Testosterone recovery after androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer: Long-term data from two randomised trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine the rate and time of testosterone (T) recovery in patients (pts) with localised prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 1230 pts with prostate cancer randomised into two phase III trials, serum T was measured at baseline, then regularly. T recovery rate was compared between normal vs. abnormal baseline T and with ADT duration with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. A multivariable logistic regression model to predict the probability of recovering normal T was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 87.4 % (167/191), 75.9 % (293/386), 54.8 % (181/330) and 43.2 % (80/185) of pts, recovered normal T on the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedule, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients recovering normal T, the median time to T recovery increased with ADT duration ranging from 0.31, 1.64, 3.06 to 5.0 years for the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedules, respectively (p < 0.001) and was significantly faster for those with a normal T at baseline (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, older age and longer ADT duration are associated with a lower T recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Testosterone recovery rate after ADT depends on several factors including hormonal duration, normal baseline T, age and medical comorbidities. A longer ADT duration is the most important variable affecting T recovery. The data from this report might be a valuable tool to help physicians and patients in evaluating risks and benefits of ADT.

Hypofractionated, Dose Escalation Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: The Safety Analysis of the Prostate Cancer Study-5, a Groupe de Radio-Oncologie Génito-Urinaire de Quebec Led Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

The low α\β ratio of 1.2 to 2 for prostate cancer (PCa) suggests high radiation-fraction sensitivity and predicts a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated (HF) radiation therapy (RT). To date, no phase 3 randomized clinical trial has compared moderately HF RT with standard fractionation (SF) exclusively in high-risk PCa patients. We are reporting the safety of moderate HF RT in high-risk PCa in an initially noninferiority-designed phase 3 clinical trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From February 2012 to March 2015, 329 high-risk PCa patients were randomized to receive either SF or HF RT. All patients received neoadjuvant, concurrent, and long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Standard fractionation RT consisted of 76 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction to the prostate, where 46 Gy was delivered to the pelvic lymph nodes. Hypofractionated RT included concomitant dose escalation of 68 Gy in 2.72 Gy per fraction to the prostate and 45 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction to the pelvic lymph nodes. The coprimary endpoints were acute and delayed toxicity at 6 and 24 months, respectively. The trial was originally designed as a noninferiority with a 5% absolute margin. Given the lower-than-expected toxicities in both arms, the noninferiority analysis was completely dropped.

RESULTS

Of the 329 patients, 164 were randomized to the HF and 165 to the SF arms. In total, there were more grade 1 or worse acute gastrointestinal (GI) events in the HF arm, 102 versus 83 events in the HF and SF arm, respectively (P = .016). This did not remain significant at 8 weeks of follow-up. There were no differences in grade 1 or worse acute GU events in the 2 arms, 105 versus 99 events in the HF and SF arm, respectively (P = .3). At 24 months, 12 patients in the SF arm and 15 patients in the HF arm had grade 2 or worse delayed GI-related adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.62-2.83; P = .482). There were 11 patients in the SF arm and 3 patients in the HF arm with grade 2 or higher delayed genitourinary (GU) toxicities (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.94; P = .037). There were 3 grade 3 GI and one grade 3 GU delayed toxicities in the HF arm and 3 grade 3 GU and no grade 3 GI toxicities in the SF arm. No grade 4-toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of moderate HF dose-escalated RT in exclusively high-risk patients with prostate cancer treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic RT. Although our data were not analyzed as a noninferiority, our results demonstrate that moderately HF RT is well-tolerated, similar to SF RT at 2 years, and could be considered an alternative to SF RT.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Neoadjuvant Setting for High-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma (PIRANHA): Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

A suboptimal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men who go on to receive definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer might suggest the existence of castration-resistant disease or altered androgen receptor signaling. This in turn may portend worse long-term clinical outcomes, especially in men with high-risk disease. We set out to evaluate the prognostic impact of poor PSA response to neoadjuvant ADT in men with high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter TROG 03.04 RADAR and PCS IV randomized clinical trials. Inclusion criteria for this analysis were patients with high-risk prostate cancer (defined as Gleason score ≥8, initial PSA ≥20 ng/mL, or cT3a disease or higher) who received definitive radiation therapy, at least 18 months of ADT, and had a preradiation therapy PSA level drawn after at least 3 months of neoadjuvant ADT. Poor PSA response was defined as PSA >0.5 ng/mL. Cox regression and Fine-Gray models were used to test whether poor PSA response was associated with metastasis-free survival, biochemical recurrence, prostate-cancer specific mortality, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty men met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Median follow-up was 130 months (interquartile range [IQR], 89-154 months). After a median of 3 months (IQR, 3-4.2 months) of neoadjuvant ADT, the median PSA was 0.60 ng/mL (IQR, 0.29-1.59). Overall, 535 men (57%) had a PSA >0.5 ng/mL. Poor PSA response was associated with significantly worse metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 3.93; P = .02), worse biochemical recurrence (subdistribution HR, 2.39; P = .003), worse prostate-cancer specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 1.50; P = .005), and worse overall survival (HR, 4.51; P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PSA >0.5 mg/mL after at least 3 months of neoadjuvant ADT had worse long-term clinical outcomes and should be considered for treatment intensification.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE

The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

Biochemical Failure in Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Then What? Long-Term Data from a Phase III Trial

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Aiming to determine long-term outcomes post biochemical failure (BF) in patients (pts) treated for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, we analyzed data from our prospective randomized trial (PCS III).

MATERIALS/METHODS

From December 2000 to September 2010, 600 pts with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC) received prostate radiotherapy (RT) with or without short-term (6 months) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on a Phase III trial. We report death rate from prostate cancer, rate and timing of BF plus the final clinical outcome of patients, alive or dead, with BF. Chi-squared test was used to compare BF and prostate cancer progression (PCP) rates between patient with or without ADT.

RESULTS

Median age at randomization was 71 years (IQR 66-74). With a median follow-up (FU) of 13.5 years (IQR 11.2-17.0), 74.5% (447/600) were free from BF at last FU. Of these, 211 died, 79 stopped FU after 10 years, 9 were lost to FU, 6 withdrew from the study and 142 are still on FU, at a median follow-up of 13.2 years (IQR = 10.9 - 16.2). A total of 153 pts (25.5%) developed BF at a median time of 6.5 years post-randomization. Among BF pts, 82/153 died: we documented 32 deaths from prostate cancer (DPC) at a median time of 6 years post-BF and 50/153 pts died from other causes at a median time of 4.7 years from BF. 48/153 BF pts continue on FU: 34 show no clinical evidence of cancer, 9 developed a second cancer and 5 show clinical evidence of PCP. 20/153 pts stopped FU after 10 years: 3 of them with PCP. 3/153 pts were lost to FU: 1 after 3 years with prostate bone metastasis and 2 after 13 years of FU. In the first 5 years post-randomization, 47 pts (7.8%) presented BF with 1 (0.2%) DPC; between 6 and 10 years, there were another 84 (14%) BFs and 11 (1.8%) DPC. Finally, after 10 years and beyond, we recorded an additional 22 (3.7%) BFs and 20 (3.3%) DPC. The rate of patients who received ADT was significantly lower in patients with BF (74/153 = 48.4%) compared to patients without BF (324/447 = 72.5%), p<0.001. The rate of patients who received ADT was also significantly lower in patients with PCP (19/48 = 39.6%) compared to patients without PCP (379/552 = 68.7%), p<0.001.

CONCLUSION

In our trial for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, a quarter of the pts developed BF. Most of the BFs occurred between 5- and 10- year post-randomization. Deaths due to prostate cancer post-BF occurred at a median time of 6 years, justifying the need for long-term FU. BF and PCP were significantly higher in patients not receiving ADT.

Individual Patient Data Analysis of 17 Randomized Trials vs. Real-World Data for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Prior work has demonstrated poor correlation between the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWD). However, patients enrolled in RCTs are often considered to poorly represent the real-world population. Herein, we utilize multiple large data repositories to determine differences in baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes between patients enrolled in RCTs and RWD that received radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was leveraged, and 17 phase III randomized trials were included. RWD were accessed through the Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) cohort, a cohort that is comprised of >60 centers across the United States and Europe. Additionally, RWD was assessed via the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. MARCAP and STAR-CAP both contain outcomes for distant metastasis (DM), metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS). SEER only contains PCSM and OS. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and chi-square test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was conducted, balancing for age, PSA, Gleason score, T stage, and treatment year in the three cohorts. Cox and Fine-Gray regression models were used to compare disease outcomes between RCTs vs. RWD.

RESULTS

Data from 10,666 patients from RCTs, 6,530 patients in STAR-CAP, and 117,586 patients in SEER were included. SEER patients were slightly younger (p<0.001, median age 68 (IQR 62-73) than those in RCTs (70, IQR 65-74) and in STAR-CAP (70, IQR 64-74). 10-year OS in RCTs was 65.4%, STAR-CAP 70.2%, SEER 64.1%. OS was superior in STAR-CAP (RCTs as reference; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.96, p<0.0001), but there was no significant difference between SEER and RCTs (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91-1.02, p = 0.22). 10-year PCSM cumulative incidence was 7.4% in RCTs, 8.1% in STAR-CAP, and 11.0% in SEER. There was no significant difference in PCSM between STAR-CAP RWD and RCTs (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.01, p = 0.08), whereas PCSM was worse in SEER than RCTs (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21-1.55, p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in DM between STAR-CAP RWD and RCTs (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.04, p = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

While baseline differences exist in patients enrolled on localized prostate cancer RCTs and real-world datasets, there were small if any significant relative differences in oncologic outcomes. This provides reassurance that RCT results are generally applicable to patients in routine practice.

Patient Reported Outcomes in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients with or without Testosterone Recovery after Androgen Deprivation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

In a previous report from a randomized trial of 630 patients (pts), we showed that 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (18m ADT) appears to be equally effective as 36 months (36m ADT) in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) pts. We performed the current analysis to evaluate quality of life (QOL) using the 25 items of EORTC PR25 validated tool in pts with or without testosterone (T) recovery after ADT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We selectedpts with no biochemical failure to avoid subsequent T variations due to reintroduction of ADT for recurrence. Patients receiving exactly 18 or 36m of ADT, survived more than one year (y) post randomization, had T measured at baseline and during follow-up and who completed QOL questionnaire entered this review. The 25 items were regrouped into 5 scales. All items and scales scores were linearly transformed to a 0-100 points scale. Serum T was measured at baseline then at each visit. We defined unrecovered testosterone as measured below the normal level. All items and scales scores were analyzed with general linear model and repeated measures to evaluate changes between pts with or without T recovery over time. T recovery was adjusted in a multivariable model including age, initial normal/unrecovered T and ADT (18 or 36m). P-value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant and a difference in mean scores of ≥10 points was considered clinically relevant. Patient-reported outcomes were filled out before treatments, every 6m during ADT, 4m after ADT and then once a year for 5y.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty nine of 630 pts met the eligibility criteria and were retained for the analysis. At a median follow-up of 14 years, 140/269 (52.0%) pts recovered T to normal level: 94/166 (56.6%) in 18m ADT and 46/103 (44.7%) in 36m ADT, p = 0.056. The median time to recovered T was significantly lower in 18m vs. 36m ADT (3.04 vs. 5.06 y, p<0.001). The global adherence to QOL questionnaires was 83.9% (2649/3156) and was similar between arms. Pts recovering T compared to those who did not, had a better QOL. 6/20 items [difficult to get enough sleep: get up frequently at night to urinate, blood in stool, hot flushes, feel less man, interested in sex, sexually active (with or without intercourse)] and 2/4 scales (treatment and sexual activity) were statistically significant (all p<0.01). 2 items were also clinically relevant: hot flushes and interested in sex. Hot flushes were clinically relevant (more than 10 point of difference) between 3.5 to 5y inclusively with maximum difference of 19.4 point. Interest in sex was clinically relevant with 13.1 point of difference at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

T recoverypost long-term ADT is associated with a significantly improved QOL in patients with HRPC. Considering similar prostate cancer clinical outcomes and faster T recovery, our results suggest that 18m ADT may be the most appropriate ADT treatment duration for these patients.

Conventional vs. Hypo-Fractionated, Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer (PCS5), Randomized, Non-Inferiority, Phase 3 Trial: Posthoc Analysis of IMRT vs. 3D-CRT Radiation Therapy Associated Toxicities

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The Prostate Cancer Study number 5 (PCS5), is a multi-centric non-inferiority, phase 3, randomized controlled trial of high-risk prostate cancer patients of treated with either conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) or hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT). The 7 years' pre-planned analysis showed that HFRT (68 Gy in 25 fractions) was as effective and well tolerated as CFRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions). In this posthoc analysis we aim to report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities associated with radiation therapy techniques: intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

PCS5 randomized patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CFRT or HFRT. All patients received long term neoadjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant androgen suppression, with a median duration of 24 months. The toxicities were reported as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Acute toxicities were defined as presenting ≤ 180 days post-RT start and delayed > 180 days. The cumulative acute and delayed GI and GU toxicities were classified in grade groups: grade 1 or higher (G1+), G2+, and G3+. For each grade group, acute and delayed, we performed multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for age, CTV volume, diabetes, fractionation (CRFT or HFRT), hypertension, and stage < T3b or ≥ T3b. For efficacy analyses cox-regression was utilized. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty of the 329 patients enrolled in the trial were included in this posthoc analyses. The mean age was 71.4 ± 6.1 years, and the mean CTV volume (n = 219) was 47.25 ± 19.9 cc. IMRT was used in 195 (60.6%) patients and 3D-CRT in 125 (39.1%) patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed a significant difference in favor of IMRT for GI G2+ acute toxicity (OR = 0.285 [0.14-0.59]; CI: 95%; p<0.001) and GI G2+ delayed toxicity (OR = 0.202 [0.60-0.69]; CI: 95%; p = 0.01). There were no differences in G3+ GI or GU toxicities and there were no grade 4 toxicities. There were no differences in efficacy at 7 years between the two treatment technics. Outcomes for IMRT vs. 3D-CRT respectively, overall survival (81.5% vs 79.2%; HR: 0.92 [0.55-1.53]; CI: 95%; p-value: 0.74), distant metastasis free survival (90,7% vs 92.8%; HR: 1.4 [0.63-3.1]; CI: 95%; p-value: 0.42), prostate cancer mortality (95.8% vs. 92.2%; HR: 0.93 [0.32-2.67]; CI: 95%; p-value: 0.89), and biochemical failure (85.1% vs 88%; HR: 1.35 [0.72-2.52]; CI: 95%; p-value: 0.35).

CONCLUSION

This is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial assessing the use of HFRT vs. CFRT, exclusively in high-risk prostate cancer patients. Given that our efficacy data at 7 years follow-up establishes moderate HFRT as a new standard of care and no difference between IMRT and 3D-CRT, we strongly recommend that patients who are treated with EBRT should receive IMRT, given the reduced acute and delayed grade 2 or higher GI toxicities.

Phase III Study of Hypofractionated, Dose Escalation Radiotherapy vs. Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy followed by High Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost for High Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate (PCS VI): Acute Toxicity Results

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The low α\β ratio of 1.2-2 for prostate cancer (PCa) suggests high radiation-fraction sensitivity and predicts a therapeutic advantage of lager fraction size. We have recently shown (PCS5) that high risk prostate cancer patients can safely and effectively be treated with moderate hypofractionated radiation therapy (HF-RT). To date there has been no phase-III randomized clinical-trial comparing moderately HF-RT with EBRT and HDR boost (HDRB). We are reporting the acute safety of EBRT+HDRB compared to moderate HF-RT in this phase III Canadian trial.

MATERIALS/METHODS

From January 2015-June 2022, 308 high-risk localized PCa patients were randomized to receive either HF-RT or EBRT+HDRB. All patients received neo-adjuvant, concurrent, and long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). EBRT+HDRB consisted of 46 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction to the pelvis and a 15 Gy in one fraction HDR boost within 3 weeks of EBRT. HF-RT include concomitant dose escalation of 68 Gy in 2.72 Gy per fraction to the prostate, and 45 Gy in 1.8 Gy per fraction to the pelvic lymph-nodes.

RESULTS

Of the 308 patients, 148 received HF-RT and 144 EBRT+ HDRB. The remainder either withdrew from the study or were treated with standard (2 Gy per fraction) fractionation for technical reasons. In both intention to treat and as treated analysis, using log-Rank, there were more grade 1 or worse (G1+) acute GI and GU events and more G2+ acute GI events in the HF-RT than EBRT+HDRB. As treated analysis the acute G1+ and G2+ GI events were 92 vs 77 (60.1% vs. 53.5%; p < 0.017) and 21 vs 10 (13.7% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.052), respectively for HF-RT and EBRT + HDRB. Similarly, the G1+ acute GU events were 123 vs. 101 (80.4% vs.70.1%; p < 0.001) respectively for HF-RT and EBRT+HDRB. There were only four G3 GI and one G3 GU acute toxicities in both arms. No grade 4 toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study of EBRT+HDRB compared to moderate HF dose escalated RT in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with long-term ADT and pelvic RT. Our results demonstrate that both treatment approaches are well-tolerated and that EBRT+HDRB carries less G2+ GI and G1+ GU acute toxicities.

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) surrogacy for clinical outcomes after radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate (BCRSCRAP): A meta-analysis from MARCAP Consortium

391

Background: Event-free survival, a PSA-driven endpoint, was shown to not be surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in the ICECAP two-stage meta-analytic approach. However, time to biochemical recurrence (TTBCR) in NRG/RTOG 9202 met Prentice criteria for surrogacy. We performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials evaluating RT dose escalation, ADT use, and adjuvant ADT prolongation to evaluate the surrogacy of time to BCR (TTBCR), censoring for non-prostate cancer deaths, using both approaches to evaluate surrogacy. Methods: This individual patient level meta-analysis was performed using data from the MARCAP consortium, and 11 radiotherapy trials were included. TTBCR was defined as time to developing a BCR or experiencing prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with censoring at time of other-cause death or loss to follow-up. Landmark analyses were used to test the Prentice criteria for surrogacy. For patient level correlation between TTBCR and OS, we applied a bivariate Copula model to estimate the Kendall’s τ. For trial level correlation of the treatment effect on TTBCR and true endpoints, a weighted linear regression model was applied between the effects of treatment (natural log of hazard ratio [log-HR]) on OS versus TTBCR using a weightage that was inverse variance of BCR log-HR estimate. Results: Based on Prentice criteria, BCR at the landmark time point of 48 months was associated with increased risk of mortality in trials that compared treatment intensification with adjuvant ADT prolongation (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.95-2.42]), the addition of ADT (HR 1.38 [1.25-1.54]), and RT dose escalation (HR 2.12 [1.83-2.46]) on uni- and multi-variable analyses. At the patient level, there was a low to moderate level correlation between BCR and OS with Kendall’s τ of 0.34 and a R2 of 0.55 for correlation of treatment effect on TTBCR and OS. At the trial level, there was a poor correlation between treatment effect on TTBCR and OS (R2=0.16). Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that while BCR is prognostic, it is not a surrogate endpoint for OS in localized prostate cancer for patients treated with a diverse array of radiotherapeutic strategies. This highlights the importance of other cause mortality in prostate cancer. Our results highlight the differences in interpretability of Prentice criteria and the two-stage meta-analytic approach and suitability of endpoints for clinical trial design.

Testosterone recovery in patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and different ADT duration: Long-term data from two randomized trials

300

Background: To determine the rate and time of testosterone (T) recovery to normal level in patients (pts) with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus 6, 18 or 36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and considered cured from their disease. Methods: We randomized 1230 pts with prostate cancer, into two phase III trials: 600 with intermediate risk and 630 with high-risk. We selected those considered cured to avoid subsequent T variations due to reintroduction of ADT for recurrence. We excluded the following pts: no ADT at all (126) or not receiving exactly 6, 18 or 36 months of ADT (69), survival less than one year (21), no T measured at baseline or during follow-up (75), biochemical failure (195) or evidence of metastatic/recurrent disease (137).T recovery rate was compared between baseline normal/abnormal T (values below biochemical normal range) and by ADT duration with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. A multivariable logistic regression model to predict the probability of recovering normal T was performed by including normal/abnormal T at baseline, age, Zubrod, comorbidities and ADT duration. A second model was performed by replacing ADT duration with baseline PSA, Gleason score and stage. The median time to T recovery was calculated only on pts who recovered normal T. Results: Results are reported with a median follow-up of 14 years. 607 pts fit the criteria and are available for analysis: 309 pts in the 6 months ADT schedule, 185 in the 18 and 113 in the 36. Overall, 76.7%, 54.6% and 45.1% pts recovered normal T on the 6, 18 or 36 months schedule, respectively (p<0.001). The median time to T recovery was 1.5, 3.1, and 5.1 years for the 6, 18 or 36 months schedule, respectively (p<0.001). 79.7% presented with a normal T at baseline while 20.3% had an abnormal T level. By splitting pts between a normal vs. abnormal presenting T level, the T recovery rate was as follows: 82.1%, 63.3%, and 50% for the normal T cohort, compared to 53.4%, 28.3% and 21.1% for the abnormal T cohort at 6, 18 or 36 months, respectively. There was a significant difference in the overall recovery rate (p<0.001) between normal vs. abnormal T level and at all ADT duration lengths between the two cohorts. In multivariable model, baseline normal T was a strong predictor of T recovery. Older age, diabetes, longer ADT, higher clinical stage, higher PSA and higher Gleason score reduced significantly the chance for T recovery. In pts recovering T post-ADT, except for the 6 months duration (p=0.01), the median time for T recovery was not significantly different between normal or abnormal T at baseline in 18 and 36 months cohorts. Conclusions: Older age, longer ADT and poor disease features are associated with a lower T recovery. Even after adjusting for several variables and ADT duration, a higher T recovery post-ADT is significantly associated with a normal T at baseline.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT.

CONCLUSION

ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN)

CONTEXT

The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium

BACKGROUND

The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.

Local failure, distant metastasis, and survival after definitive radiotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: An individual patient-level meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials

277

Background: The prognostic importance of local failure (LF) after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in patients with NCCN intermediate- (IRPCa) and high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) remains unclear, particularly given the likelihood that occult distant metastases (DMs) at presentation may be the true driver of natural history. Here, we leverage individual patient data (IPD) from 18 randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate the prognostic impact of LF and the kinetics of DM after RT. Methods: IPD for 18 RCTs were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium, comprising a total of 12533 patients (6288 HRPCa & 6245 IRPCa). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), DM-free survival (DMFS) & LF as a time-dependent covariate, adjusted for clinicodemographic parameters. Markov PH models, defined via transitions between 4 states, were developed to evaluate the aforementioned relationship. Proportional hazards assumption was imposed and examined for both models. Time is from randomization. Results: Median follow-up was 9.1 years. There were 795 (13%) LF & 1288 (21%) DM events for patients with HRPCa; these numbers were 449 (7%) & 451 (7%) for IRPCa. For HRPCa & IRPCa, 81% and 81% of DMs developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRFS), with a median time of 46 and 60 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). 39% & 13% of DM events occurred within 2 years after RT for HRPCa & IRPCa, respectively. At later time points, DM events were more likely to emerge after an LF event for both HRPCa (9% vs. 34% between 0-2 vs. 8-10 years post-RT, p = 0.001) and IRPCa (10% vs. 34% between 0-2 vs. 8-10 years post-RT, p = 0.008). LF was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33) & DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75–2.15) (p < 0.01 for all) in patients with HRPCa. LF was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36–1.81) but not OS in patients with IRPCa. Patients who had not transitioned to the LF state had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who transitioned to the LF state (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21–0.50, p < 0.001). Conclusions: LF is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS & DMFS in HRPCa and of DMFS in IRPCa. The predominant mode of DM development is from the cRFS state, underscoring the importance of accurate upfront staging & systemic therapy. However, particularly at late time points, an increasing proportion of DM events originated after diagnosis of a LF, constituting a “second wave” of DM events. This suggests that optimizing local control is also important, though the majority of DM events appear prior to a clinically-detected LF.

Optimizing Treatment in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

To identify patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) benefiting from de-escalation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or dose escalated radiation therapy (DERT), we performed a secondary analysis of a phase 3 trial by measuring biochemical failure (BF), distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality, overall survival (OS), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) rates according to prognostic intermediate risk factors (IRF).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The initial trial randomized 600 patients with IRPC to a 3-arm trial with 200 patients per arm, consisting of 6 months of ADT plus 70 Gy radiation therapy (ADT + RT70) versus ADT plus a DERT of 76 Gy (ADT + DERT76) versus DERT of 76 Gy alone (DERT76). We performed an analysis based on IRF: clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PBC) ≥50%, and Gleason pattern. Patients were allocated to 2 groups: favorable intermediate risk (FIR), defined as patients with only 1 IRF without Gleason pattern 4 + 3 or PBC ≥50%; and unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR), defined as all other patients. BF, distant metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality, OS, and DMFS were compared between FIR and UIR.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 11.3 years (interquartile range, 10.9-11.7). In the FIR cohort, BF and OS were not significantly different between arms. UIR patients had significantly worse DMFS (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.61 [1.20-2.15]; P = .026) and OS (1.51 [1.12-2.04]; P = .0495) and a nonsignificant higher cumulative incidence of BF rate (1.55 [0.98-2.47]; P = .08). In UIR patients, a significant improvement in BF was seen in the arms receiving ADT compared to DERT76 alone. On multivariable analysis, Gleason pattern 4 + 3 and prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/mL independently affected BF and OS, regardless of the treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In IRPC, therapeutic optimization appears possible. To avoid ADT side effects, DERT76 alone appears sufficient in patients harboring only 1 risk factor without Gleason pattern 4 + 3 and PBC ≥50% (FIR). All other UIR patients seem to benefit from ADT + DERT76.

Hypofractionated, dose escalation radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: The primary endpoint of a group led phase III trial. (PCS5)

123

Background: The low α\β ratio of prostate cancer (PCa), 1.5-2, suggests high radiation-fraction sensitivity and predicts a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated radiation treatment (HFRT). Most available data of moderate HFRT have focused on low, intermediate and/or mixed risk groups. We therefore conducted the first randomized trial of moderately HFRT in high-risk PCa patients and present the primary safety analysis of side effects at 2 years. Methods: We conducted a Canadian multi-centric phase III trial of conventional fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT) vs. intensity-modulated HFRT in men with high-risk PCa as per NCCN definition. From February 2012 to March 2015, 329 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CFRT or HFRT. All patients received neo-adjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant androgen suppression, with a median duration of 24 months. CFRT consisted of 76 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction to the prostate where 46 Gy was delivered to the pelvic lymph nodes. HFRT consisted of concomitant dose escalation of 68 Gy in 2.72 Gy per fraction to the prostate and 45 Gy, in 1.8Gy per fraction to the pelvic lymph nodes. The primary endpoint was to compare the toxicities at 6 months and at 24 months using the CTCAE v.4. Results: Of the329 patients, 164 were randomized to HFRT and 165 to CFRT. The minimum, median and maximum follow-up were 24, 40 and 60 months respectively. At 24 months, 12 patients in the CFRT arm and 15 patients in the HFRT arm had grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse events (HR:1.32 [0.62.2.83] 95% CI; P=NS). Similarly, 11 patients in the CFRT arm and 3 patients in HFRT arm had grade 2 or higher genitourinary (GU) toxicities (HR:0.26 [0.07-0.94] 95% CI; P=0.037). In the HFRT arm, there were 3 grade 3 GI and one grade 3 GU related toxicities. In the CFRT arm there were 3 grade 3 GU and no grade 3 GI related toxicities. There were no grade 4 toxicities in either arm. Conclusions: This is the first hypofractionated dose escalated radiotherapy study in high-risk PCa patients treated with contemporary radiation and androgen suppression. Our results indicate that moderate HFRT to high risk PCa patients is equally well tolerated as CFRT at 2 years. Clinical trial information: NCT01444820.

Patient Reported Outcomes After Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases as a Function of Age: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC CTG SC-Twenty-Three Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To explore the age difference in response and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

METHODS

Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life (QOL) Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22), EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL), and Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) before a single 8-Gy radiation treatment, on days 10 and 42 after treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22, C15, and DSQ were compared with multivariant analysis between patients under 75 years and 75 years and older. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the differences between age-groups, adjusting for baseline demographics and primary disease sites.

RESULTS

There were 298 patients (170 male) with 209 (70%) less than 75 years of age. Most common primary cancer sites include lung, prostate, and breast. At baseline, younger patients had better performance status, consumed more analgesic, and reported worse scores in nausea, insomnia, and functional interference, while older patients more commonly had prostate cancer. There were no significant differences in the incidence of radiation-induced pain flare; response to radiation; changes from baseline for BM22, C15-PAL; and DSQ, nor overall survival at day 42 between the 2 groups. Responders to radiation in the elderly group reported better improvement in physical and emotional domains when compared with nonresponders.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, there was no significant difference in general with age in response to radiation and patient-reported outcomes. Palliative radiotherapy should be offered to elderly patients when needed.

Effect of Radiotherapy on Painful Bone Metastases: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23

Importance

Many studies that found improved quality of life (QOL) after radiotherapy of bone metastases have small sample sizes and do not use specific questionnaires. How soon after radiotherapy one can expect an improvement in QOL is unknown.

Objective

To investigate QOL at days 10 and 42 after radiotherapy with a bone metastases-specific QOL tool.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23, a double-blind randomized clinical trial that investigated dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of pain flare after radiotherapy, patients were accrued from 23 Canadian centers from May 30, 2011, to December 11, 2014, and were followed up for 42 days after treatment. Participants referred for radiotherapy for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (range, 0-10).

Interventions

Patients were treated with a single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for 1 or 2 bone metastases.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10 and 42 after treatment. Pain response was assessed with International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Self-reported QOL was completed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases Module (QLQ-BM22) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) at the same time points.

Results

A total of 298 patients were accrued (median age, 68.8 [range, 32-94] years at day 10 and 68.0 [range, 34-90] years at day 42). A total of 122 patients (40.9%) responded to radiotherapy at day 10 and 116 patients (38.9%) at day 42. At day 10, compared with nonresponders, patients with a pain response had a greater reduction in pain (mean reduction, 17.0 vs 1.8; P = .002) and pain characteristics (mean reduction, 12.8 vs 1.1; P = .002), as well as greater improvements in functional interference (mean increase, 11.6 vs 3.6; P = .01) and psychosocial aspects (mean increase, 1.2 points in responders vs mean decrease of 2.2 points in nonresponders, P = .04). Comparing changes in QOL from baseline to day 42, responders had significantly greater improvements in the physical (mean increase, 6.2 vs -9.0; P < .001), emotional (mean increase, 12.3 vs -5.5; P < .001), and global domains (mean increase, 10.3 vs -4.5; P < .001) of the QLQ-C15-PAL compared with nonresponders.

Conclusions and Relevance

Forty percent of patients experienced pain reduction and better QOL at day 10 after radiotherapy with further improvements in QOL at day 42 in responders. A single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for bone metastases should be offered to all patients, even those with poor survival.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248585.

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy in high risk prostate cancer: Final results of a randomized phase III trial

5008

Background: Long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC). However, the optimal duration of ADT is not yet defined. The aim of this randomized trial (Clinical Trials.gov, #NCT00223171) was to compare outcomes of RT combined with either 36 or 18 months of ADT. Methods: Patients with HRPC were randomized to pelvic and prostate RT combined with 36 (arm 1) or 18 months (arm 2) of ADT. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) were primary end points. OS rates were compared with Cox Regression model and QoL data were analyzed through mixed linear model. Results: 630 patients were randomized, 310 to arm 1 and 320 to arm 2. With a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 290 patients had died (147 arm 1 vs. 143 arm 2). The 10-year OS rate was 62.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4%, 67.8%) for arm 1 and 62.0% (95% CI 56.1%, 67.3%) for arm 2 (p = 0.8412) with a global hazard ratio (HR) of 1.024 (95% CI 0.813-1.289, p = 0.8411). QoL analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in 6 scales and 13 items favoring 18 months ADT with two of them presenting a clinically relevant difference in mean scores of ≥10 points. Conclusions: In HRPC, ADT combined with RT can be safely reduced from 36 to 18 months without compromising outcomes or QoL. 18 months of ADT represents a new standard of care in HRPC. Funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Clinical trial information: NCT00223171.

Is there a relationship between testosterone levels at the end of short-term androgen deprivation therapy and outcomes in intermediate risk prostate cancer? Prospective data from a phase III trial

78

Background: The purpose of this analysis was to assess whether the testosterone level measured at the end of short term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT) and prostate radiotherapy (RT) has an impact on treatment outcomes in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated on a randomized trial (PCS III ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00223145). Methods: From December 2000 to September 2010, 400 patients with IRPC received 6 months of STADT (bicalutamide 50mg die and goserelin 10.8mg x 2) and RT. Castrate level of testosterone was defined as <1.7 nmol/L: lower level <0.7 and upper level 0.7-1.7. In 347/400 patients, testosterone levels were available at the end of STADT and were divided into 3 groups based on measured testosterone levels: <0.7, 0.7 to 1.7 and >1.7 nmol/L. Patient’s characteristics were compared with ANOVA and Fisher’s exact test. Biochemical failure, prostate cancer recurrence and death were compared with Cox regression. Results: Patient’s characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups with no statistical difference for age, performance status, PSA at start, Gleason score and stage. At the end of STADT 55.3% (192/347) presented testosterone levels <0.7 and 38.9% (135/347) levels between 0.7 and 1.7 for a total of 94.2% (327/ 347) reaching castrate levels ≤1.7 nmol/L. In 5.8% of patients (20/347) a castrate testosterone level was not achieved. With a median follow-up of 8.1 years, outcomes are shown in the table. Conclusions: In IRPC patients treated with STADT and RT, the majority of patients (94.2%) achieve a castrate level of testosterone (<1.7 nmol/L). Although we could not show a difference in outcomes between castrate and non-castrate patients, these data have to be viewed with caution given the small number of non-castrate patients studied. Source of Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Grant. Clinical trial information: NCT00223145. [Table: see text]

Effect of Standard Radiotherapy With Cisplatin vs Accelerated Radiotherapy With Panitumumab in Locoregionally Advanced Squamous Cell Head and Neck Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group study HN.6 is the largest randomized clinical trial to date comparing the concurrent administration of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies with radiotherapy (RT) to standard chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN).

Objective

To compare progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with LA-SCCHN treated with standard-fractionation RT plus high-dose cisplatin vs accelerated-fractionation RT plus the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized phase 3 clinical trial in 17 Canadian centers. A total of 320 patients were randomized between December 2008 and November 2011.

Interventions

Patients with TanyN+M0 or T3-4N0M0 LA-SCCHN were randomized 1:1 to receive standard-fractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 7 weeks) plus cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 intravenous for 3 doses (arm A) vs accelerated-fractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 6 weeks) plus panitumumab at 9 mg/kg intravenous for 3 doses (arm B).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary end point was PFS. Due to an observed declining event rate, the protocol was amended to a time-based analysis. Secondary end points included overall survival, local and regional PFS, distant metastasis-free survival, quality of life, adverse events, and safety.

Results

Of 320 patients randomized (268 [84%] male; median age, 56 years), 156 received arm A and 159 arm B. A total of 93 PFS events occurred. By intention-to-treat, 2-year PFS was 73% (95% CI, 65%-79%) in arm A and 76% (95% CI, 68%-82%) in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60-1.50; P = .83). The upper bound of the HR 95% CI exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin. Two-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI, 78%-90%) in arm A and 88% (95% CI, 82%-92%) in arm B (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.54-1.48; P = .66). Incidence of any grade 3 to 5 nonhematologic adverse event was 88% in arm A and 92% in arm B (P = .25).

Conclusions and Relevance

With a median follow-up of 46 months, the PFS of panitumumab plus accelerated-fractionation RT was not superior to cisplatin plus standard-fractionation RT in LA-SCCHN and noninferiority was not proven. Despite having negative results, HN.6 has contributed important data regarding disease control and toxic effects of these treatment strategies.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00820248.

Quality of life and swallowing with standard chemoradiotherapy versus accelerated radiotherapy and panitumumab in locoregionally advanced carcinoma of the head and neck: A phase III randomised trial from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (HN.6)

AIM

To compare quality of life (QOL) between standard (SFX) chemoradiotherapy (arm A) and altered fractionation radiotherapy (AFX) with panitumumab (PMab; arm B).

METHODS

Patients with T any N + M0 or T3-4N0M0 squamous cell head-neck carcinoma were randomised to SFX (70 Gy/35/7 wks) plus cisplatin (100 mg/m² IV × 3) versus AFX (70 Gy/35/6 wks) plus PMab (9 mg/kg IV × 3). QOL was collected at baseline, end of radiation therapy (RT) and 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months post-RT using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Head and Neck (FACT-H&N), MD Anderson Dysphagia Index (MDADI) and SWAL-QOL. We hypothesised a 6-point more favourable change in FACT-H&N score from baseline to 1 year in arm B over arm A.

RESULTS

Among 320 patients, median follow-up was 46 (range: 0.1-64.3) months, median age 56, 84% male, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0 (71%), 1 (29%). Primary site was oropharynx in 81% (p16+ 68%, p16- 16%, missing 16%). Baseline scores did not differ by arm (A/B): FACT-H&N 116.5/115, MDADI Global 83/77, SWAL-QOL General 67/68. At 1 year, no difference was seen between arms in FACT-H&N change from baseline: A -1.70, B -4.81, p = 0.194. Subscale change scores by arm were (A/B): last week RT, FACT-Physical (-11.6, -10, p = 0.049), MDADI Physical (-40.4, -33.9, p = 0.045), and SWAL-QOL Eating Duration (-61.2, -51.2, p = 0.02), Eating Desire (-53.3, -43.9, p = 0.031) and Mental Health (-42, -32.6, p = 0.009); 4 months, HN subscale (-7.7, -10, p = 0.014). No clinically important differences by arm were seen post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PMab with AFX did not durably improve QOL or swallowing as compared with SFX with cisplatin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00820248.

Acute and late urinary toxicity following radiation in men with an intact prostate gland or after a radical prostatectomy: A secondary analysis of RTOG 94-08 and 96-01

INTRODUCTION

To estimate the contribution of the prostate gland and prostatic urethral inflammation to urinary symptoms after radiation therapy for prostate cancer, we performed a secondary analysis of urinary toxicity after primary radiation to an intact prostate vs. postprostatectomy radiation to the prostatic fossa in protocols RTOG 94-08 and 96-01, respectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients randomized to the radiation-alone arms (without hormone therapy) of the 2 trials were evaluated, including 104 men receiving primary prostate radiation to 68.4Gy on RTOG 94-08 and 371 men receiving 64.8Gy to the prostatic fossa on RTOG 96-01. Acute and late urinary toxicity were scored prospectively by RTOG scales. Chi-square test/logistic regression and cumulative incidence approach/Fine-Gray regression model were used for analyses of acute and late toxicity, respectively.

RESULTS

Grade≥2 acute urinary toxicity was significantly higher after primary prostatic radiation compared with postprostatectomy radiation (30.8% vs. 14.0%; P<0.001), but acute grade≥3 toxicity did not differ (3.8% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.54). After adjusting for age, primary radiation resulted in significantly higher grade≥2 acute urinary toxicity (odds ratio = 3.72; 95% CI: 1.65-8.37; P = 0.02). With median follow-up of 7.1 years, late urinary toxicity was not significantly different with primary vs. postprostatectomy radiation (5-year grade≥2: 16.7% vs. 18.3%; P = 0.65; grade≥3: 6.0% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary radiation to an intact prostate resulted in higher grade≥2 acute urinary toxicity than radiation to the prostatic fossa, with no difference in late urinary toxicity. Thus, a proportion of acute urinary toxicity in men with an intact prostate may be attributable to inflammation of the prostatic gland or urethra.

A prospective study validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 bone metastases module in patients with painful bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Quality of life (QOL) can be compromised in patients with bone metastases, and validated QOL instruments are required to accurately measure QOL outcomes in this population. This study investigated the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module with the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL instrument in bone metastases.

METHODS

The studied patients underwent palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases in the randomized NCIC CTG SC 23 trial. Multi-trait scaling analysis was performed to determine convergent and divergent validity among scales. Pearson coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between items of the two instruments. The clinical validity and responsiveness of the QLQ-BM22 was tested by known group comparisons of different performance status and response to radiotherapy.

RESULTS

204 patients completed both questionnaires at baseline and 42day follow-up. On multi-trait scaling analysis, there was mixed evidence of construct validity (explained by the questionnaire format and population characteristics). There was little correlation between most QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL items (except for conceptually related scales) validating their complementary nature. There were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores in groups with KPS<80 vs. KPS⩾80 and three out of four QLQ-BM22 scale scores in "responders" vs. "non-responders" to radiotherapy. In patients who responded to radiotherapy, there were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores between baseline and follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study further validates the use of the QLQ-BM22 as a robust and sensitive instrument to assess QOL in patients with bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL modules in patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments.

METHODS

Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration.

CONCLUSION

We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

NCT01248585.