IV(M0), respectively. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy was favored over other radiotherapy modalities, with rates of use ranging between 60% and 69% depending on disease stage. Leuprolide as monotherapy or in combination with enzalutamide, abiraterone or bicalutamide were the most common systemic treatment options for non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (nmHSPC) patients with the first or second recurrence. Only 16.5% of non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC) patients did not relapse within five years of initial therapy for nmCRPC.

Conclusion

While PCa treatment recommendations are rapidly changing due to advances in treatment, we observed great concordance between their most current versions and real-world data treatment patterns reported by US physicians.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Choosing between conventional and hypofractionated prostate cancer radiation therapy: Results from a study of shared decision-making

AIM

To evaluate patient choice of prostate cancer radiotherapy fractionation, using a decision aid.

BACKGROUND

Recent ASTRO guidelines recommend patients with localised prostate cancer be offered moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy after discussing increased acute toxicity and uncertainty of long-term results compared to conventional fractionation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision aid was designed to outline the benefits and potential downsides of conventionally and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The aid incorporated the ASTRO guideline to outline risks and benefits.

RESULTS

In all, 124 patients with localised prostate cancer were seen from June-December 2018. Median age was 72 (range 50-90), 49.6 % were intermediate risk (50.4 % high risk). All except three patients made a choice using the aid; the three undecided patients were hypofractionated. In all, 33.9 % of patients chose hypofractionation: falling to 25.3 % for patients under 75 years, 24.3 % for patients living within 30 miles of the cancer centre, and 14.3 % for patients with baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. On multivariate analysis, younger age, proximity to the centre, and having baseline gastrointestinal symptoms significantly predicted for choosing conventional fractionation. Insurance status, attending clinician, baseline genitourinary symptoms, work/carer status, ECOG, cancer risk group and driving status did not impact choice. Reasons for choosing conventional fractionation were certainty of long-term results (84 %) and lower acute bowel toxicity (51 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients declined the convenience of moderate hypofractionation due to potentially increased acute toxicity, and the uncertainty of long-term outcomes. We advocate that no patient should be offered hypofractionation without a thorough discussion of uncertainty and acute toxicity.

PSMA-PET guided dose-escalated volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) for newly diagnosed lymph node positive prostate cancer: Efficacy and toxicity outcomes at two years

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

There are no published reports of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) guided dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT) in newly diagnosed lymph node (LN) positive prostate cancer. We report early toxicity and efficacy outcomes with this approach.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer were staged using PSMA PET, computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. Patients with LN positive-only metastases were offered curative therapy using 3 months androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by DE-IMRT (using volumetric arc therapy), and 3 years adjuvant ADT. All patients had fiducial marker insertion, with privately insured patients having spacer hydrogel insertion. PET and prostate magnetic resonance imaging were fused with the planning CT. We aimed to deliver 81 Gy in 45 fractions (Fx) to the prostate and PET-positive LNs, and 60 Gy in 45Fx to bilateral elective pelvic LNs.

RESULTS

In all, 46 patients were treated, with 83% Gleason 8-10, 67% T3/T4, median number of LNs 2 (range 1-6), and median PET-positive LN volume 1.14 cc (range 0.15-4.14). LNs were outside of standard contouring guidelines in 37% of patients. The mean PET-positive LN clinical target volume dose ranged from 73.3 to 85.9 Gy (median 83.6 Gy). With 24 months median follow-up, two year failure-free survival was 100%, and 2 year overall survival 95.7%. Acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity occurred in 48 and 11% of patients, and GU toxicity in 72 and 24%. Late grade 1, 2 and 3 GI toxicity occurred in 13, 2 and 0%, and GU toxicity 28, 13 and 4%. No toxicity was attributable to the high dose LN boost.

CONCLUSIONS

PSMA PET-guided DE-IMRT up to 81 Gy to the prostate and involved LNs, and long term ADT, is a promising approach for newly diagnosed LN positive prostate cancer. LN contouring guidelines require re-evaluation in the era of PSMA PET imaging.

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.

Application of an incident taxonomy for radiation therapy: Analysis of five years of data from three integrated cancer centres

AIM

To develop and apply a clinical incident taxonomy for radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND

Capturing clinical incident information that focuses on near-miss events is critical for achieving higher levels of safety and reliability.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A clinical incident taxonomy for radiation therapy was established; coding categories were prescription, consent, simulation, voluming, dosimetry, treatment, bolus, shielding, imaging, quality assurance and coordination of care. The taxonomy was applied to all clinical incidents occurring at three integrated cancer centres for the years 2011-2015. Incidents were managed locally, audited and feedback disseminated to all centres.

RESULTS

Across the five years the total incident rate (per 100 courses) was 8.54; the radiotherapy-specific coded rate was 6.71. The rate of true adverse events (unintended treatment and potential patient harm) was 1.06. Adverse events, where no harm was identified, occurred at a rate of 2.76 per 100 courses. Despite workload increases, overall and actual rates both exhibited downward trends over the 5-year period. The taxonomy captured previously unidentified quality assurance failures; centre-specific issues that contributed to variations in incident trends were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a taxonomy developed for radiation therapy enhances incident investigation and facilitates strategic interventions. The practice appears to be effective in our institution and contributes to the safety culture. The ratio of near miss to actual incidents could serve as a possible measure of incident reporting culture and could be incorporated into large scale incident reporting systems.

Phase 1/2 Dose-Escalation Study of the Use of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy to Treat the Prostate and Pelvic Nodes in Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of dose escalation and hypofractionation of pelvic lymph node intensity modulated radiation therapy (PLN-IMRT) in prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a phase 1/2 study, patients with advanced localized PCa were sequentially treated with 70 to 74 Gy to the prostate and dose-escalating PLN-IMRT at doses of 50 Gy (cohort 1), 55 Gy (cohort 2), and 60 Gy (cohort 3) in 35 to 37 fractions. Two hypofractionated cohorts received 60 Gy to the prostate and 47 Gy to PLN in 20 fractions over 4 weeks (cohort 4) and 5 weeks (cohort 5). All patients received long-course androgen deprivation therapy. Primary outcome was late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity at 2 years after radiation therapy for all cohorts. Secondary outcomes were acute and late toxicity using other clinician/patient-reported instruments and treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Between August 9, 2000, and June 9, 2010, 447 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 90 months. The 2-year rates of grade 2+ bowel/bladder toxicity were as follows: cohort 1, 8.3%/4.2% (95% confidence interval 2.2%-29.4%/0.6%-26.1%); cohort 2, 8.9%/5.9% (4.1%-18.7%/2.3%-15.0%); cohort 3, 13.2%/2.9% (8.6%-20.2%/1.1%-7.7%); cohort 4, 16.4%/4.8% (9.2%-28.4%/1.6%-14.3%); cohort 5, 12.2%/7.3% (7.6%-19.5%/3.9%-13.6%). Prevalence of bowel and bladder toxicity seemed to be stable over time. Other scales mirrored these results. The biochemical/clinical failure-free rate was 71% (66%-75%) at 5 years for the whole group, with pelvic lymph node control in 94% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the safety and tolerability of PLN-IMRT. Ongoing and planned phase 3 studies will need to demonstrate an increase in efficacy using PLN-IMRT to offset the small increase in bowel side effects compared with prostate-only IMRT.

Can a peri-rectal hydrogel spaceOAR programme for prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy be successfully implemented in a regional setting?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of a hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR) programme for patients treated with 81 Gy prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in a regional setting can reduce rectal doses and toxicity.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 125 patients with localised prostate cancer treated between April 2014 (programme commencement) and June 2015 were compared: 65 with SpaceOAR (inserted by five different urologists) and 60 patients treated over the same time period without SpaceOAR. Patients were treated with 81 Gy in 45Fx of IMRT over 9 weeks. Planning aims included restricting rectal doses to V40 Gy < 35%, V65 Gy < 17%, V75 Gy < 10%. Acute toxicity was assessed weekly during radiotherapy and at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Rectal volume parameters were all significantly lower in the SpaceOAR group, with an associated reduction in acute diarrhoea (13.8% vs 31.7%). There were no significant differences in the very low rates of acute and late faecal incontinence or proctitis, however, there was a trend towards increased haemorrhoid rate in the SpaceOAR group (11.7% vs 3.1%, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

A SpaceOAR programme in a regional setting with urologists performing low volumes of insertions (<1 per month on average) is of clinical benefit, and was associated with significantly lower radiation doses to the rectum and lower rates of acute diarrhoea.

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.

A multi-institutional analysis of prospective studies of carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A report from the Japan Carbon ion Radiation Oncology Study Group (J-CROS)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A multi-institutional observational study (J-CROS1501PR) has been carried out to analyze outcomes of carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for patients with prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of the patients enrolled in prospective studies of following 3 CIRT institutions were analyzed: National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS; Chiba, Japan), Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center (GHMC; Gunma, Japan), and Ion Beam Therapy Center, SAGA HIMAT Foundation (HIMAT; Saga, Japan). Endpoints of the clinical trial are biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), local control rate (LCR), and acute/late adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 2157 patients' data were collected from NIRS (n=1432), GHMC (n=515), and HIMAT (n=210). The number of patients in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups was 263 (12%), 679 (31%), and 1215 (56%), respectively. The five-year bRFS in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients was 92%, 89%, and 92%, respectively. The five-year CSS in low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients was 100%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. The incidence of grade 2 late GU/GI toxicities was 4.6% and 0.4%, respectively, and the incidence of ⩾G3 toxicities were 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable overall outcomes of CIRT for prostate cancer were suggested by the analysis of the first multi-institutional data.

Prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning in seven mouse clicks: Development of a class solution for cancer

AIM

The aim of the retrospective study was to develop a planning class solution for prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) that achieved target and organs-at-risk (OAR) doses within acceptable departmental protocol criteria using the Monaco treatment planning system (Elekta-CMS Software, MO, USA).

BACKGROUND

Advances in radiation therapy technology have led to a re-evaluation of work practices. Class solutions have the potential to produce highly conformal plans in a time-efficient manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients, a stepwise quality improvement model was employed. Stage 1 involved the development of a broadly based treatment template developed across 10 patients. Stage 2 involved template refinement and clinical audit (n = 20); Stage 3, template review (n = 50) and Stage 4 an assessment of a revised template against the actual treatment plan involving 72 patients.

RESULTS

The computer algorithm that comprised the Stage 4 template met clinical treatment criteria for 82% of patients. Minor template changes were required for a further 13% of patients. Major changes were required in 4%; one patient could not be assessed. The average calculation time was 13 min and involved seven mouse clicks by the planner. Thus, the new template met treatment criteria or required only minor changes in 95% of prostate patients; this is an encouraging result suggesting improvements in planning efficiency and consistency.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to develop a class solution for prostate IMRT using a stepwise quality improvement model which delivers clinically acceptable plans in the great majority of prostate cases.

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.

Saudi oncology society and Saudi urology association combined clinical management guidelines for prostate cancer

This is an update to the previously published Saudi guidelines for the evaluation, medical, and surgical management of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. It is categorized according to the stage of the disease using the tumor node metastasis staging system 7(th) edition. The guidelines are presented with supporting evidence level, they are based on comprehensive literature review, several internationally recognized guidelines, and the collective expertise of the guidelines committee members (authors) who were selected by the Saudi oncology society and Saudi urological association. Considerations to the local availability of drugs, technology, and expertise have been regarded. These guidelines should serve as a roadmap for the urologists, oncologists, general physicians, support groups, and health care policy makers in the management of patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate to.

Can we avoid dose escalation for intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the setting of short-course neoadjuvant androgen deprivation?

Background

Both dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (DE-EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improve the outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, there are only few reports evaluating DE-EBRT for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant ADT, and virtually no studies investigating dose escalation >74 Gy in this setting. We aimed to determine whether DE-EBRT >74 Gy improved the outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who received neoadjuvant ADT.

Findings

In our institution, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant ADT and DE-EBRT, with doses sequentially increasing from 74 Gy to 76 Gy and then to 78 Gy between 2006 and 2012. We identified 435 patients treated with DE-EBRT and ADT, with a median follow-up of 70 months. For the 74 Gy, 76 Gy, and 78 Gy groups, five-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 95.0%, 97.8%, and 95.3%, respectively; metastasis-free survival rates were 99.1%, 100.0%, and 98.6%, respectively; and prostate cancer-specific survival rate was 100% for all three dose levels. There was no significant benefit for dose escalation either on univariate or multivariate analysis for any outcome.

Conclusion

There was no benefit for DE-EBRT >74 Gy in our cohort of intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT. Given the higher risks of toxicity associated with dose escalation, it may be feasible to omit dose escalation in this group of patients. Randomized studies evaluating dose de-escalation should be considered.