Risk-Adapted Androgen Deprivation and Escalated Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Does Radiation Dose Influence Outcome of Patients Treated With Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation? A GICOR Study

Functional imaging guided stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with focal dose escalation and bladder trigone sparing for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: study protocol for phase II safo trial

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging treatment alternative for patients with localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer patients. As already explored by some authors in the context of conventional moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy, focal boost of the index lesion defined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is associated with an improved biochemical outcome. The objective of this phase II trial is to determine the effectiveness (in terms of biochemical, morphological and functional control), the safety and impact on quality of life, of prostate SABR with MRI guided focal dose intensification in males with intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer according to NCCN definition will be treated with SABR 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with MRI guided simultaneous integrated focal boost (SIB) to the index lesion (IL) up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions, using a protocol of bladder trigone and urethra sparing. Intra-fractional motion will be monitored with daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intra-fractional tracking with intraprostatic gold fiducials. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will be allowed. The primary endpoint will be efficacy in terms of biochemical and local control assessed by Phoenix criteria and post-treatment MRI respectively. The secondary endpoints will encompass acute and late toxicity, quality of life (QoL) and progression-free survival. Finally, the subgroup of high-risk patients will be involved in a prospective study focused on immuno-phenotyping.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate the impact of post-treatment MRI on local control among patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer undergoing SABR and MRI guided focal intensification. The results of this trial will enhance our understanding of treatment focal intensification through the employment of the SABR technique within this specific patient subgroup, particularly among those with high-risk disease, and will help to clarify the significance of MRI in monitoring local responses. Hopefully will also help to design more personalized biomarker-based phase III trials in this specific context. Additionally, this trial is expected to be incorporated into a prospective radiomics study focused on localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05919524; Registered 17 July 2023.

TRIAL SPONSOR

IRAD/SEOR (Instituto de Investigación de Oncología Radioterápica / Sociedad Española de Oncología Radioterápica).

STUDY SETTING

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05919524; Registered 17 July 2023.

TRIAL STATUS

Protocol version number and date: v. 5/ 17 May-2023. Date of recruitment start: August 8, 2023. Date of recruitment completion: July 1, 2024.

Degarelix as a neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for acute urinary tract toxicity associated with external beam radiotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

In prostate cancer treatment, lower urinary tract symptoms significantly improve with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonists use compared with agonists. However, it is unclear whether luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonists can decrease acute urinary tract toxicity during external beam radiotherapy. This study aimed to assess whether luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonists used as neoadjuvant therapy reduced acute urinary tract toxicity during external beam radiotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists.

METHODS

The study included 78 patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer between April 2013 and January 2020. Irradiation was initiated after 3-6 months of neoadjuvant therapy. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to the intermediate-risk group for 6 months and the high-risk group for 2-3 years. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading scale was used to evaluate the urinary tract system toxicity. Relevant clinical factors were used in matching patients based on propensity scores to enable comparison between the groups.

RESULTS

Each group had 27 matched patients. There was no reduction in urinary tract toxicity with the use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormon antagonists (P = 0.624). For patients with an International Prostate Symptom Score of ≥11 at the start of treatment, 18 patients in each group were matched. Significantly lower scores were observed in the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormon antagonist group (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormon antagonists may reduce acute urinary tract toxicity during prostate cancer external beam radiotherapy compared with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormon agonists, in particular in patients with moderate to severe symptoms at the start of treatment.

[Combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer]

Combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation is now considered as the standard of care for patients with a localized prostate cancer but poor prognosis factors. Two groups of randomized trials have led to this recommendation: some have compared radiotherapy alone versus hormonal treatment and radiotherapy: these trials demonstrated, now with a long follow-up, an improvement in 10-year survival for the combined treatment. Three recent trials compared androgen deprivation alone or combined with radiotherapy; a benefit in survival was also demonstrated in favour of the combination. Some questions remained concerning the optimal duration of hormonal treatment, in view of its potential side effects. Patients in the intermediate prognostic groups could receive a short-term androgen deprivation, but those with a high Gleason score must be treated with a long-term hormonal treatment. Modalities of radiotherapy, regarding volumes and dose must also be précised in the next years.

Pelvic Radiotherapy versus Radical Prostatectomy with Limited Lymph Node Sampling for High-Grade Prostate Adenocarcinoma

Purpose. To compare oncologic outcomes for patients with Gleason score (GS) ≥ 8 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation (RT + ADT). Methods. Between 2001 and 2014, 121 patients with GS ≥ 8 were treated at our institution via RT + ADT (n = 71) or RP (n = 50) with ≥ 1 year of biochemical follow-up. Endpoints included biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis, and initiation of salvage ADT. Results. The RT + ADT group was older, had higher biopsy GS, and had greater risk of lymph node involvement. All other pretreatment characteristics were similar between groups. Mean number of lymph nodes (LNs) sampled for patients undergoing RP was 8.2 (±6.18). Mean biochemical follow-up for all patients was 61 months. Five-year estimates of BF for the RT + ADT and RP groups were 7.2% versus 42.3%, (p < 0.001). The RT + ADT group also had lower rates of distant metastasis (2% versus 7.8%) and salvage ADT (8% versus 33.8%). Conclusion. In this analysis, RT + ADT was associated with improved biochemical and metastatic control when compared to RP with limited LN sampling. How RT + ADT compares with more aggressive lymphadenectomy, as is currently our institutional standard, remains an important unanswered question.

Is neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy beneficial in prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy?

PURPOSE

To determine whether neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) improves clinical outcomes in patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 201 patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy between January 1991 and December 2008. Of these, 156 patients with more than 3 years of follow-up were the subjects of this study. The median duration of follow-up was 91.2 months. NADT was given in 103 patients (66%) with median duration of 3.3 months (range, 1.0 to 7.7 months). Radiation dose was escalated gradually from 64 Gy to 81 Gy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique.

RESULTS

Biochemical relapse-free survival (BCRFS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients were 72.6% and 90.7% at 5 years, respectively. BCRFS and OS of NADT group were 79.5% and 89.8% at 5 years and those of radiotherapy alone group were 58.8% and 92.3% at 5 years, respectively. Risk group (p = 0.010) and radiation dose ≥70 Gy (p = 0.017) affected BCRFS independently. NADT was a significant prognostic factor in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis (p = 0.073). Radiation dose ≥70 Gy was only an independent factor for OS (p = 0.007; hazard ratio, 0.261; 95% confidence interval, 0.071-0.963).

CONCLUSION

NADT prior to definitive radiotherapy did not result in significant benefit in terms of BCRFS and OS. NADT should not be performed routinely in the era of dose-escalated radiotherapy.

Predictive value of PAK6 and PSMB4 expression in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with dose-escalation radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy

PURPOSE

The present study analyzed the expression by immunochemistry of the novel markers P21-activated protein kinase 6 (PAK6) and proteasome beta-4 subunit (PSMB4) in men with localized prostate cancer (PC) who were treated with dose-escalation radiotherapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1996 and 2004, a cohort of 129 patients with PC who underwent diagnostic biopsies pretreatment and 24 to 36 months following RT were enrolled in this study. Suitable archival diagnostic tissue was obtained from 89 patients. Median follow-up was 129 months (48-198). Correlation analysis was done to assess association between PAK6 and PSMB4 expression and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

PAK6 and PSMB4 were expressed in the cytoplasm in 62% and 96.7% of diagnostic biopsies, respectively. Increased staining for PAK6 was significantly (P = 0.04) correlated with higher Gleason scores. In the multivariate analysis, the intensity of PSMB4 staining was an independent predictor of local relapse (hazard ratio = 8.6, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first description of PAK6 and PSMB4 expression in the diagnostic specimens of men with PC who were treated with RT. If confirmed by further studies, increased expression of these genes could be used to identify patients at a high risk of developing local failure following high-dose RT, thus better tailoring treatments for the individual patient.

Infrastructures, treatment modalities, and workload of radiation oncology departments in Spain with special attention to prostate cancer

AIM

The purpose of the study was to describe infrastructures, treatment modalities, and workload in radiation oncology (RO) in Spain, referred particularly to prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

An epidemiologic, cross-sectional study was performed during 2008-2009. A study-specific questionnaire was sent to the 108 RO-registered departments.

RESULTS

One hundred and two departments answered the survey, and six were contacted by telephone. Centers operated 236 treatment units: 23 (9.7 %) cobalt machines, 37 (15.7 %) mono-energetic linear accelerators, and 176 (74.6 %) multi-energy linear accelerators. Sixty-one (56.4 %) and 33 (30.5 %) departments, respectively, reported intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image-guided RT (IGRT) capabilities; three-dimensional-conformal RT was used in 75.8 % of patients. Virtual simulators were present in 95 departments (88.0 %), 35 use conventional simulators. Fifty-one departments (47.2 %) have brachytherapy units, 38 (35.2 %) perform prostatic implants. Departments saw a mean of 24.9 new patients/week; the number of patients treated annually was 102,054, corresponding to 88.4 % of patients with a RT indication. In 56.5 % of the hospitals, multidisciplinary teams were available to treat PC.

CONCLUSIONS

Results provide an accurate picture of current situation of RO in Spain, showing a trend toward the progressive introduction of new technologies (IMRT, IGRT, brachytherapy).

FROGG high-risk prostate cancer workshop: patterns of practice and literature review: part I: intact prostate

Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists with an interest in uro-oncology were invited to participate in a pattern-of-practice survey dealing with the management of intact high-risk prostate cancer. Responses from 46 practitioners (representing 73% of all potential respondents) revealed that high-dose radiation therapy is the standard of care. However, there is variability in practice with regard to the methods used to achieve dose escalation, the use of whole-pelvic radiation therapy and the optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy employed. A review of the literature outlining the current body of knowledge and the planned and ongoing studies in intact high-risk prostate cancer is presented.

Long-term outcomes for men with high-risk prostate cancer treated definitively with external beam radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation

BACKGROUND

Men with high-risk prostate cancer are often thought to have very poor outcomes in terms of disease control and survival even after definitive treatment. However, results after external beam radiotherapy have improved significantly through dose escalation and the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This report describes long-term findings after low-dose (< 75.6 Gy) or high-dose (≥ 75.6 Gy) external beam radiation, with or without ADT.

METHODS

This analysis included 741 men with high-risk prostate cancer (clinical classification ≥ T3, Gleason score ≥ 8, or prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 20 ng/mL) treated with external beam radiotherapy at a single tertiary institution from 1987 through 2004. The radiation dose ranged from 60 to 79.3 Gy (median, 70 Gy); 295 men had received ADT for ≥ 2 years, and the median follow-up time was 8.3 years.

RESULTS

The 5- and 10-year actuarial overall survival rates were significantly better for men treated with the higher radiation dose (no ADT plus ≥ 75.6 Gy, 87.3% and 72.0%, respectively; and ADT plus ≥ 75.6 Gy, 92.3% and 72%, respectively) (P = .0035). The corresponding 5- and 10-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were significantly better for patients treated with both ADT and higher radiation dose (82% and 77%, P < .0001). At 5 years, men who had not received ADT and had received radiation dose < 75.6 Gy had higher clinical local failure rates than those given ADT and radiation dose ≥ 75.6 Gy (24.2% versus 0%, P < .0001). The 10-year symptomatic local failure rate was only 2% for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to lingering historical perceptions, treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with modern, high-dose, external beam radiotherapy and ADT can produce better biochemical, clinical, and survival outcomes over those from previous eras. Specifically, symptomatic local failure is uncommon, and few men die of prostate cancer even 10 or more years after treatment.

Reducing rectal injury during external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Rectal bleeding and faecal incontinence are serious injuries that men with prostate cancer who receive radiotherapy can experience. Although technical advances--including the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy coupled with image-guided radiotherapy--have enabled the delivery of dose distributions that conform to the shape of the tumour target with steep dose gradients that reduce the dose given to surrounding tissues, radiotherapy-associated toxicity can not be avoided completely. Many large-scale prospective studies have analysed the correlations of patient-related and treatment-related parameters with acute and late toxicity to optimize patient selection and treatment planning. The careful application of dose-volume constraints and the tuning of these constraints to the individual patient's characteristics are now considered the most effective ways of reducing rectal morbidity. Additionally, the use of endorectal balloons (to reduce the margins between the clinical target volume and planning target volume) and the insertion of tissue spacers into the region between the prostate and anterior rectal wall have been investigated as means to further reduce late rectal injury. Finally, some drugs and other compounds are also being considered to help protect healthy tissue. Overall, a number of approaches exist that must be fully explored in large prospective trials to address the important issue of rectal toxicity in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

The current role of androgen deprivation in patients undergoing dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Purpose. To review existing literature on the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with dose escalated radiation therapy. Methods and Materials. A PubMed search was undertaken to identify relevant articles. Results. Multiple recent studies were identified examining the role of ADT in the current era of radiation dose-escalation. Among the reviewed studies, varying radiation doses and techniques, ADT regimens, and patient selection criteria were utilized. Conflicting results were reported, with some studies demonstrating a benefit of delivering a higher radiation dose with ADT. Other studies failed to show significant benefits with the addition of ADT to dose-escalated RT. Conclusions. The benefit of adding ADT to dose-escalated RT is still uncertain. Prospective randomized trials, several of which are ongoing, are necessary to more adequately examine this issue. In the interim, physicians and patients should continue to utilize the existing data to weigh the risks and benefits of each approach to therapy.

Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To report long-term results and patterns of failure after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This randomized phase III trial compared conventional fractionation (80 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 8 weeks) vs hypofractionation (62 Gy at 3.1 Gy per fraction in 5 weeks) in combination with 9-month androgen deprivation therapy in 168 patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from local failure (FFLF), and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In a median follow-up of 70 months, biochemical failure (BF) occurred in 35 of the 168 patients (21%) in the study. Among these 35 patients, local failure (LF) only was detected in 11 (31%), distant failure (DF) only in 16 (46%), and both LF and DF in 6 (17%). In 2 patients (6%) BF has not yet been clinically detected. The risk reduction by hypofractionation was significant in BF (10.3%) but not in LF and DF. We found that hypofractionation, with respect to conventional fractionation, determined only an insignificant increase in the actuarial FFBF but no difference in FFLF and FFDF, when considering the entire group of patients. However, an increase in the 5-year rates in all 3 endpoints-FFBF, FFLF, and FFDF-was observed in the subgroup of patients with a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) level of 20 ng/mL or less. On multivariate analysis, the type of fractionation, iPSA level, Gleason score of 4+3 or higher, and T stage of 2c or higher have been confirmed as independent prognostic factors for BF. High iPSA levels and Gleason score of 4+3 or higher were also significantly associated with an increased risk of DF, whereas T stage of 2c or higher was the only independent variable for LF.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the isoeffectiveness of the 2 fractionation schedules used in this study, although a benefit in favor of hypofractionation cannot be excluded in the subgroup of patients with an iPSA level of 20 ng/mL or less. The α/β ratio might be more appropriately evaluated by FFLF than FFBF results, at least in high-risk disease.

External-beam radiation therapy and high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy in high and very high prostate cancer: preliminary data on clinical outcome

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility of combined long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and dose escalation with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2001 and 2007, 200 patients with high-risk prostate cancer (32.5%) or very high-risk prostate cancer (67.5%) were prospectively enrolled in this Phase II trial. Tumor characteristics included a median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen of 15.2 ng/mL, a clinical stage of T2c, and a Gleason score of 7. Treatment consisted of 54 Gy of external irradiation (three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [3DCRT]) followed by 19 Gy of HDR brachytherapy in four twice-daily treatments. ADT started 0-3 months before 3DCRT and continued for 2 years.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety patients (95%) received 2 years of ADT. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years (range, 2-9), late Grade ≥2 urinary toxicity was observed in 18% of the patients and Grade ≥3 was observed in 5%. Prior transurethral resection of the prostate (p = 0.013) and bladder D(50) ≥1.19 Gy (p = 0.014) were associated with increased Grade ≥2 urinary complications; age ≥70 (p = 0.05) was associated with Grade ≥3 urinary complications. Late Grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed in 9% of the patients and Grade ≥3 in 1.5%. CTV size ≥35.8 cc (p = 0.007) and D(100) ≥3.05 Gy (p = 0.01) were significant for increased Grade ≥2 complications. The 5-year and 9-year biochemical relapse-free survival (nadir + 2) rates were 85.1% and 75.7%, respectively. Patients with Gleason score of 7-10 had a decreased biochemical relapse-free survival (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-term results at the 5-year time point indicate a favorable outcome without an increase in the rate of late complications.

[SFRO 2010: congress highlights]

The 21st SFRO Congress during October 2010 focused on three main topics: prostate, radiotherapy technical innovations (including reirradiation) and quality of life. The pitfalls of IMRT (treatment time, number of monitor unit, low doses) are in competition with arctherapy dynamic techniques that offer reduction treatment time for an equivalent ballistic. These techniques with high dose gradient should be coupled with the better imagery of repositioning (IGRT) to ensure benefice. A prospective evaluation of toxicity, clinical benefit on tumor control but also on quality of life of patients is necessary. In many current and future clinical trials, quality of life related to health will be a relevant outcome measurement to secure the importance of treatment for the patient and the health system.

Factors associated with downgrading in patients with high grade prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors associated with downgrading between biopsy and prostatectomy in the contemporary era using extended-template biopsy techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The UCSF Urologic Oncology Database was used to identify subjects diagnosed with high grade prostate cancer (primary pattern 4 or 5) in at least one core on extended-pattern biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with downgrading at radical prostatectomy, defined as a change from primary pattern 4 or 5 to primary pattern 3.

RESULTS

Downgrading occurred in 68 (34%) of 202 subjects who met the study criteria. Fourteen (47%) of 30 subjects with ≤25% of cores that were high grade and 9 (43%) of 21 subjects with <10% of total tissue containing cancer were downgraded. In a multivariable model, patients with mixed grade cores had much higher odds of downgrading than those with all high grade cores (OR 3.0 95% 1.3-7.1), P < 0.01). The proportion (per 10% increment) of positive cores containing high grade cancer (OR 0.8 95% CI 0.7-0.9 P < 0.01) and the percent (per 10% increment) of total tissue containing cancer (OR 0.7 95% CI 0.6-0.9 P = 0.01) were significantly associated with lower odds of downgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

Downgrading following radical prostatectomy is a common event. Biopsy over-grading may preclude men from active surveillance or lead to unnecessary lymphadenectomy, excess radiation, or prolonged hormone therapy. The proportion of positive biopsy cores that are high grade and the percent of total tissue containing cancer should be incorporated into decision making.

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.

Normalization of prostate specific antigen in patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the expected time to prostate specific antigen (PSA) normalization with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (NAAD) therapy after treatment with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

A retrospective cohort research design was used. A total of 133 patients with clinical stage T1c to T3b prostate cancer (2002 AJCC staging) treated in a community setting between January 2002 and July 2005 were reviewed for time to PSA normalization using 1 ng/mL and 2 ng/mL as criteria. All patients received IMRT as part of their management. Times to PSA normalization were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05.

Results

Fifty-six of the 133 patients received NAAD (42.1%). Thirty-one patients (23.8%) received radiation to a limited pelvic field followed by an IMRT boost, while 99 patients received IMRT alone (76.2%). The times to serum PSA normalization < 2 ng/mL when treated with or without NAAD were 298 ± 24 and 302 ± 33 days (mean ± SEM), respectively (p > 0.05), and 303 ± 24 and 405 ± 46 days, respectively, for PSA < 1 ng/mL (p < 0.05). Stage T1 and T2 tumors had significantly increased time to PSA normalization < 1 ng/mL in comparison to Stage T3 tumors. Also, higher Gleason scores were significantly correlated with a faster time to PSA normalization < 1 ng/mL.

Conclusions

Use of NAAD in conjunction with IMRT leads to a significantly shortened time to normalization of serum PSA < 1 ng/mL in patients with clinically 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.

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.

Subgroup analysis of patients with localized prostate cancer treated within the Dutch-randomized dose escalation trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of dose escalation within prognostic risk groups in prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2003, 664 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68- or 78-Gy of radiotherapy. Two prognostic models were examined: a risk group model (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk) and PSA-level groupings. High-risk patients with hormonal therapy (HT) were analyzed separately. Outcome variable was freedom from failure (FFF) (clinical failure or PSA nadir+2 microg/L).

RESULTS

In relation to the advantage of high-dose radiotherapy, intermediate-risk patients benefited most from dose escalation. However no significant heterogeneity could be demonstrated between the risk groups. For two types of PSA-level groupings: PSA<10 and > or = 10 microg/L, and <8, 8-18 and >8 microg/L, the test for heterogeneity was significant (p=0.03 and 0.05, respectively). Patients with PSA 8-18 microg/L (n=297, HR=0.59) derived the greatest benefit from dose escalation. No heterogeneity could be demonstrated for high-risk patients with and without HT.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate-risk group derived the greatest benefit for dose escalation. However, from this trial no indication was found to exclude low-risk or high-risk patients from high-dose radiotherapy. Patients could be selected for high-dose radiotherapy based on PSA-level groupings: for patients with a PSA<8 microg/L high-dose radiotherapy is probably not indicated, but should be confirmed in other randomized studies.

Retrospective comparison of external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy in high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Because of the lack of conclusive and well-conducted randomized studies, the optimal therapy for prostate tumors remains controversial. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the results of radical surgery vs. a conservative approach such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy using an intent-to-treat analysis on two pretreatment defined, concurrently treated, high-risk patient populations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 2003 and December 2007, 162 patients with high-risk prostate cancer underwent an EBRT plus androgen deprivation therapy program at the RT department of our institute. In the same period, 122 patients with the same high-risk disease underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the urologic department of our institute. Patients with adverse pathologic factors also underwent adjuvant EBRT with or without androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure.

RESULTS

The two groups of high-risk patients were homogeneous in terms of freedom from biochemical failure on the basis of the clinical T stage, biopsy Gleason score, and initial prostate-specific antigen level. The median follow-up was 38.6 and 33.8 months in the EBRT and RP groups, respectively. The actuarial analysis of the freedom from biochemical failure showed a 3-year rate of 86.8% and 69.8% in the EBRT and RP group, respectively (p = .001). Multivariate analysis of the whole group revealed the initial prostate-specific antigen level and treatment type (EBRT vs. RP) as significant covariates.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly better outcome after EBRT than after RP in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, although a well-conducted randomized comparison would be the best procedure to confirm these results.

Survival in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with hormone therapy: a quantitative systematic review

PURPOSE

We aimed to describe disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in men with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving immediate hormone therapy as adjunct to radiation therapy, adjunct to radical prostatectomy, or stand-alone therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, the Cochrane Library, and Current Contents (from 1986 to September 2006) yielded 35 high-quality clinical trials (n = 11,105 patients) which formed the evidence base. Selected studies were required to address early hormone therapy in nonmetastatic prostate cancer only. Data on DFS and OS were extracted from individual trials, summarized statistically, and displayed in graphic form.

RESULTS

Survival probabilities were extracted from 16 trials (n = 5,987 patients) addressing hormone therapy as an adjunct to radiation therapy, 11 trials (n = 1,885 patients) investigating hormone therapy as an adjunct to prostatectomy, and 10 trials (n = 3,233 patients) evaluating hormone therapy alone. In men receiving hormones and radiation, estimated 5-year DFS and OS were 52% and 82%, whereas median DFS and OS were 5.4 years and more than 7 years, respectively. In men receiving hormones and surgery, 5-year DFS and OS were 64% and 90%, whereas median DFS and OS were more than 6 years and more than 7 years, respectively. In men receiving hormones alone, 5-year DFS and OS were 57% and 70%, whereas median DFS and OS were 6.0 years and more than 7 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a new baseline for expected DFS and OS in patients treated with hormone therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Survival in these men may be longer than estimated previously.

[Current treatment in high risk and locally advanced prostate cancer]

Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer remains controversial. Treatment options include radical prostatectomy (PR), radiotherapy (RT) and hormonotherapy (HT). A Medline database search with key words "prostate cancer", "locally advanced", "high risk" and "treatment" in articles published during the last 15 years was done. Fifty one out of 329 papers were selected and reviewed. Selection criteria were a minimum of scientific evidence level of IIa, except for some specific level IV reference. Numerous randomized studies show that patients may benefit of a combined therapy with RT and HT. RP has shown its usefulness in selected cases of locally advanced prostate cancer. Results of long follow-up series are similar to those obtained with RT and HT. Furthermore, the possibility of clinical over staging is an argument in favour of RP. We perform an updated revision of every possible choice available in the treatment of these tumours.

Evidence-based radiation oncology: Definitive, adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The standard treatment options based on the risk category (stage, Gleason score, PSA) for localized prostate cancer include surgery, radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The literature does not provide clear-cut evidence for the superiority of surgery over radiotherapy, whereas both approaches differ in their side effects. The definitive external beam irradiation is frequently employed in stage T1b-T1c, T2 and T3 tumors. There is a pretty strong evidence that intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation. The latter requires reduction of the irradiated normal tissue (using 3-dimensional conformal approach, intensity modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, etc.). Recent data suggest that prostate cancer may benefit from hypofractionation due to relatively low alpha/beta ratio; these findings warrant confirmation though. The role of whole pelvis irradiation is still controversial. Numerous randomized trials demonstrated a clinical benefit in terms of biochemical control, local and distant control, and overall survival from the addition of androgen suppression to external beam radiotherapy in intermediate- and high-risk patients. These studies typically included locally advanced (T3-T4) and poor-prognosis (Gleason score >7 and/or PSA >20 ng/mL) tumors and employed neoadjuvant/concomitant/adjuvant androgen suppression rather than only adjuvant setting. The ongoing trials will hopefully further define the role of endocrine treatment in more favorable risk patients and in the setting of the dose escalated radiotherapy. Brachytherapy (BRT) with permanent implants may be offered to low-risk patients (cT1-T2a, Gleason score <7, or 3+4, PSA <or=10 ng/mL), with prostate volume of <or=50 ml, no previous transurethral prostate resection and a good urinary function. Some recent data suggest a benefit from combining external beam irradiation and BRT for intermediate-risk patients. EBRT after radical prostatectomy improves disease-free survival and biochemical and local control rates in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 tumors. Salvage radiotherapy may be considered at the time of biochemical failure in previously non-irradiated patients.

Percutaneous radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: options for 2007

Technical developments of radiotherapy (RT) over the recent years yielded in better conformation to the target volume thus increasing the therapeutic ratio and decreasing side effects. This paper discusses these options for low-risk prostate cancer. There has been evidence from randomized trials, that for low-risk PCA doses >70 Gy are significant better in case of biochemical disease-free survival (bNED). Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) has been proven in several studies for reduced safety margins around the prostate target volume. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allow treatment with higher doses and 5-year results are reported from several studies. Data from several randomized trials about adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy (RP) have been reported. In two phase-III trials a significant advantage of 20% bNED was demonstrated for doses between 76 and 79 Gy compared with 70 Gy. Using IGRT, the safety margin around the prostate can be reduced for about 30-50%. Doses of >80 Gy can be given safely to the prostate with IMRT and <5% grade-III/IV late side effects. Adjuvant RT for positive margins after RP has been of proven advantage. Three phase-III trials achieved a significant better bNED of 20% for 5 years. The effect of doses >70 Gy have been proven for low-risk PCA. IGRT resulted in reduced safety margins and a decrease of acute and late side effects. The addition of IMRT allowed higher doses to the prostate. Adjuvant RT after RP for positive margins achieved a significant better bNED.

Radiation therapy for prostate cancer: the role for dose escalation

Recent technological advances in radiation treatment delivery have allowed relatively higher doses of radiation to be delivered safely to the prostate. Emerging data suggest improvements in disease control with higher doses of radiation in subsets of patients with prostate cancer.

Dose Escalation with Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Is More Dose Really Better in High-risk Patients Treated with Androgen Deprivation?

AIMS

To determine the effect of radiation dose on biochemical control in prostate cancer patients treated in a single institution with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and the additional effect of androgen deprivation in prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 363 men with T1-T3b prostate cancer treated in a sequential radiation dose-escalation trial from 66.0 to 84.1 Gy (International Commission Radiation Units and Measurement [ICRU] reference point) between 1995 and 2003, and with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, were included in the analysis. One hundred and forty-eight (41%) men were treated with 3DCRT alone; 74 (20%) men received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (NAD) 4-6 months before and during 3DCRT; and 141 (39%) men received NAD and adjuvant androgen deprivation (AAD) 2 years after 3DCRT. Univariate, stratified and multivariate analyses were carried out separately for defined risk groups (low, intermediate and high) to determine the effect of radiation dose on biochemical control and its interaction with hormonal manipulation and clinical prognostic variables.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 59 months (range 24-147 months). The actuarial biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) at 5 years for all patients was 75% (standard error 3%). For low-risk patients, the bDFS was 82% (standard error 5%), for intermediate-risk patients it was 64% (standard error 6%) and for high-risk patients it was 77% (standard error 3%) (P = 0.031). In stratified and multivariate analyses, high-dose 3DCRT for all risk groups, and for high-risk patients, the use of long-term AAD vs NAD, contributed independently and significantly to improve the outcome of prostate cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The present study indicates an independent benefit on biochemical outcome of high-dose 3DCRT for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients and of long-term AAD in high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Intensificación de dosis con radioterapia conformacional 3D en cáncer de próstata. ¿Más dosis es mejor?

PURPOSE

The present study was undertaken to determine the effect of radiation dose on biochemical control and morbidity in prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1995 and 2003, 360 patients with T1-T3b prostate cancer were treated in a sequential radiation dose escalation trial from 66.0 to 82.6 Gy. These patients were prospectively assigned to 1 of 3 prognostic groups according to risk factors: a) low risk patients were treated with 3DCRT alone; b) intermediate risk patients were allocated to receive neoadjuvant AD (NAD) 4-6 months prior and during 3DCRT; and c) high-risk received NAD and adjuvant AD (AAD) 2 years after 3DCRT. RTOG/EORTC toxicity score was used to analyze late complications

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 48 months (12-138). The actuarial biochemical disease free survival (bDFS) at 4 years for low risk, intermediate risk and high risk patients was 88%, 68% and 79% respectively. Stratified and multivariate analysis showed that higher radiation dose (>76 Gy) (p=0.0053) and the use of AAD for high risk patients (p=0.0046) correlated significantly with an improvement of bDFS for all patients. The incidence of late grade 2 rectal and urinary bleeding were 7% and 11% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The present study confirms an independent benefit of high-dose (> 76 Gy) radiation therapy and long-term AAD in high-risk prostate cancerpatients.