Adding Short-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Radiation Therapy in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Update of the NRG/RTOG 9408 Randomized Clinical Trial

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

Short-term ADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

The effect of dose-escalation radiotherapy with simultaneous-integrated-boost on the use of short-term androgen deprivation therapy in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the biochemical failure (FFBF) and prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) rates of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PC) who were treated with 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with 78 Gy to the prostate, those treated with ADT and focal boost (FB) of 86 Gy to intraprostatic lesion (IPL) using the simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) technique, and those treated with SIB alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 320 IR-PC patients treated between January 2012 and April 2021 was performed. Patients were divided into three groups based on their treatment arm: 78 + ADT (109 patients, 34.1%), 78/86 (102 patients, 31.8%), and 78/86 + ADT. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine prognostic factors for FFBF and PCSS.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 8.8 years. The 8-year FFBF and PCSS rates were 88.6% and 99.0%. Patients who received ADT had significantly higher pretreatment PSA levels and clinical tumor stage. Disease progression occurred in 45 patients (7.3%) at a median of 41.9 months after definitive radiotherapy (RT). Younger age, positive core biopsy (PCB) ≥ 50%, and the absence of ADT were all independent predictors of poor FFBF in multivariate analysis, whereas patients with PCB < 50% who were also given ADT had better PCSS. Patients treated with 78/86 Gy alone had worse FFBF than those treated with 78 Gy and ADT (Hazard ratio [HR] = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.46-7.88]; p = 0.005), as well as than those treated with 78/86 Gy and ADT (HR = 3.21 [95% CI = 1.23-6.46]; p = 0.009). However, FB to IPL has no effect on PCSS in multivariable analysis. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in terms of acute and late Grade ≥2 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrated that patients who received 78/86 alone did worse than patients who received ADT with either 78 or 78/86 Gy. However, because IR-PC patients are so diverse, additional prospective trials are needed to validate our findings.

Characteristics of adverse drug reactions induced by flutamide and bicalutamide: a real-world pharmacovigilance study using FAERS

BACKGROUND

Flutamide and bicalutamide are indicated for the management of prostate metastatic carcinoma. The current study evaluated the adverse drug reactions related to flutamide and bicalutamide in a real-world setting.

METHODS

To quantify the signals of flutamide and bicalutamide associated adverse events (AEs), we used the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for this pharmacovigilance study using established pharmacovigilance methods.

RESULTS

A total of 2711 AEs of flutamide were investigated as the primary suspected; 522 AEs were related to prostate cancer. A total of 4459 AEs were investigated as the primary suspected for bicalutamide; 2251 AEs were related to prostate cancer. The analysis demonstrated 29 signals for flutamide and 84 for bicalutamide. Liver function test was the most common AEs for flutamide, and malignant neoplasm progression was the most common for bicalutamide. The signal strength of Dementia Alzheimer's type was 26.53 (17.89-39.35) and 26.33 (607.34), which had the highest strength for flutamide. Anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome exhibited the strongest signal for bicalutamide. Generating awareness of rare AEs that were not listed on the label is critical.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the AE signals may provide support for prescribing flutamide and bicalutamide.

Understanding Relative Biological Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer Therapy Using Particle Irradiation: Analysis of Tumor Control Probability With the Modified Microdosimetric Kinetic Model

PURPOSE

Recent experimental studies and clinical trial results might indicate that-at least for some indications-continued use of the mechanistic model for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) applied at carbon ion therapy facilities in Europe for several decades (LEM-I) may be unwarranted. We present a novel clinical framework for prostate cancer treatment planning and tumor control probability (TCP) prediction based on the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) for particle therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Treatment plans of 91 patients with prostate tumors (proton: 46, carbon ions: 45) applying 66 GyRBE [RBE = 1.1 for protons and LEM-I, (α/β)x = 2.0 Gy, for carbon ions] in 20 fractions were recalculated using mMKM [(α/β)x = 3.1 Gy]). Based solely on the response data of photon-irradiated patient groups stratified according to risk and usage of androgen deprivation therapy, we derived parameters for an mMKM-based Poisson-TCP model. Subsequently, new carbon and helium ion plans, adhering to prescribed biological dose criteria, were generated. These were systematically compared with the clinical experience of Japanese centers employing an analogous fractionation scheme and existing proton plans.

RESULTS

mMKM predictions suggested significant biological dose deviation between the proton and carbon ion arms. Patients irradiated with protons received (3.25 ± 0.08)  GyRBEmMKM/Fx, whereas patients treated with carbon ions received(2.51 ± 0.05)  GyRBEmMKM/Fx. TCP predictions were (86 ± 3)% for protons and (52 ± 4)% for carbon ions, matching the clinical outcome of 85% and 50%. Newly optimized carbon ion plans, guided by the mMKM/TCP model, effectively replicated clinical data from Japanese centers. Using mMKM, helium ions exhibited similar target coverage as proton and carbon ions and improved rectum and bladder sparing compared with proton.

CONCLUSIONS

Our mMKM-based model for prostate cancer treatment planning and TCP prediction was validated against clinical data for proton and carbon ion therapy, and its application was extended to helium ion therapy. Based on the data presented in this work, mMKM seems to be a good candidate for clinical biological calculations in carbon ion therapy for prostate cancer.

Trimodality Therapy With Iodine-125 Brachytherapy, External Beam Radiation Therapy, and Short- or Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized Phase 3 Trial (TRIP/TRIGU0907)

PURPOSE

This phase 3 randomized investigation was designed to determine whether 30 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was superior to 6 months of ADT when combined with brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was conducted at 37 hospitals on men aged 40 to 79 years, with stage T2c-3a, prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, or Gleason score >7, who received 6 months of ADT combined with iodine-125 brachytherapy followed by EBRT. After stratification, patients were randomly assigned to either no further treatment (short arm) or 24 months of adjuvant ADT (long arm). According to the Phoenix definition of failure, the primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of biochemical progression. Secondary endpoints included clinical progression, metastasis, salvage treatment, disease-specific mortality, overall survival, and grade 3+ adverse events. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using survival estimates determined using competing risk analyses.

RESULTS

Of 332 patients, 165 and 167 were randomly assigned to the short and long arms, respectively. The median follow-up period was 9.2 years. The cumulative incidence of biochemical progression at 7 years was 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5-14.5) and 8.0% (4.7-13.5) in the short and long arms, respectively (P = .65). The outcomes of secondary endpoints did not differ significantly between the arms. Incidence rates of endocrine- and radiation-related grade 3+ adverse events for the short versus long arms were 0.6 versus 1.8% (P = .62) and 1.2 versus 0.6% (P = .62), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatment arms showed similar efficacy among selected populations with high-risk features. The toxicity of the trimodal therapy was acceptable. The present investigation, designed as a superiority trial, failed to demonstrate that 30-month ADT yielded better biochemical control than 6-month ADT when combined with brachytherapy and EBRT. Therefore, a noninferiority study is warranted to obtain further evidence supporting these preliminary results.

Alterations of Sexual and Erectile Functions after Brachytherapy for Prostate Cancer Based on Patient-Reported Questionnaires

The aim of the study was to compare the side effects of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) and low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRBT), with a particular focus on the effects on sexual functions and sexual well-being (PROMOBRA study, NCT02258087). Localized low-risk and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were treated with mono LDR (N = 123, 145 Gy dose) or mono HDR brachytherapy (N = 117, 19/21 Gy). Prior to the treatment and during follow-up (at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment, and then annually after two years), patients completed patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) questionnaires EORTC QLQ-PR-25, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and IIEF-5 (SHIM). We compared the patients in different group breakdowns (HDR vs. LDR, hormone naïve and hormone-receiving HDR vs. LDR, hormone naïve and hormone-receiving patients in general, and 19 Gy HDR vs. 21 Gy HDR). In the hormone-naive LDR group, erectile function, orgasm function, sexual desire, satisfaction with intercourse, and overall satisfaction functions significantly decreased compared to baseline throughout the whole follow-up period. However, there were significant decreases in function at a maximum of three time points after HDR therapy without hormone therapy. In hormone-receiving patients, the orgasm function was significantly better in the HDR group at multiple time points compared to the baseline, and sexual desire improved at four time points. According to our results, both LDRBT and HDRBT can be safely administered to patients with localized prostate cancer. In hormone-naive patients, the HDR group showed only recovering decreases in sexual functions, while the LDR group showed a lasting decline in multiple areas. Thus, HDR appears to be more advantageous to hormone-naive patients.

Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in hypofractionated radiation therapy alone for intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and define the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics as potential prognostic factors in patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy.

Methods

The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 149 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized PCa who underwent definitive radiation therapy (70 Gy in 28 fractions) without androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical outcomes were analyzed based on risk stratification (favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk). The biochemical failure rate (BFR) and clinical failure rate (CFR) were stratified based on the PSA nadir and the time to the PSA nadir to identify the prognostic effect of PSA kinetics. Acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal adverse events were analyzed.

Results

Significant differences were observed in the BFR and CFR according to risk stratification. No recurrence was observed in the favorable intermediate-risk group. The 7-year BFR and CFR for the unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were 19.2% and 9.8%, and 31.1% and 25.3%, respectively. Patients with a PSA nadir >0.33 ng/mL or a time to the PSA nadir <36 months had a significantly greater BFR and CFR. The crude rate of grade 3 late adverse events was 3.4% (genitourinary: 0.7%; gastrointestinal: 2.7%). No grade 4-5 adverse event was reported.

Conclusion

A significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed according to risk stratification. The PSA nadir and time to the PSA nadir were strongly associated with the BFR and CFR. Therefore, PSA kinetics during follow-up are important for predicting prognosis.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life, and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use. METHODS: We used digital pathology images from pretreatment prostate tissue and clinical data from 5727 patients enrolled in five phase 3 randomized trials, in which treatment was radiotherapy with or without ADT, as our data source to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)–derived predictive patient-specific model that would determine which patients would develop the primary end point of distant metastasis. The model used baseline data to provide a binary output that a given patient will likely benefit from ADT or not. After the model was locked, validation was performed using data from NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9408 (n=1594), a trial that randomly assigned men to radiotherapy plus or minus 4 months of ADT. Fine–Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and the predictive model and within predictive model–positive, i.e., benefited from ADT, and –negative subgroup treatment effects. RESULTS: Overall, in the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis. Of these enrolled patients, 543 (34%) were model positive, and ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared with radiotherapy alone. Of 1051 patients who were model negative, ADT did not provide benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our AI-based predictive model was able to identify patients with a predominantly intermediate risk for prostate cancer likely to benefit from short-term ADT. (Supported by a grant [U10CA180822] from NRG Oncology Statistical and Data Management Center, a grant [UG1CA189867] from NCI Community Oncology Research Program, a grant [U10CA180868] from NRG Oncology Operations, and a grant [U24CA196067] from NRG Specimen Bank from the National Cancer Institute and by Artera, Inc. ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT00767286, NCT00002597, NCT00769548, NCT00005044, and NCT00033631.)

An AI Predictive Model to Determine Who Benefits from ADT with Radiation: Working Smarter, Not Harder

Whether you are a surgical, medical, or radiation oncologist, the care goals remain the same, that is, achieving a durable treatment response. For patients with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing radiation treatment, identifying those who would derive additional benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an ongoing challenge. To help physicians make this decision, prognostic risk scores have been derived from biobanked pathology specimens1-3 coupled with well-annotated clinical and imaging data from multiple phase III trials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

Initial Quality of Life and Toxicity Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Moderately Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy With or Without Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: PCG GU003

Purpose

Our objective was to report the quality of life (QoL) analysis and toxicity in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in Proton Collaborative Group (PCG) GU003.

Methods and Materials

Between 2012 and 2019, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy (PBT) to 70 Gy relative biologic effectiveness in 28 fractions to the prostate with or without 6 months of ADT. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, Short-Form 12, and the American Urological Association Symptom Index instruments were given at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after PBT. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4).

Results

One hundred ten patients were randomized to PBT either with 6 months of ADT (n = 55) or without ADT (n = 55). The median follow-up was 32.4 months (range, 5.5-84.6). On average, 101 out of 110 (92%) patients filled out baseline QoL and patient-reported outcome surveys. The compliance was 84%, 82%, 64%, and 42% at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Baseline median American Urological Association Symptom Index was comparable between arms (6 [11%] ADT vs 5 [9%] no ADT, P = .359). Acute and late grade 2+ genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity were similar between arms. The ADT arm experienced a QoL decline of mean scores in the sexual (-16.1, P < .001) and hormonal (-6.3, P < .001) domains, with the largest time-specific hormonal differences at 3 (-13.8, P < .001) and 6 (-11.2, P < .001) months. The hormonal QoL domain returned to baseline 6 months after therapy. There was a trend to baseline in sexual function 6 months after completion of ADT.

Conclusions

After 6 months of ADT, sexual and hormonal domains returned to baseline 6 months after completion of treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer

Background

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use.

Methods

Digital pathology image and clinical data from pre-treatment prostate tissue from 5,727 patients enrolled on five phase III randomized trials treated with radiotherapy +/- ADT were used to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived predictive model to assess ADT benefit with the primary endpoint of distant metastasis. After the model was locked, validation was performed on NRG/RTOG 9408 (n = 1,594) that randomized men to radiotherapy +/- 4 months of ADT. Fine-Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and predictive model and within predictive model positive and negative subgroup treatment effects.

Results

In the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] = 0.64, 95%CI [0.45-0.90], p = 0.01). The predictive model-treatment interaction was significant (p-interaction = 0.01). In predictive model positive patients (n = 543, 34%), ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared to radiotherapy alone (sHR = 0.34, 95%CI [0.19-0.63], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the predictive model negative subgroup (n = 1,051, 66%; sHR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.59-1.43], p = 0.71).

Conclusions

Our data, derived and validated from completed randomized phase III trials, show that an AI-based predictive model was able to identify prostate cancer patients, with predominately intermediate-risk disease, who are likely to benefit from short-term ADT.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy with Metabolic Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a backbone treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC), is known to have a variety of metabolic side effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to quantify the metabolic risks of ADT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in May of 2022 for studies investigating the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), diabetes, and hypertension from ADT in PC patients using keywords. Only full-length studies with a control group of PC patients not on ADT were included. All results compatible with each outcome domain in each included study were sought. For included studies, relative risk (RR) was pooled using a random effects model and a trim-fill approach was used to adjust for publication bias.

RESULTS

1,846 records were screened, of which 19 were found suitable for data extraction. Five studies, including 891 patients, were evaluated for MetS as an outcome, with the random effects model showing a pooled RR of 1.60 ([95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.06-2.42]; P=0.03) for patients on ADT while twelve studies, including 336,330 patients, examined diabetes as an outcome, and the random effects model showed a RR of 1.43 ([95% CI, 1.28-1.59]; P< 0.01). After adjustment for publication bias, ADT was associated with a 25% increased risk for diabetes but was not associated with MetS. 4 studies, including 7,051 patients, examined hypertension as an outcome, and the random effects model showed a RR of 1.30 ([95% CI, 1.08-1.55]; P=0.18) in ADT patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PC, ADT was not associated with MetS and the association with diabetes was not as strong as previously reported. Our novel meta-analysis of hypertension showed that ADT increased the risk of hypertension by 30%. These results should be understood in the context of collaborating care between a patient's oncologist and primary care provider to optimize care.

Patients’ Preferences for Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background. For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC), adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has shown efficacy, but men are often reluctant to accept it because of its impact on quality of life. Methods. We conducted time tradeoffs (score of 1 = perfect health and 0 = death) and probability tradeoffs with patients aged 51 to 78 y who had received EBRT for IRPC within the past 2 y. Of 40 patients, 20 had received 6 mo of ADT and 20 had declined. Utility assessments explored 4 ADT-related side effects: hot flashes, fatigue, loss of libido/erectile dysfunction, and weight gain. Results. The most commonly reported “worst” treatment-related complication of ADT was fatigue (50% in both cohorts) followed by reduced libido/erectile dysfunction (40% in both cohorts). The utilities for fatigue were mean = 0.71 and median = 0.92 and for reduced libido/erectile dysfunction were mean = 0.81 and median = 0.92. Utilities did not differ significantly between cohorts. Assuming a 6-mo course of ADT, men reported being willing to trade 3 mo of life expectancy to avoid fatigue due to ADT and 1.8 mo to avoid sexual side effects. Patients in the ADT cohort were willing to accept the side effects of ADT in exchange for a mean 8% absolute increase in survival, whereas patients in the no ADT cohort required a 16% increase ( P < 0.001). Conclusions. When considering treatment with ADT, men with IRPC identified fatigue and sexual dysfunction as the most bothersome side effects. Patients who declined ADT expected a larger survival benefit than those who opted for treatment. Both groups expected a survival benefit exceeding that shown by recent trials, suggesting some men may be selecting treatments inconsistent with their preferences.

Highlights

This study demonstrates that prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy are reluctant to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) most commonly due to anticipated fatigue and loss of libido/erectile dysfunction. Men who had received ADT reported they would require an average 8% absolute increase in survival to tolerate its side effects, whereas those who declined ADT would require an average 16% increase. Required thresholds are well above the estimated absolute survival benefit for ADT demonstrated in recent clinical trials, suggesting an unmet need for improved patient education regarding the risks and benefits of ADT.

Bias Reduction through Analysis of Competing Events (BRACE) Correction to Address Cancer Treatment Selection Bias in Observational Data

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatments can paradoxically appear to reduce the risk of non-cancer mortality in observational studies, due to residual confounding. Here we introduce a method, Bias Reduction through Analysis of Competing Events (BRACE), to reduce bias in the presence of residual confounding.

METHODS

BRACE is a novel method for adjusting for bias from residual confounding in proportional hazards models. Using standard simulation methods, we compared BRACE vs. Cox proportional hazards regression in the presence of an unmeasured confounder. We examined estimator distributions, bias, mean squared error (MSE), and coverage probability. We then estimated treatment effects of high vs. low intensity treatments in 36,630 prostate cancer, 4,069 lung cancer, and 7,117 head/neck cancer patients, using the Veterans Affairs database. We analyzed treatment effects on cancer-specific mortality (CSM), non-cancer mortality (NCM), and overall survival (OS), using conventional multivariable Cox and propensity score (adjusted using inverse probability weighting) models, vs. BRACE-adjusted estimates.

RESULTS

In simulations with residual confounding, BRACE uniformly reduced both bias and MSE. In the absence of bias, BRACE introduced bias toward the null, albeit with lower MSE. BRACE markedly improved coverage probability, but with a tendency toward overcorrection for effective but non-toxic treatments. For each clinical cohort, more intensive treatments were associated with significantly reduced hazards for CSM, NCM, and OS. BRACE attenuated OS estimates, yielding results more consistent with findings from randomized trials and meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

BRACE reduces bias and MSE when residual confounding is present and represents a novel approach to improve treatment effect estimation in non-randomized studies.

PSMA-PET/MRI-Based Focal Dose Escalation in Patients with Primary Prostate Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (HypoFocal-SBRT): Study Protocol of a Randomized, Multicentric Phase III Trial

Technical advances in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning and delivery have substantially changed RT concepts for primary prostate cancer (PCa) by (i) enabling a reduction of treatment time, and by (ii) enabling safe delivery of high RT doses. Several studies proposed a dose-response relationship for patients with primary PCa and especially in patients with high-risk features, as dose escalation leads to improved tumor control. In parallel to the improvements in RT techniques, diagnostic imaging techniques like multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and positron-emission tomography targeting prostate-specific-membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) evolved and enable an accurate depiction of the intraprostatic tumor mass for the first time. The HypoFocal-SBRT study combines ultra-hypofractionated RT/stereotactic body RT, with focal RT dose escalation on intraprostatic tumor sides by applying state of the art diagnostic imaging and most modern RT concepts. This novel strategy will be compared with moderate hypofractionated RT (MHRT), one option for the curative primary treatment of PCa, which has been proven by several prospective trials and is recommended and carried out worldwide. We suspect an increase in relapse-free survival (RFS), and we will assess quality of life in order to detect potential changes.