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.

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.