Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial Exploring Optimal Sequencing of Short-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Prostate Radiation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Current status and future trends

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) has been recognized as an androgen-sensitive disease since the investigations from Huggins and Hodges in 1941. Thanks to these findings, they received the Nobel Prize in 1966. This was the beginning of the development of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as treatment for patients with PCa.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current indications of ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive English and Spanish language literature research, focused on the main indications for ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nowadays, the indications for ADT as monotherapy in localized PCa have been limited to specific situations, to patients unwilling or unable to receive any form of local treatment if they have a PSA-DT < 12 months, and either a PSA > 50 ng/mL, a poorly differentiated tumor, or troublesome local disease-related symptoms. ADT can be used in combination with local treatment in different scenarios. Although neoadjuvant treatment with ADT prior to surgery with curative intent has no clear oncological impact, as a future sight, PCa is a heterogeneous disease, and there could be a group of patients with high-risk localized disease that could benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to optimize the treatment with ADT in localized PCa, selecting the patients accordingly to their disease characteristics. Given that the therapeutic armamentarium evolves day by day, there is a need for the development of new clinical trials, as well as a molecular studies of patients to identify those who might benefit from an early multimodal treatment.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT.

CONCLUSION

ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

Using a Further Planning MRI after Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy Significantly Reduces the Radiation Exposure of Organs at Risk in External Beam Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Radiotherapy for prostate cancer is often preceded by neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which leads to a reduction in the size of the prostate. This study examines whether it is relevant for treatment planning to acquire a second planning magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after ADT (=MRI 2) or whether it can be planned without disadvantage based on an MRI acquired before starting ADT (=MRI 1). The imaging data for the radiotherapy treatment planning of 17 patients with prostate cancer who received two planning MRIs (before and after neoadjuvant ADT) were analyzed as follows: detailed comparable radiation plans were created separately, each based on the planning CT scan and either MRI 1 or MRI 2. After ADT for an average of 17.2 weeks, the prostate was reduced in size by an average of 24%. By using MRI 2 for treatment planning, the V60Gy of the rectum could be significantly relieved by an average of 15% with the same coverage of the target volume, and the V70Gy by as much as 33% (compared to using MRI 1 alone). Using a second MRI for treatment planning after neoadjuvant ADT in prostate cancer leads to a significant relief for the organs at risk, especially in the high dose range, with the same irradiation of the target volume, and should therefore be carried out regularly. Waiting for the prostate to shrink after a few months of ADT contributes to relief for the organs at risk and to lowering the toxicity. However, the use of reduced target volumes requires an image-guided application, and the oncological outcome needs to be verified in further studies.

An Expert Review on the Combination of Relugolix with Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an integral component in the management of prostate cancer across multiple disease states. Traditionally, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists constituted the backbone of ADT. However, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor hormone (GnRH) antagonists are also available, which offer faster testosterone suppression and reduced likelihood of ADT-related adverse effects compared to LHRH agonists, including the potential for fewer ADT-associated major cardiac events. Until recently, all forms of LHRH agonists and GnRH antagonist formulations are of parenteral administration. However, recently relugolix gained FDA approval as the first oral GnRH antagonist. Relugolix achieves faster and more complete testosterone suppression compared to an LHRH agonist. This translates to more rapid prostate-specific antigen response compared to LHRH agonists. After discontinuation of relugolix, testosterone recovers faster than after GnRH agonists or injectable GnRH antagonist therapy. Overall, these factors provide opportunities for more precisely defined ADT duration when combined with radiation therapy. The rapid onset and offset testosterone suppression with relugolix, however, may require physicians to rethink the mechanism and goals of ADT when prescribing. As an oral formulation, relugolix enables patients to avoid pain and injection site reactions, limit extra office visits for injections, and achieve a shorter duration of experiencing the side effects of castrate testosterone levels. This convenience and tolerability may enhance physicians' willingness to prescribe ADT and patients' feeling of control over their ADT course, but the potential advantages are accompanied by the risks of patients choosing to discontinue therapy to escape side effects of ADT. This article focuses on different aspects of what is known and unknown regarding the optimal use of ADT and radiation therapy, and how relugolix, due to its properties, fit into our current treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.

Association of Short-term Patient-reported Outcomes With Long-term Oncologic Outcomes in Localized Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radiation Therapy and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in a Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Both oncologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes are pivotal in prostate cancer (PCa). However, it remains unknown if there is any association between these 2 outcomes. In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, we investigated the association of short-term changes in patient-reported outcome with long-term event-free survival (EFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) in localized PCa.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Localized PCa patients with a Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <30 ng/mL were randomized to neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 6 months starting 4 months before prostate radiation therapy or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months starting simultaneously with radiation therapy. Patient-reported symptom burden was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (QLQ)-PR.25. Clinically meaningful deterioration (CMD) was defined as a ≥10-point worsening at any time within 10 months postrandomization regardless of subsequent improvement. Landmark analyses were performed to determine the association of CMD of urinary and bowel symptoms separately with EFS and MFS in patients who responded to the baseline questionnaire, were alive, and were event free at 10 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients had responded to the baseline QLQ. One patient died, and 1 patient had failure within 10 months. Therefore, 391 patients were eligible for the landmark analyses. After adjusting for age, Gleason score, PSA, performance status, and treatment group, CMD of urinary symptoms was associated with worse EFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-2.65) and MFS (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.11-2.57). Considering deaths as competing events, CMD of urinary symptoms was associated with a significant increase in the relative incidence of progression (subdistribution HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.12-5.20). However, no association was found between CMD of bowel symptoms and EFS or MFS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, short-term CMD of urinary symptoms was associated with significantly inferior EFS and MFS and an increase in the relative incidence of progression. Further investigations are needed to explore the biological rationale of such association in the context of ADT and radiation therapy.

Association of Baseline Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life Metrics with Outcome in Localised Prostate Cancer

AIMS

Although health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes are pivotal in oncology, the prognostic significance of patient-reported HR-QoL metrics is largely undefined in localised prostate cancer. We report the association of baseline HR-QoL metrics with overall survival and toxicity in localised prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a phase III randomised controlled study conducted in a single-payer health system. Patients with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b-T3a and prostate-specific antigen <30 ng/ml were randomised to neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 6 months starting 4 months before prostate radiotherapy or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months starting simultaneously with prostate radiotherapy. HR-QoL scores were estimated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire. A multistate Markov model was used to determine the association of baseline HR-QoL metrics with overall survival and a multilevel multivariable Cox regression was used to determine the association with the incidence of delayed-onset grade ≥3 radiotherapy-related toxicities. To adjust for multiple analyses, P < 0.025 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients with baseline HR-QoL data were included in this analysis: 194 in the neoadjuvant arm and 199 in the adjuvant arm. Baseline financial difficulty (hazard ratio 1.020, 95% confidence interval 1.010-1.030, P = 0.02) and dyspnoea (hazard ratio 1.020, 95% confidence interval 1.003-1.030, P = 0.01) were associated with inferior overall survival. Baseline dyspnoea was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity (hazard ratio 1.020, 95% confidence interval 1.010-1.030, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of localised prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and short-term ADT, a 10-point higher baseline financial difficulty or dyspnoea was associated with a 20% increased risk of death. With each 10-point increase in baseline dyspnoea, we noted a 20% increase in the associated risk of grade ≥3 delayed-onset radiotherapy-related toxicity.

A Review on the Current Treatment Paradigm in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

High-risk prostate cancer is traditionally treated with a combination of radiotherapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, recent advancements in systemic treatment and radiotherapy have widened the spectrum of treatment for this patient population. Use of image guidance and intensity modulation, as well as the incorporation of brachytherapy, has led to safe radiotherapy dose escalation with reduced risk of recurrence. Clinical trials have helped define the role of pelvic nodal radiotherapy, the role of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, and the optimal duration and sequencing of ADT in combination with radiotherapy. Emerging evidence has redefined the role of surgery in this cohort. Contemporary clinical trials have identified new systemic therapy options in high-risk prostate cancer. Finally, new imaging modalities including multi-parametric MRI and molecular imaging and genomic classifiers have ushered a new era in patient selection, risk stratification, and treatment tailoring.