1
|
Salari K, Hazy AJ, Ye H, Sebastian E, Limbacher A, Johnson M, Mitchell B, Thompson AB, Seymour ZA, Nandalur SR, Krauss DJ. 21 Gy single fraction prostate HDR brachytherapy: 5-year results of a single institution prospective pilot study. Brachytherapy 2024; 23:321-328. [PMID: 38514368 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2024.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Revised: 11/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To present the outcome and toxicity results of a prospective trial of 21 Gy single fraction high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients were treated according to an IRB-approved prospective study of single fraction HDR brachytherapy. Eligible patients had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer with tumor stage ≤ T2b, PSA ≤ 15, and Gleason score ≤ 7. Patients underwent trans-rectal ultrasound-guided trans-perineal implant of the prostate followed by single fraction HDR brachytherapy to a dose of 21 Gy. The primary endpoint was grade ≥ 2 urinary/GI toxicity rates. RESULTS Twenty-six patients were enrolled with a median follow up of 5.1 years and median age of 64 years. 88.5% of patients had T1 disease, 15.4% had Gleason score 6 (84.6% Gleason 7), and median pre-treatment PSA was 5.0 ng/mL. Acute and chronic grade ≥ 2 urinary toxicity rates were 38.5% and 38.5%, respectively. There were no grade ≥ 2 acute or chronic GI toxicities. Six (23.1%) patients experienced biochemical failure, six (23.1%) patients experienced radiographic local failure, and five (19.2%) patients had biopsy-proven local failure. No patients developed regional lymph node recurrence or distant metastasis. 5-year overall survival and cause-specific survival were 96.2% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS 21 Gy single fraction HDR brachytherapy was associated with modestly higher-than-anticipated chronic urinary toxicity, as well as high biochemical and local failure rates. The results from this prospective pilot study do not support the use of this regimen in standard clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kamran Salari
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI.
| | - Allison J Hazy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| | - Hong Ye
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| | - Evelyn Sebastian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| | - Amy Limbacher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| | - Matthew Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI; Department of Radiation Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Institute at McLaren Port Huron, Port Huron, MI
| | - Beth Mitchell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| | - Andrew B Thompson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health Beaumont Troy Hospital, Troy, MI
| | - Zachary A Seymour
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health Dearborn Hospital, Dearborn, MI
| | - Sirisha R Nandalur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health Beaumont Troy Hospital, Troy, MI
| | - Daniel J Krauss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, Eberli D, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Farolfi A, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Henry AM, Lardas M, van Leenders GJLH, Liew M, Linares Espinos E, Oldenburg J, van Oort IM, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Roberts MJ, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Schouten N, Smith EJ, Stranne J, Wiegel T, Willemse PPM, Tilki D. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2024:S0302-2838(24)02254-1. [PMID: 38614820 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2024] [Revised: 03/14/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/15/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | - Julie Darraugh
- European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, USI, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Michael Lardas
- Department of Urology, Metropolitan General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Jan Oldenburg
- Akershus University Hospital (Ahus), Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Inge M van Oort
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Matthew J Roberts
- Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, QLD, Australia
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Department of Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, UFR Lyon-Est, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Emma J Smith
- European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital-Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Shelan M, Achard V, Appiagyei F, Mose L, Zilli T, Fankhauser CD, Zamboglou C, Mohamad O, Aebersold DM, Cathomas R. Role of enzalutamide in primary and recurrent non-metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review of prospective clinical trials. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00829-9. [PMID: 38589645 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00829-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Revised: 03/27/2024] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 04/10/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Enzalutamide, a second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic disease, as well as in the treatment of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (PCa). This systematic review aims to determine outcomes and toxicity in patients with non-metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC) treated with enzalutamide in the primary or salvage settings. METHOD We performed a systematic review focusing on the role of Enzalutamide in the treatment of nmCSPC, using the PubMed/Medline database. Articles focusing on androgen receptor inhibitors in nmCSPC were included, while articles discussing exclusively metastatic or castration-resistant PCa were excluded. RESULTS The initial search retrieved 401 articles, of which 15 underwent a thorough assessment for relevance. Ultimately, 12 studies with pertinent outcomes were meticulously examined. Among these, seven studies were dedicated to the investigation of enzalutamide in the primary setting, while the remaining five publications specifically addressed its use in salvage settings. Regardless of the treatment setting, our data revealed two distinct therapeutic strategies. The first advocates for the substitution of enzalutamide for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), based on the premise of achieving equivalent, if not superior, oncological outcomes while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. The second, adopting a more conventional approach, entails augmenting the effectiveness of ADT by incorporating enzalutamide. CONCLUSION Enzalutamide has considerable potential as a therapeutic strategy for nmCSPC, either used alone or in combination with ADT in the primary or in the salvage settings. The use of enzalutamide instead of ADT is an appealing strategy. However, more trials will be required to further understand the efficacy and side-effect profile of enzalutamide monotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
| | - Vérane Achard
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, HFR Fribourg, Villars-sur-Glâne, Switzerland
| | - Felix Appiagyei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Lucas Mose
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Zilli
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Christian D Fankhauser
- Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Osama Mohamad
- Department of Genito-urinary Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Richard Cathomas
- Department of Oncology/Hematology, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Jabbour SK, Kumar R, Anderson B, Chino JP, Jethwa KR, McDowell L, Lo AC, Owen D, Pollom EL, Tree AC, Tsang DS, Yom SS. Combinatorial Approaches for Chemotherapies and Targeted Therapies With Radiation: United Efforts to Innovate in Patient Care. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1240-1261. [PMID: 38216094 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2024] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/14/2024]
Abstract
Combinatorial therapies consisting of radiation therapy (RT) with systemic therapies, particularly chemotherapy and targeted therapies, have moved the needle to augment disease control across nearly all disease sites for locally advanced disease. Evaluating these important combinations to incorporate more potent therapies with RT will aid our understanding of toxicity and efficacy for patients. This article discusses multiple disease sites and includes a compilation of contributions from expert Red Journal editors from each disease site. Leveraging improved systemic control with novel agents, we must continue efforts to study novel treatment combinations with RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Salma K Jabbour
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Jersey.
| | - Ritesh Kumar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Jersey
| | - Bethany Anderson
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Junzo P Chino
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Lachlan McDowell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Andrea C Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, BC Cancer Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Erqi L Pollom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Alison C Tree
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Derek S Tsang
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sue S Yom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, California
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Onal C, Guler OC, Erbay G, Elmali A. 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. Prostate 2024. [PMID: 38528236 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2023] [Revised: 03/12/2024] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Gurcan Erbay
- Department of Radiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Aysenur Elmali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gomez-Iturriaga A, Büchser D, Lopez-Campos F, Maldonado X. Enhancing Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) integration in prostate cancer: Insights for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and brachytherapy modalities. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 45:100733. [PMID: 38322544 PMCID: PMC10844661 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/21/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024] Open
Abstract
The utilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) in conjunction with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Brachytherapy (BT) boost in prostate cancer treatment is a subject of ongoing debate and evolving clinical practice. While contemporary trends lean towards underutilizing ADT with these modalities, existing evidence suggests that its omission may lead to potentially inferior oncologic outcomes. Recommendations for ADT use should be patient-centric, considering individual risk profiles and comorbidities, with a focus on achieving optimal oncologic outcomes while minimizing potential side effects. Ongoing clinical trials, such as PACE-C, SPA, SHIP 0804, and SHIP 36B, are anticipated to provide valuable insights into the optimal use and duration of ADT in both SBRT and BT settings. Until new evidence emerges, it is recommended to initiate ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, with a minimum duration of 6 months for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients and at least 12 months for those with high-risk characteristics. The decision to incorporate ADT into these radiation therapy modalities should be individualized, acknowledging the unique needs of each patient and emphasizing a tailored approach to achieve the best possible oncologic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. Gomez-Iturriaga
- Hospital Universitario Cruces/ Biobizkaia Health Research Institute, Radiation Oncology, Barakaldo, Spain
- Department of Surgery and Radiology and Physical Medicine, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain
| | - D. Büchser
- Hospital Universitario Cruces/ Biobizkaia Health Research Institute, Radiation Oncology, Barakaldo, Spain
- Department of Surgery and Radiology and Physical Medicine, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Spain
| | - F. Lopez-Campos
- Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Radiation Oncology, Madrid, Spain
| | - X. Maldonado
- Hospital Vall d́Hebron, Radiation Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fecteau RE, Koontz BF, Hoffman KE, Halabi S, Howard LE, Anand M, George DJ, Zhang T, Berry WR, Lee WR, Harrison MR, Corn PG, Armstrong AJ. Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5. [PMID: 38388778 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00811-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2024] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024]
Abstract
Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan E Fecteau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Bridget F Koontz
- East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Susan Halabi
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Lauren E Howard
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Monika Anand
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Daniel J George
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Tian Zhang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - William R Berry
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - W Robert Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Michael R Harrison
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Paul G Corn
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew J Armstrong
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Boyer MJ, Carpenter DJ, Gingrich JR, Raman SR, Sirohi D, Tabriz AA, Rompre-Broduer A, Lunyera J, Basher F, Bitting RL, Kosinski A, Cantrell S, Gordon AM, Ear B, Gierisch JM, Jacobs M, Goldstein KM. Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-023-00766-z. [PMID: 38200096 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00766-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2023] [Revised: 10/26/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Refinement of the risk classification for localized prostate cancer is warranted to aid in clinical decision making. A systematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic ability of three genomic classifiers, Decipher, GPS, and Prolaris, for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for reports published from January 2010 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION prospective or retrospective studies reporting prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION relevant data were extracted into a customized database by one researcher with a second overreading. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prognostic studies, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by input from a third reviewer. We assessed the certainty of evidence by GRADE incorporating adaptation for prognostic studies. RESULTS Data synthesis: a total of 39 studies (37 retrospective) involving over 10,000 patients were identified. Twenty-two assessed Decipher, 5 GPS, and 14 Prolaris. Thirty-four studies included patients who underwent prostatectomy. Based on very low to low certainty of evidence, each of the three genomic classifiers modestly improved upon the prognostic ability for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to standard clinical risk-classification schemes. LIMITATIONS downgrading of confidence in the evidence stemmed largely from bias due to the retrospective nature of the studies, heterogeneity in treatment received, and era in which patients were treated (i.e., prior to the 2000s). CONCLUSIONS Genomic classifiers provide a small but consistent improvement upon the prognostic ability of clinical classification schemes, which may be helpful when treatment decisions are uncertain. However, evidence from current management-era data and of the predictive ability of these tests is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Boyer
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
| | | | - Jeffrey R Gingrich
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Urology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Sudha R Raman
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Deepika Sirohi
- Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Amir Alishahi Tabriz
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Joseph Lunyera
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Fahmin Basher
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Rhonda L Bitting
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Andrzej Kosinski
- Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Sarah Cantrell
- Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Belinda Ear
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jennifer M Gierisch
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Population Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Karen M Goldstein
- Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Deville C, Kamran SC, Morgan SC, Yamoah K, Vapiwala N. Radiation Therapy Summary of the AUA/ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:47-56. [PMID: 38182303 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 09/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/07/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to develop a summary of recommendations regarding the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer based on the American Urologic Association/ ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. METHODS The American Urologic Association and ASTRO convened a multidisciplinary, expert panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic literature review using an a priori defined consensus-building methodology. The topics covered were risk assessment, staging, risk-based management, principles of management including active surveillance, surgery, radiation, and follow-up after treatment. Presented are recommendations from the guideline most pertinent to radiation oncologists with an additional statement on health equity, diversity, and inclusion related to guideline panel composition and the topic of clinically localized prostate cancer. SUMMARY Staging, risk assessment, and management options in prostate cancer have advanced over the last decade and significantly affect shared decision-making for treatment management. Current advancements and controversies discussed to guide staging, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations include the use of advanced imaging and tumor genomic profiling. An essential active surveillance strategy includes prostate-specific antigen monitoring and periodic digital rectal examination with changes triggering magnetic resonance imaging and possible biopsy thereafter and histologic progression or greater tumor volume prompting consideration of definitive local treatment. The panel recommends against routine use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for patients with prostate cancer after prostatectomy with negative nodes and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen, while acknowledging that patients at highest risk of recurrence were relatively poorly represented in the 3 largest randomized trials comparing adjuvant RT to early salvage and that a role may exist for adjuvant RT in selected patients at highest risk. RT for clinically localized prostate cancer has evolved rapidly, with new trial results, therapeutic combinations, and technological advances. The recommendation of moderately hypofractionated RT has not changed, and the updated guideline incorporates a conditional recommendation for the use of ultrahypofractionated treatment. Health disparities and inequities exist in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer across the continuum of care that can influence guideline concordance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
| | - Sophia C Kamran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Scott C Morgan
- Department of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kosj Yamoah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Slevin F, Zattoni F, Checcucci E, Cumberbatch MGK, Nacchia A, Cornford P, Briers E, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Eberli D, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Liew M, Linares Espinós EE, Oldenburg J, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Smith EJ, Stranne J, Tilki D, Smith CT, Van Den Bergh RCN, Van Oort IM, Wiegel T, Yuan CY, Van den Broeck T, Henry AM. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2023:S2588-9311(23)00284-5. [PMID: 38151440 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Finbar Slevin
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
| | - Enrico Checcucci
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | | | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Emma Jane Smith
- European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Catrin Tudur Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Inge M Van Oort
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ann M Henry
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Roy S, Kishan AU, Morgan SC, Martinka L, Spratt DE, Sun Y, Malone J, Grimes S, Citrin DE, Malone S. Association of PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery with subsequent recurrence: secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 2023; 41:3905-3911. [PMID: 37792009 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04635-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2023] [Accepted: 09/14/2023] [Indexed: 10/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE After cessation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), testosterone gradually recovers to supracastrate levels (> 50 ng/dL). After this, rises in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are often seen. However, it remains unknown whether early PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery are associated with subsequent biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial in which newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer patients were randomly allocated to ADT for 6 months starting 4 months prior to or simultaneously with prostate RT. We calculated the PSA doubling time (PSADT) based on PSA values up to 18 months after supracastrate testosterone recovery. Competing risk regression was used to evaluate the association of PSADT with relative incidence of BCR, considering deaths as competing events. RESULTS Overall, 313 patients were eligible. Median PSADT was 8 months. Cumulative incidence of BCR at 10 years from supracastrate testosterone recovery was 19% and 11% in patients with PSADT < 8 months and ≥ 8 months (p = 0.03). Compared to patients with PSADT of < 4 months, patients with higher PSADT (sHR for PSADT 4 to < 8 months: 0.36 [95% CI 0.16-0.82]; 8 to < 12 months: 0.26 [0.08-0.91]; ≥ 12 months: 0.20 [0.07-0.56]) had lower risk of relative incidence of BCR. CONCLUSIONS Early PSA kinetics, within 18 months of recovery of testosterone to a supracastrate level, can predict for subsequent BCR. Taking account of early changes in PSA after testosterone recovery may allow for recognition of potential failures earlier in the disease course and thereby permit superior personalization of treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soumyajit Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, 500 S Paulina St, Atrium Bldg, A-013, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA.
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Scott C Morgan
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Levi Martinka
- Rush Medical College, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UH-Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Yilun Sun
- Department of Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Julia Malone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Scott Grimes
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Deborah E Citrin
- Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Shawn Malone
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Jia AY, Kishan AU, Spratt DE. Re: Dose-escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination with Short-term Androgen Deprivation for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase III Multi-institutional Trial. Eur Urol 2023; 84:600-601. [PMID: 37438199 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.06.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Y Jia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UH Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| | - Amar U Kishan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UH Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Spratt DE, Liu VYT, Michalski J, Davicioni E, Berlin A, Simko JP, Efstathiou JA, Tran PT, Sandler HM, Hall WA, Thompson DJS, Parliament MB, Dayes IS, Correa RJM, Robertson JM, Gore EM, Doncals DE, Vigneault E, Souhami L, Karrison TG, Feng FY. Genomic Classifier Performance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 Randomized Phase 3 Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:370-377. [PMID: 37137444 PMCID: PMC10949135 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 03/15/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state with diverse treatment options. The 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) retrospectively has shown to improve risk stratification in these patients. We assessed the performance of the GC in men with intermediate-risk disease enrolled in NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26 with updated follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS After National Cancer Institute approval, biopsy slides were collected from NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26, a randomized phase 3 trial of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer randomized to 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of radiation therapy without androgen deprivation therapy. RNA was extracted from the highest-grade tumor foci to generate the locked 22-gene GC model. The primary endpoint for this ancillary project was disease progression (composite of biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and use of salvage therapy). Individual endpoints were also assessed. Fine-Gray or cause-specific Cox multivariable models were constructed adjusting for randomization arm and trial stratification factors. RESULTS Two-hundred fifteen patient samples passed quality control for analysis. The median follow-up was 12.8 years (range, 2.4-17.7). On multivariable analysis, the 22-gene GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently prognostic for disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.26; P = .04), biochemical failure (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55; P = .01), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76; P < .001). Ten-year distant metastasis in GC low-risk patients was 4% compared with 16% for GC high-risk patients. In patients with lower GC scores, the 10-year difference in metastasis-free survival rate between arms was -7%, compared with 21% for higher GC patients (P-interaction = .04). CONCLUSIONS This study represents the first validation of a biopsy-based gene expression classifier, assessing both its prognostic and predictive value, using data from a randomized phase 3 trial of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Decipher improves risk stratification and can aid in treatment decision-making in men with intermediate-risk disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
| | | | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
| | | | - Alejandro Berlin
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeffry P Simko
- Department of Pathology, UCSF Medical Center-Mount Zion, San Francisco, California
| | - Jason A Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Phuoc T Tran
- Department of Pathology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Howard M Sandler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - William A Hall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | | | - Matthew B Parliament
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Ian S Dayes
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - John M Robertson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health CCOP, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Elizabeth M Gore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Milwaukee VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | | | - Eric Vigneault
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CHU de Quebec Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada
| | - Luis Souhami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Cancer Centre, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
| | - Theodore G Karrison
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lee TH, Pyo H, Yoo GS, Lee HM, Jeon SS, Seo SI, Jeong BC, Jeon HG, Sung HH, Kang M, Song W, Chung JH, Bae BK, Park W. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in hypofractionated radiation therapy alone for intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2023; 11:173-179. [PMID: 37745907 PMCID: PMC10513905 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2023.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Revised: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 07/16/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae Hoon Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hongryull Pyo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Gyu Sang Yoo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Moo Lee
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Soo Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Il Seo
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byong Chang Jeong
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hwang Gyun Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Hwan Sung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minyong Kang
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wan Song
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Chung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bong Kyung Bae
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Korea
| | - Won Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|