Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer

Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Because no adequate randomized trials have compared active treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer, the authors analyzed risk-adjusted, cancer-specific mortality outcomes among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, men who received external-beam radiation therapy, and men who received primary androgen-deprivation therapy.

METHODS

The Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry comprises men from 40 urologic practice sites who are followed prospectively under uniform protocols, regardless of treatment. In the current study, 7538 men with localized disease were analyzed. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the Kattan preoperative nomogram and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, both well validated instruments that are calculated from clinical data at the time of diagnosis. A parametric survival model was constructed to compare outcomes across treatments adjusting for risk and age.

RESULTS

In total, 266 men died of prostate cancer during follow-up. Adjusting for age and risk, the hazard ratio for cancer-specific mortality relative to prostatectomy was 2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-3.24) for radiation therapy and 3.22 (95% CI, 2.16-4.81) for androgen deprivation. Absolute differences between prostatectomy and radiation therapy were small for men at low risk but increased substantially for men at intermediate and high risk. These results were robust to a variety of different analytic techniques, including competing risks regression analysis, adjustment by CAPRA score rather than Kattan score, and examination of overall survival as the endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was associated with a significant and substantial reduction in mortality relative to radiation therapy and androgen-deprivation monotherapy. Although this was not a randomized study, given the multiple adjustments and sensitivity analyses, it is unlikely that unmeasured confounding would account for the large observed differences in survival.

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces gastrointestinal toxicity in patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (AD) has been shown to increase late Grade 2 or greater rectal toxicity when used concurrently with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has the potential to reduce toxicity by limiting the radiation dose received by the bowel and bladder. The present study compared the genitourinary and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in men treated with 3D-CRT+AD vs. IMRT+AD.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between July 1992 and July 2004, 293 men underwent 3D-CRT (n = 170) or IMRT (n = 123) with concurrent AD (<6 months, n = 123; ≥6 months, n = 170). The median radiation dose was 76 Gy for 3D-CRT (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements) and 76 Gy for IMRT (95% to the planning target volume). Toxicity was assessed by a patient symptom questionnaire that was completed at each visit and recorded using a Fox Chase Modified Late Effects Normal Tissue Task radiation morbidity scale.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 86 months (standard deviation, 29.3) for the 3D-CRT group and 40 months (standard deviation, 9.7) for the IMRT group. Acute GI toxicity (odds ratio, 4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-11.7; p = .005) was significantly greater with 3D-CRT than with IMRT and was independent of the AD duration (i.e., <6 vs. ≥6 months). The interval to the development of late GI toxicity was significantly longer in the IMRT group. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for Grade 2 or greater GI toxicity was 20% for 3D-CRT and 8% for IMRT (p = .01). On multivariate analysis, Grade 2 or greater late GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.3; p = .04) was more prevalent in the 3D-CRT patients.

CONCLUSION

Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT significantly decreased the acute and late GI toxicity in patients treated with AD.

Long-term results of a prospective, Phase II study of long-term androgen ablation, pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy boost, and adjuvant docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We report the long-term results of a prospective, Phase II study of long-term androgen deprivation (AD), pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT), permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost (PB), and adjuvant docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligibility included biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma with the following: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 20 ng/ml; or Gleason score of 7 and a PSA >10 ng/ml; or any Gleason score of 8 to 10; or stage T2b to T3 irrespective of Gleason score or PSA. Treatment consisted of 45 Gy of pelvic EBRT, followed 1 month later by PB with either iodine-125 or Pd-103. One month after PB, patients received three cycles of docetaxel chemotherapy (35 mg/m(2) per week, Days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). All patients received 2 years of AD. Biochemical failure was defined as per the Phoenix definition (PSA nadir + 2).

RESULTS

From August 2000 to March 2004, 42 patients were enrolled. The median overall and active follow-ups were 5.6 years (range, 0.9-7.8 years) and 6.3 years (range, 4-7.8 years), respectively. Grade 2 and 3 acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 50.0% and 14.2%, respectively, with no Grade 4 toxicities noted. Grade 3 and 4 acute hematologic toxicities were 19% and 2.4%, respectively. Of the patients, 85.7% were able to complete the planned multimodality treatment. The 5- and 7-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failures rates were 89.6% and 86.5%, and corresponding rates for disease-free survival were 76.2% and 70.4%, respectively. The 5- and 7-year actuarial overall survival rates were 83.3% and 80.1%, respectively. The 5- and 7-year actuarial rates of late Grade 2 GI/GU toxicity (no Grade 3-5) was 7.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The trimodality approach of using 2 years of AD, external radiation, brachytherapy, and upfront docetaxel in high-risk prostate cancer is well tolerated, produces encouraging long-term results, and should be validated in a multi-institutional setting.

Long-term follow-up of a prospective trial of trimodality therapy of weekly paclitaxel, radiation, and androgen deprivation in high-risk prostate cancer with or without prior prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Weekly paclitaxel, concurrent radiation, and androgen deprivation (ADT) were evaluated in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) with or without prior prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible post-RP patients included: pathological T3 disease, or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 0.5 ng/mL post-RP. Eligible locally advanced PC (LAPC) patients included: 1) cT2b-4N0N+, M0; 2) Gleason score (GS) 8-10; 3) GS 7 + PSA 10-20 ng/mL; or 4) PSA 20-150 ng/mL. Treatment included ADT (4 or 24 months), weekly paclitaxel (40, 50, or 60 mg/m(2)/wk), and pelvic radiation therapy (total dose: RP = 64.8 Gy; LAPC = 70.2 Gy).

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled (LAPC, n = 29; RP, n = 30; ADT 4 months, n = 29; 24 months, n = 30; whites n = 29, African Americans [AA], n = 28). Baseline characteristics (median [range]) were: age 67 (45-86 years), PSA 5.9 (0.1-92.1 ng/mL), GS 8 (6-9). At escalating doses of paclitaxel, 99%, 98%, and 95% of doses were given with radiation and ADT, respectively, with dose modifications required primarily in RP patients. No acute Grade 4 toxicities occurred. Grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea 15%, urinary urgency/incontinence 10%, tenesmus 5%, and leukopenia 3%. Median follow-up was 75.3 months (95% CI: 66.8-82.3). Biochemical progression occurred in 24 (41%) patients and clinical progression in 11 (19%) patients. The 5- and 7-year OS rates were 83% and 67%. There were no differences in OS between RP and LAPC, 4- and 24-month ADT, white and AA patient categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to LAPC, to our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate concurrent chemoradiation with ADT in high-risk RP patients. With a median follow-up of 75.3 months, this trial also represents the longest follow-up of patients treated with taxane-based chemotherapy with EBRT in high-risk prostate cancer. Concurrent ADT, radiation, and weekly paclitaxel at 40 mg/m(2)/week in RP patients and 60 mg/m(2)/week in LAPC patients is feasible and well-tolerated.

External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study

BACKGROUND

We did a randomised phase 3 trial assessing the benefit of addition of long-term androgen suppression with a luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist to external irradiation in patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk. In this report, we present the 10-year results.

METHODS

For this open-label randomised trial, eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had newly diagnosed histologically proven T1-2 prostatic adenocarcinoma with WHO histological grade 3 or T3-4 prostatic adenocarcinoma of any histological grade, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Treatment allocation was open label and used a minimisation algorithm with institution, clinical stage of the disease, results of pelvic-lymph-node dissection, and irradiation fields extension as minimisation factors. Patients were irradiated externally, once a day, 5 days a week, for 7 weeks to a total dose of 50 Gy to the whole pelvis, with an additional 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The LHRH agonist, goserelin acetate (3·6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks), was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (50 mg orally three times a day) was given for 1 month starting a week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849082.

FINDINGS

Between May 22, 1987, and Oct 31, 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in the analysis (208 radiotherapy alone, 207 combined treatment). Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·1-12·6). 10-year clinical disease-free survival was 22·7% (95% CI 16·3-29·7) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 47·7% (39·0-56·0) in the combined treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33-0·55, p<0·0001). 10-year overall survival was 39·8% (95% CI 31·9-47·5) in patients receiving radiotherapy alone and 58·1% (49·2-66·0) in those allocated combined treatment (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·45-0·80, p=0·0004), and 10-year prostate-cancer mortality was 30·4% (95% CI 23·2-37·5) and 10·3% (5·1-15·4), respectively (HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·24-0·60, p<0·0001). No significant difference in cardiovascular mortality was noted between treatment groups both in patients who had cardiovascular problems at study entry (eight of 53 patients in the combined treatment group had a cardiovascular-related cause of death vs 11 of 63 in the radiotherapy group; p=0·60) and in those who did not (14 of 154 vs six of 145; p=0·25). Two fractures were reported in patients allocated combined treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk, immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH agonist given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves 10-year disease-free and overall survival without increasing late cardiovascular toxicity.

Long-term results after high-dose radiotherapy and adjuvant hormones in prostate cancer: how curable is high-risk disease?

PURPOSE

To analyze long-term outcome and prognostic factors for high-risk prostate cancer defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria treated with high-dose radiotherapy and androgen deprivation in a single institution.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 306 patients treated between 1995 and 2007 in a radiation dose-escalation program fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk criteria. Median International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements radiation dose was 78 Gy (range, 66.0-84.1 Gy). Long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD) was administered in 231 patients, short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) in 59 patients, and no hormones in 16 patients. The Phoenix (nadir plus 2 ng/mL) consensus definition was used for biochemical control. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the independent prognostic impact of clinical and treatment factors. Median follow-up time was 64 months (range, 24-171 months).

RESULTS

The actuarial overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 95.7% and 89.8%, respectively, and the corresponding biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was 89.5% and 67.2%, respectively. Fourteen patients (4.6%) developed distant metastasis. Multivariate analysis showed that Gleason score>7 (p=0.001), pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>20 ng/mL (p=0.037), higher radiation dose (p=0.005), and the use of adjuvant LTAD vs. STAD (p=0.011) were independent prognostic factors affecting bDFS in high-risk disease. The 5-year bDFS for patients treated with LTAD plus radiotherapy dose>78 Gy was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

For high-risk patients the present series showed that the use of LTAD in conjunction with higher doses (>78 Gy) of radiotherapy was associated with improved biochemical tumor control. We observed that the presence of Gleason sum>7 and pretreatment PSA level>20 ng/mL in the same patient represents a 6.8 times higher risk of PSA failure. These men could be considered for clinical trials with addition of novel agents.

High-risk prostate cancer with Gleason score 8-10 and PSA level ≤15 ng/mL treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy

PURPOSE

With widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, there has been an increase in men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer defined by a Gleason score (GS) ≥8 coupled with a relatively low PSA level. The optimal management of these patients has not been defined. Cause-specific survival (CSS), biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in brachytherapy patients with a GS ≥8 and a PSA level ≤15 ng/mL with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From April 1995 to October 2005, 174 patients with GS ≥8 and a PSA level ≤15 ng/mL underwent permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Of the patients, 159 (91%) received supplemental external beam radiation, and 113 (64.9%) received ADT. The median follow-up was 6.6 years. The median postimplant Day 0 minimum percentage of the dose covering 90% of the target volume was 121.1% of prescription dose. Biochemical control was defined as a PSA level ≤0.40 ng/mL after nadir. Multiple parameters were evaluated for impact on survival.

RESULTS

Ten-year outcomes for patients without and with ADT were 95.2% and 92.5%, respectively, for CSS (p = 0.562); 86.5% and 92.6%, respectively, for bPFS (p = 0.204); and 75.2% and 66.0%, respectively, for OS (p = 0.179). The median post-treatment PSA level for biochemically controlled patients was <0.02 ng/mL. Multivariate analysis failed to identify any predictors for CSS, whereas bPFS and OS were most closely related to patient age.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with GS ≥8 and PSA level ≤15 ng/mL have excellent bPFS and CSS after brachytherapy with supplemental external beam radiotherapy. The use of ADT did not significantly impact bPFS, CSS, or OS.

Fatigue in prostate cancer survivors treated with definitive radiotherapy and LHRH analogs

BACKGROUND

Few studies have dealt with chronic fatigue (CF) in definitive radiotherapy (RAD) patients during and after (neo-)adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

CF was the primary outcome in this population-based cross-sectional study as evaluated by the Fatigue Questionnaire. We compared the post-RAD levels of fatigue in two groups of > or = 1 year prostate cancer survivors; those with ongoing medical castration (HTcont) and those who had used a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa), but had discontinued the therapy at the time of the survey (HTdis). The prevalence of CF and the levels of total fatigue were compared to comparable parameters in men with prostatic RAD who never had had ADT (Control group) and to men > 60 years old from the general population.

RESULTS

After an observation time of median 18 months since start of radiotherapy about 40% of our > or = 1 year prostate cancer survivors from the HTcont group reported CF, as compared to approximately a quarter of men from the HTdis group and, the prevalence of CF in the latter group being similar to that of hormone-naïve RAD controls and males from the general population. After discontinuation of ADT, age 65 years or below was associated with increased risk of CF.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-counseling of prostate cancer patients starting (neo-)adjuvant LHRHa therapy must include fatigue, mainly physical fatigue, in particular in men aged 65 years or younger. Future studies of testosterone recovery after ADT discontinuation should also include measures of CF.

A randomized trial (Irish clinical oncology research group 97-01) comparing short versus protracted neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To examine the long-term outcomes of a randomized trial comparing short (4 months; Arm 1) and long (8 months; Arm 2) neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1997 and 2001, 276 patients were enrolled and the data from 261 were analyzed. The stratification risk factors were prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score≥7, and Stage T3 or more. The intermediate-risk stratum had one factor and the high-risk stratum had two or more. Staging was done from the bone scan and computed tomography findings. The primary endpoint was biochemical failure-free survival.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 102 months. The overall survival, biochemical failure-free survival. and prostate cancer-specific survival did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms, overall or at 5 years. The cumulative probability of overall survival at 5 years was 90% (range, 87-92%) in Arm 1 and 83% (range, 80-86%) in Arm 2. The biochemical failure-free survival rate at 5 years was 66% (range, 62-71%) in Arm 1 and 63% (range, 58-67%) in Arm 2.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant difference was found in biochemical failure-free survival between 4 months and 8 months of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

[Combination of external irradiation and androgen suppression for prostate cancer: facts and questions]

The combination of radiotherapy and androgen suppression with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist is mainly devoted to locally advanced prostate cancer and intermediate or poor risk localized prostate cancer. They are based on phase III randomized trials which have shown that for locally advanced prostate cancer, a four-month complete androgen blockade initiated two months prior radiotherapy and stopped at the completion of radiotherapy increased overall survival in patients with Gleason scores 2-6, meanwhile, an adjuvant long-term androgen suppression (2.5 to three years) improved significantly the overall survival. Complete androgen blockade with a four to six months duration, combined with external irradiation, enhanced the overall survival in patients with intermediate or poor risk localized prostate cancer.

Treatment strategies for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer

High-risk prostate cancer can be defined by the assessment of pretreatment prognostic factors such as clinical stage, Gleason score, and PSA level. High-risk features include PSA >20 ng/ml, Gleason score 8-10, and stage T3 tumors. Patients with adverse prognostic factors have historically fared poorly with monotherapeutic approaches. Multimodal treatment utilizing combined androgen suppression and radiotherapy has improved survival rates for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. In addition, multiple randomized trials in patients treated with primary radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved outcomes with the addition of adjuvant radiotherapy. Improved radiotherapy techniques that allow for dose escalation, and new systemic therapy approaches such as adjuvant chemotherapy, present promising future therapeutic alternatives for patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Hormone therapy in the management of prostate cancer: evidence-based approaches

Hormonal therapy has been the standard for advanced prostate cancer for over 60 years. Recently, the utility of androgen ablation through various means has been demonstrated for earlier stages of disease. In particular, the strongest evidence to date involves the use of hormonal therapy in combination with radiation therapy. In this article we review the basic concepts in hormonal ablation for prostate cancer and review the evidence-based studies that support the use of hormonal therapy in early stage prostate cancer.

Locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for detection

PURPOSE

To determine if performing magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging, compared with performing T2-weighted MR imaging alone, improves the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-institution study was approved by the committee on human research, with a waiver of informed consent, and was compliant with HIPAA requirements. Sixty-four men who underwent endorectal MR imaging, MR spectroscopic imaging, and transrectal ultrasonographically guided biopsy for suspected local recurrence of prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiation therapy were retrospectively identified. Thirty-three patients had also received androgen therapy. Recurrent cancer was determined to be present or absent in the left and right sides of the prostate at T2-weighted MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging by a radiologist and a spectroscopist, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(Z)) was calculated for T2-weighted MR imaging alone and combined T2-weighted MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging by using generalized estimating equations and by using biopsy results as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Recurrent prostate cancer was identified at biopsy in 37 (58%) of the 64 men. Recurrence was unilateral in 28 patients and bilateral in nine (total of 46 affected prostate sides). A(Z) analysis revealed that use of combined T2-weighted MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging (A(Z) = 0.79), as compared with T2-weighted MR imaging alone (A(Z) = 0.67), significantly improved the detection of local recurrence (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of MR spectroscopic imaging to T2-weighted MR imaging significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of endorectal MR imaging in the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive external beam radiation therapy.

Does local treatment of the prostate in advanced and/or lymph node metastatic disease improve efficacy of androgen-deprivation therapy? A systematic review

CONTEXT

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plays a pivotal role in the management of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). When and for how long to apply ADT have remained controversial issues.

OBJECTIVE

To review randomised studies of ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) in PCa-both immediate and deferred/adjuvant studies-to elucidate a possible interaction between local treatment and ADT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Published randomised studies on ADT in various stages of PCa were included in this review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Studies of immediate versus deferred ADT without local treatment consistently showed only limited benefit for overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97) and cancer-specific survival (CSS; HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89). In contrast, ADT as an adjuvant to radiation therapy in patients with high-risk localised disease or locally advanced disease was associated with substantial OS and CSS benefits. A similar benefit was seen in patients with proven systemic disease (node-positive patients after radical prostatectomy). Overall, the data suggest a clinically important survival benefit (HR for OS: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) when a local treatment has been applied to the primary tumour. Possible mechanisms of this therapeutic effect are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that an interaction between local treatment and ADT is suggested by this systematic review. In patients with advanced and aggressive disease who are at a high risk to die from PCa and who are treated for their primary tumour with curative intent, immediate and sustained ADT improves OS and CSS significantly. The local therapy in T3 and/or lymph node-positive disease is an essential part of the optimal treatment. However, this intensive treatment is unnecessary in a substantial number of patients with T3 and/or N1 disease with a slow natural history or high competing death risk.

Prostate-specific antigen halving time while on neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy is associated with biochemical control in men treated with radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To assess whether the PSA response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with biochemical control in men treated with radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a cohort of men treated with curative-intent RT for localized prostate cancer between 1988 and 2005, 117 men had PSA values after the first and second months of neoadjuvant ADT. Most men had intermediate-risk (45%) or high-risk (44%) disease. PSA halving time (PSAHT) was calculated by first order kinetics. Median RT dose was 76 Gy and median total duration of ADT was 4 months. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF, nadir + 2 definition) was analyzed by PSAHT and absolute PSA nadir before the start of RT.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 45 months. Four-year FFBF was 89%. Median PSAHT was 2 weeks. A faster PSA decline (PSAHT ≤2 weeks) was associated with greater FFBF (96% vs. 81% for a PSAHT >2 weeks, p = 0.0110). Those within the fastest quartile of PSAHTs (≤ 10 days) achieved a FFBF of 100%. Among high-risk patients, a PSAHT ≤2 weeks achieved a 4-yr FFBF of 93% vs. 70% for those with PSAHT >2 weeks (p = 0.0508). Absolute PSA nadir was not associated with FFBF. On multivariable analysis, PSAHT (p = 0.0093) and Gleason score (p = 0.0320) were associated with FFBF, whereas T-stage (p = 0.7363) and initial PSA level (p = 0.9614) were not.

CONCLUSIONS

For men treated with combined ADT and RT, PSA response to the first month of ADT may be a useful criterion for prognosis and treatment modification.

Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in men who receive androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the risk for fractures in patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of measuring bone mineral density (BMD) before initiating ADT followed by alendronate therapy in men with localized prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Markov state-transition model simulating the progression of prostate cancer and the incidence of hip fracture.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature.

TARGET POPULATION

A hypothetical cohort of men aged 70 years with locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer starting a 2-year course of ADT after radiation therapy.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

No BMD test or alendronate therapy, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis, or universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The ICERs for the strategy of a BMD test and selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis and universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test were $66,800 per QALY gained and $178,700 per QALY gained, respectively.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

The ICER for universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test decreased to $100,000 per QALY gained, assuming older age, a history of fractures, lower mean BMD before ADT, or a lower cost of alendronate.

LIMITATIONS

No evidence shows that alendronate reduces actual fracture rates in patients with prostate cancer who receive ADT. The model predicted fracture rates by using data on the surrogate BMD end point.

CONCLUSION

In patients starting adjuvant ADT for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate for those with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Routine use of alendronate without a BMD test is justifiable in patients at higher risk for hip fractures.

Controversies in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer--what is the optimal combination of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy: a review of literature

BACKGROUND

In high-risk prostate carcinoma, there is controversy whether these patients should be treated with escalated-dose (> or =74 Gy) or conventional-dose radiotherapy (<74 Gy) combined with hormonal therapy. Furthermore, the issue of the optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy are not well crystallized.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A search for evidence from randomized- and large non-randomized studies in order to address these issues, was therefore initiated. For this purpose, MedLine, EMbase, and PubMed and the data base of the Dutch randomized dose-escalation trial, were consulted.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

From this search it was concluded that the benefit of hormonal therapy in combination with conventional-dose radiotherapy (<74 Gy) in high-risk prostate cancer is evident (Level 2 evidence); Levels 2 and 3 evidence were provided by several studies supporting the use of escalated-dose radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer. For the combination of hormonal therapy with escalated-dose radiotherapy in these patients, there is Level 2 evidence for moderately escalated dose (74 Gy) and high escalated dose (> or =78 Gy). The optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy are not well defined. More randomized-controlled trials and meta-analyses are therefore needed to clearly determine the independent role of dose-escalation in high-risk patients treated with hormonal therapy and the optimal duration and timing of hormonal therapy.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. Advances in surgical therapies have paralleled advances in radiation therapy and chemotherapy for metastatic disease. There is a great interest in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for patients at intermediate and high risk of recurrence and prostate cancer-specific death. Because high-risk prostate cancer patients can be readily identified by clinical criteria, many studies have attempted to use local and systemic adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence. This review discusses neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in prostate cancer, including hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

Antagonistic interaction between bicalutamide (Casodex) and radiation in androgen-positive prostate cancer LNCaP cells

BACKGROUND

Bicalutamide (Casodex) reportedly improves high-risk prostate cancer survival as an adjuvant treatment following radiotherapy. However, biological data for the interaction between bicalutamide and ionizing radiation in concomitant association are lacking.

METHODS

To explore this issue, androgen-dependent (LNCaP) and -independent (DU145) human prostate cancer cells were exposed for 48 hr to 20, 40, or 80 microM bicalutamide introduced before (neoadjuvant), during (concomitant), or following (adjuvant) radiation. Growth inhibition and cytotoxicity, cell cycle distribution and expression of the prostate serum antigen (PSA) and androgen receptor (AR), were measured as endpoints.

RESULTS

Bicalutamide-induced cytotoxic and cytostatic effects were found to be correlated with a marked G1 phase arrest and S phase depression. The drug down-regulated PSA and AR proteins and psa mRNA in LNCaP cells. However, transient up-regulation of the expression of ar mRNA was observed in the presence of 40 microM drug. DU145 cells did not express PSA and proved to be comparatively resistant to the drug from both cytostatic and cytotoxic effects. Bicalutamide dose-dependently induced a significant decrease of radiation susceptibility among drug survivors in LNCaP cells, whilst the interaction appeared to be additive in DU145 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The antagonistic radiation-drug interaction observed in LNCaP cells is of significance in relation to combined radiotherapy-bicalutamide treatments directed against tumors expressing the AR. The results suggest that bicalutamide is amenable to combined schedule with radiotherapy provided the drug and radiation are not given in close temporal proximity.

Prostate cancer: local control and radiotherapy matter in prostate cancer

In a study published in The Lancet, long-term androgen suppression (AS) combined with radiotherapy, compared with AS alone, improved outcomes in patients with locally advanced but nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The combined therapy significantly reduced prostate-cancer-specific deaths at 10 years from 23.9% to 11.9% (P <0.001), and improved overall survival.

[First line indications for hormonal therapy in prostate cancer]

The utilization of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer has evolved over time. Unquestionably considered first line treatment in metastatic cancers or in case of lymph node involvement, it is increasingly used in locally advanced and high-risk cancers, combined with radiation therapy. However, the practical modalities of treatment are still controversial (neoadjuvant, concomitant/adjuvant) and should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account tumor stage and risk level, which depends mainly on Gleason score and PSA levels and kinetics. Hormone therapy is also indicated in case of systemic relapse, especially if PSA doubling time is less than 12 months. LHRH agonists have become the standard care; antiandrogens can be added at the beginning of the LHRH agonist therapy to obtain a complete androgen blockade. Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy has recently proved efficacious and might be more widely used in the future, provided that strict prescription and follow-up recommendations are clearly established.

The multi-disciplinary management of high-risk prostate cancer

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

The importance of protein kinase A in prostate cancer: relationship to patient outcome in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 92-02

PURPOSE

We previously reported that protein kinase A type I (PKA(RIalpha)) overexpression was predictive of outcome in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) +/- short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 86-10. Here, we attempt to verify our prior findings and test the hypothesis that the relationship of the length of AD to patient outcome is affected by PKA(RIalpha) overexpression.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

There were 313 cases in the RTOG 92-02 study cohort with available tissue and suitable staining by immunohistochemistry. Median follow-up was 10.1 years. The intensity of PKA(RIalpha) staining intensity was quantified manually and by image analysis. Multivariate analyses were done for overall mortality using Cox proportional hazards models and for local failure, biochemical failure, distant metastasis, and cause-specific mortality using Fine and Gray's regression models.

RESULTS

The expression levels of PKA(RIalpha), determined by manual and image analysis, were strongly correlated (P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analyses, manual-quantified and image analysis-quantified PKA(RIalpha) staining intensities were independent predictors of distant metastasis (P < 0.01), local failure (P < 0.05), and biochemical failure (P

CONCLUSIONS

PKA(RIalpha) overexpression has been shown in two RTOG trials to be associated with an increased risk of failure after AD + RT. In this series of contemporary high-risk patients, PKA(RIalpha) overexpression was associated with diminished response to LTAD + RT relative to STAD + RT, suggesting that such patients would be ideal for a PKA(RIalpha) knockdown strategy.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use
• Biomarkers, Tumor/biosynthesis
• Cohort Studies
• Combined Modality Therapy
• Cyclic AMP-Dependent Protein Kinase Type I/biosynthesis
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Multivariate Analysis
• Proportional Hazards Models
• Prostatic Neoplasms/drug therapy
• Prostatic Neoplasms/enzymology
• Prostatic Neoplasms/radiotherapy
• Radiotherapy Dosage
• Treatment Outcome

Collapse

Grants

• P30 CA006927 NCI NIH HHS
• R01 CA101984 NCI NIH HHS
• CA-006927 NCI NIH HHS
• CA-101984-01 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Alan Pollack Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33136, USA.
Kyounghwa Bae
Li-Yan Khor
Tahseen Al-Saleem
M Elizabeth Hammond
Varagur Venkatesan
Roger W Byhardt
Sucha O Asbell
William U Shipley
Howard M Sandler

Collapse

Collaborators Collapse

Implementation of osteoporosis screening guidelines in prostate cancer patients on androgen ablation

Androgen ablation (AA) therapy is one of the modalities used to treat prostate cancer. It is well known that AA therapy increases the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. In 2004, the British Columbia Cancer Agency published guidelines regarding bone health in these patients. A key recommendation was to arrange for bone mineral density (BMD) testing if AA was to be used for 6 mo or longer. Our objective was to evaluate how well these guidelines were implemented by reviewing the number of BMDs performed in patients who had been treated at one of the 4 cancer centers in British Columbia. We found that the overall number of BMDs documented after the implementation of the guidelines was significantly greater than the number documented before (25% vs 7.5%, p value < 0.0001). There appeared to be regional differences in implementation, with the greatest effect seen at the Vancouver center, which serves as the chief academic center for the province. The greater effect of guidelines at this center suggests a need for more effective dissemination peripherally. The care gap remaining at even the most impacted center indicates a need for greater efforts to both implement guidelines and monitor their implementation over time.

Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The combination of radiotherapy plus long-term medical suppression of androgens (> or = 2 years) improves overall survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. We compared the use of radiotherapy plus short-term androgen suppression with the use of radiotherapy plus long-term androgen suppression in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who had received external-beam radiotherapy plus 6 months of androgen suppression to two groups, one to receive no further treatment (short-term suppression) and the other to receive 2.5 years of further treatment with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (long-term suppression). An outcome of noninferiority of short-term androgen suppression as compared with long-term suppression required a hazard ratio of more than 1.35 for overall survival, with a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. An interim analysis showed futility, and the results are presented with an adjusted one-sided alpha level of 0.0429.

RESULTS

A total of 1113 men were registered, of whom 970 were randomly assigned, 483 to short-term suppression and 487 to long-term suppression. After a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 132 patients in the short-term group and 98 in the long-term group had died; the number of deaths due to prostate cancer was 47 in the short-term group and 29 in the long-term group. The 5-year overall mortality for short-term and long-term suppression was 19.0% and 15.2%, respectively; the observed hazard ratio was 1.42 (upper 95.71% confidence limit, 1.79; P=0.65 for noninferiority). Adverse events in both groups included fatigue, diminished sexual function, and hot flushes.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of radiotherapy plus 6 months of androgen suppression provides inferior survival as compared with radiotherapy plus 3 years of androgen suppression in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003026.)

Outcomes for patients with high-grade prostate cancer treated with a combination of brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy and hormonal therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes for patients with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and hormonal therapy (HT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 181 patients with Gleason scores 8-10 prostate cancer were treated from 1994 to 2006 with a (103)Pd implant (prescription dose 100 Gy), 45 Gy of EBRT and 9 months of HT. The median (range) follow-up was 65 (24-150) months; freedom from biochemical failure (FBF) rates were calculated using the Phoenix definition.

RESULTS

The 8-year actuarial FBF, freedom from distant metastases, prostate-cancer specific survival and overall survival were 73%, 80%, 87% and 79%, respectively. The pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level significantly affected FBF, with 8-year rates of 72%, 82% and 58% for patients with PSA level of <or=10, >10-20 and >20 ng/mL, respectively (P = 0.006). The PSA level had no significant effect on rates of distant metastases. The Gleason score had the most significant affect on FBF in a multivariate analysis, and was the only factor to significantly affect rates of distant metastases; the 8-year FBF rates were 84%, 55% and 30% for scores of 8, 9 and 10, respectively (P = 0.003). The corresponding freedom from distant metastases and prostate-cancer specific survival rates were 86%, 76%, 30% (P < 0.001) and 92%, 80%, 62.5% (P = 0.003), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 8-year outcomes after this regimen showed favourable biochemical and distant control, as well disease-specific survival rates for patients with Gleason scores of 8-10. This treatment approach should be considered as a viable option for this subset of patients with high-risk disease.

RTOG GU Radiation oncology specialists reach consensus on pelvic lymph node volumes for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is required on several Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Based on a prior lymph node contouring project, we have shown significant disagreement in the definition of pelvic lymph node volumes among genitourinary radiation oncology specialists involved in developing and executing current RTOG trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consensus meeting was held on October 3, 2007, to reach agreement on pelvic lymph node volumes. Data were presented to address the lymph node drainage of the prostate. Extensive discussion ensued to develop clinical target volume (CTV) pelvic lymph node consensus.

RESULTS

Consensus was obtained resulting in computed tomography image-based pelvic lymph node CTVs. Based on this consensus, the pelvic lymph node volumes to be irradiated include: distal common iliac, presacral lymph nodes (S(1)-S(3)), external iliac lymph nodes, internal iliac lymph nodes, and obturator lymph nodes. Lymph node CTVs include the vessels (artery and vein) and a 7-mm radial margin being careful to "carve out" bowel, bladder, bone, and muscle. Volumes begin at the L5/S1 interspace and end at the superior aspect of the pubic bone. Consensus on dose-volume histogram constraints for OARs was also attained.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus on pelvic lymph node CTVs for radiation therapy to address high-risk prostate cancer was attained and is available as web-based computed tomography images as well as a descriptive format through the RTOG. This will allow for uniformity in evaluating the benefit and risk of such treatment.

Variation in the definition of clinical target volumes for pelvic nodal conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a comparative study of clinical target volume (CTV) definition of pelvic lymph nodes by multiple genitourinary (GU) radiation oncologists looking at the levels of discrepancies amongst this group.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans from 2 men were distributed to 14 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group GU radiation oncologists with instructions to define CTVs for the iliac and presacral lymph nodes. The CT data with contours were then returned for analysis. In addition, a questionnaire was completed that described the physicians' method for target volume definition.

RESULTS

Significant variation in the definition of the iliac and presacral CTVs was seen among the physicians. The minimum, maximum, mean (SD) iliac volumes (mL) were 81.8, 876.6, 337.6 +/- 203 for case 1 and 60.3, 627.7, 251.8 +/- 159.3 for case 2. The volume of 100% agreement was 30.6 and 17.4 for case 1 and 2 and the volume of the union of all contours was 1,012.0 and 807.4 for case 1 and 2, respectively. The overall agreement was judged to be moderate in both cases (kappa = 0.53 (p < 0.0001) and kappa = 0.48 (p < 0.0001). There was no volume of 100% agreement for either of the two presacral volumes. These variations were confirmed in the responses to the associated questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant disagreement exists in the definition of the CTV for pelvic nodal radiation therapy among GU radiation oncology specialists. A consensus needs to be developed so as to accurately assess the merit and safety of such treatment.