Role of enzalutamide in primary and recurrent non-metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review of prospective clinical trials

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Risk of prostate cancer death after radical radiotherapy with neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy with bicalutamide or gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcome after radical radiotherapy (RRT) combined with neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen suppression therapy (AST) may differ according to type of AST. The aim of this nationwide register-based study was to investigate risk of prostate cancer (Pca) death after different neoadjuvant and adjuvant ASTs; (i) bicalutamide, (ii) gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH) or (iii) combined bicalutamide and GnRH (CAB), together with RRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for 6882 men diagnosed with high-risk Pca between 2007 and 2020 and treated with primary RRT was retrieved from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) 5.0. Time to Pca death according to type of neoadjuvant and adjuvant AST was assessed by use of Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for putative confounders.

RESULTS

Data were stratified by RRT type since the effect of AST in risk of Pca death differed according to type of RRT. Compared with the reference RRT combined with neoadjuvant CAB/adjuvant GnRH, risk of Pca death for men treated with CAB/bicalutamide and conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (CF-EBRT) was hazard ratio (HR) 0.73 (95% CI: 0.50-1.04), hypofractionated EBRT (HF-EBRT), HR 1.35 (95% CI: 0.65-2.81) and EBRT with high dose rate brachytherapy (EBRT-HDRBT), HR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.37-1.95). Risk of Pca death for men treated with bicalutamide/bicalutamide and: (i) CF-EBRT was HR 2.35 (95% CI: 1.42-3.90), (ii) HF-EBRT, HR 0.70 (95% CI: 0.26-1.85), (iii) HF-EBRT, HR 4.07 (95% CI: 1.88-8.77) vs the reference.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, risk of Pca death between men receiving different combinations of AST varied according to RRT type. No difference was found in risk of Pca death for men treated with bicalutamide or GnRH as adjuvant therapy to RRT following neoadjuvant CAB. Risk of Pca death was increased for men with monotherapy neo-/adjuvant bicalutamide in combination with CF-EBRT or EBRT-HDRBT.

Association of PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery with subsequent recurrence: secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial

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.

Impact of sequencing of androgen receptor-signaling inhibition and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: importance of homologous recombination disruption

PURPOSE

The synergy of combining androgen receptor-signaling inhibition (ARSI) to radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer has been largely attributed to non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) inhibition. However, this mechanism is unlikely to explain recently observed trial results that demonstrated the sequencing of ARSI and RT significantly impacts clinical outcomes, with adjuvant ARSI following RT yielding superior outcomes to neoadjuvant/concurrent therapy. We hypothesized this is driven by differential effects on AR-signaling and alternative DNA repair pathway engagement based on ARSI/RT sequencing.

METHODS

We explored the effects of ARSI sequencing with RT (neoadjuvant vs concurrent vs adjuvant) in multiple prostate cancer cell lines using androgen-deprived media and validation with the anti-androgen enzalutamide. The effects of ARSI sequencing were measured with clonogenic assays, AR-target gene transcription and translation quantification, cell cycle analysis, DNA damage and repair assays, and xenograft animal validation studies.

RESULTS

Adjuvant ARSI after RT was significantly more effective at killing colony forming cells and decreasing the transcription and translation of downstream AR-target genes across all prostate cancer models evaluated. These results were reproduced in xenograft studies. The differential effects of ARSI sequencing were not fully explained by NHEJ inhibition alone, but by the additional disruption of homologous recombination specifically with adjuvant sequencing of ARSI.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that altered sequencing of ARSI and RT mediates differential anti-AR-signaling and anti-cancer effects, with the greatest benefit from adjuvant ARSI following RT. These results, combined with our prior clinical findings, support the superiority of an adjuvant-based sequencing approach when using ARSI with RT.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate

PURPOSE

The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system

PURPOSE

Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined.

METHODS

National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated.

RESULTS

Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.

Decision Regret and Bother With the Addition of Androgen Deprivation Therapy to Definitive Radiation Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation treatment (RT) is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for unfavorable intermediate and high-risk localized prostate cancer. Although there is a variable survival benefit conferred by ADT, there are potential side effects to consider for patient decision-making. We aimed to assess the side effects and bother of adding ADT to RT, the degree of regret, and what overall survival (OS) benefit men would want to justify adding or extending the duration of ADT, after their experience with this treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Men receiving ADT with definitive RT completed a questionnaire asking about the side effects and degree of bother from ADT using a 4-point scale. They were also asked about regret, and what survival benefit would warrant ADT.

RESULTS

In the study, 846 patients received definitive RT, of whom 356 received ADT and were asked about their experience with ADT. Of these, 234 responded (66%). In 54%, ADT caused some bother, most commonly hot flushes (32%), fatigue (29%), and sexual problems (29%). Five percent regretted receiving ADT "quite a lot" or "very much." Approximately one-third of men deemed a 1% OS benefit from ADT worthwhile, whereas one-third (34%) would want a >10% OS benefit enough to justify choosing ADT again. In addition, 49% of patients who received short-term ADT would accept longer duration ADT for a 6% OS benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant regret for ADT was low (5%). There was a clear dichotomy between those who deemed any OS benefit from ADT worthwhile versus those who needed a significant survival benefit to justify the side effects. Given that some men may change their opinion on the relative value of ADT after experiencing its effects, this study emphasizes the importance of revisiting patients after 6 months to given patients an opportunity to renegotiate their treatment.

Node Oligorecurrence in Prostate Cancer: A Challenge

Within the oligometastatic state, oligorecurrent lymph node disease in prostate cancer represents an interesting clinical entity characterized by a relatively indolent biology that makes it unique: it can be treated radically, and its treatment is usually associated with a long period of control and excellent survival. Additionally, it is an emergent situation that we are facing more frequently mainly due to (a) the incorporation into clinical practice of the PSMA-PET that provides strikingly increased superior images in comparison to conventional imaging, with higher sensitivity and specificity; (b) the higher detection rates of bone and node disease with extremely low levels of PSA; and (c) the availability of high-precision technology in radiotherapy treatments with the incorporation of stereotaxic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or stereotaxic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) technology that allows the safe administration of high doses of radiation in a very limited number of fractions with low toxicity and excellent tolerance. This approach of new image-guided patient management is compelling for doctors and patients since it can potentially contribute to improving the clinical outcome. In this work, we discuss the available evidence, areas of debate, and potential future directions concerning the utilization of new imaging-guided SBRT for the treatment of nodal recurrence in prostate cancer.

Health Services Research in Brachytherapy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Brachytherapy is an integral component of cancer care. Widespread concerns have been expressed though about the need for greater brachytherapy availability across many jurisdictions. Yet, health services research in brachytherapy has lagged behind that in external beam radiotherapy. Optimal brachytherapy utilisation, to help inform expected demand, have not been defined beyond the New South Wales region in Australia, with few studies having reported observed brachytherapy utilisation. There is also a relative lack of robust cost and cost-effectiveness studies, making investment decisions in brachytherapy even more uncertain and challenging to justify, despite its key role in cancer control. As the range of indications for brachytherapy expands, providing organ/function preservation for a wider range of diagnoses, there is an urgent need to redress this balance. By outlining the work undertaken in this area to date, we highlight its importance and explore where further study is required.

Multi-Institutional Clinical Outcomes of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancers Treated With Contemporary High-Dose Radiation and Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy

AIMS

This multicentric retrospective study reports long-term clinical outcomes of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated across 19 institutions were studied. The key endpoints that were evaluated were 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival, together with EBRT-related acute and late toxicities. The impact of various prognostic factors on the studied endpoints was analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 462 patients, 88% (405) had Gleason 9 disease and 31% (142) had primary Gleason pattern 5. A prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan was used for staging in 33% (153), 80% (371) were staged as T3/T4 and 30% (142) with pelvic nodal disease. The median ADT duration was 24 months; 66% received hypofractionated EBRT and 71.4% (330) received pelvic nodal irradiation. With a median follow-up of 56 months, the 5-year bRFS, MFS and overall survival were 73.1%, 77.4% and 90.5%, respectively. Primary Gleason pattern 5 was associated with worse bRFS, MFS and overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.73, P < 0.001), 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96, P = 0.031) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.97, P = 0.040), respectively, whereas pelvic nodal disease was associated with worse bRFS (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.98, P = 0.039) and MFS (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.85, P = 0.006). The acute and late radiation-related toxicities were low overall and pelvic nodal irradiation was associated with higher toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary EBRT and long-term ADT led to excellent 5-year clinical outcomes and low rates of toxicity in this cohort of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers. Primary Gleason pattern 5 and pelvic node disease portends inferior clinical outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

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

PURPOSE

It remains unknown whether or not short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) improves survival among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 study randomly assigned 1,492 patients with stage T2b-T2c, Gleason score 7, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >10 and ≤20 ng/mL to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or with STAD (arm 2). STAD was 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist therapy plus antiandrogen. RT modalities were external-beam RT alone to 79.2 Gy or external beam (45 Gy) with brachytherapy boost. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), non-PCSM, distant metastases (DMs), PSA failure, and rates of salvage therapy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Two hundred nineteen deaths occurred, 119 in arm 1 and 100 in arm 2. Five-year OS estimates were 90% versus 91%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.11]; P = .22). STAD resulted in reduced PSA failure (HR, 0.52; P <.001), DM (HR, 0.25; P <.001), PCSM (HR, 0.10; P = .007), and salvage therapy use (HR, 0.62; P = .025). Other-cause deaths were not significantly different (P = .56). Acute grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in arm 1 and in 12% for arm 2 (P <.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 AEs was 14% in arm 1 and 15% in arm 2 (P = .29).

CONCLUSION

STAD did not improve OS rates for men with IRPC treated with dose-escalated RT. Improvements in metastases rates, prostate cancer deaths, and PSA failures should be weighed against the risk of adverse events and the impact of STAD on quality of life.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores.

CONCLUSION

Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Salvage radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) is underutilized because of fear of historical high rates of peri-operative morbidities. However, there has been significant improvements in complication rates as well as oncologic outcomes in the recent years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Complication rates have significantly declined for both open and robotic approach in the past decade. Rectal injury is now reported around 2%, which is down from 30% in the historic series. Similarly, the current risk of major vascular injury is low. About 75% of patients report social continence (up to one pad per day). However, erectile function recovery remains poor and patients should be counselled accordingly. Long-term durable oncologic response is achievable with 10-year recurrence-free survival reported in about 40-50% of well selected patients.

SUMMARY

Recent improvements in oncologic and peri-operative outcomes make sRP a desirable option for local control. sRP treats the whole gland as opposed to focal therapies and allows for pelvic lymph node dissection and removal of seminal vesicles, which can be sanctuary site of disease. In experienced hands, regardless of the surgical approach, sRP can achieve a durable response resulting in delaying or avoiding androgen deprivation therapy and its associated morbidities.

ESTRO-ACROP recommendations for evidence-based use of androgen deprivation therapy in combination with external-beam radiotherapy in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is no consensus concerning the appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) during primary and postoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Thus, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines seeks to present current recommendations for the clinical use of ADT in the various indications of EBRT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE PubMed that evaluated EBRT and ADT in prostate cancer. The search focused on randomized, Phase II and III trials published in English from January 2000 to May 2022. In case topics were addressed in the absence of Phase II or III trials, recommendations were labelled accordingly based on the limited body of evidence. Localized PCa was classified according to D'Amico et al. classification in low-, intermediate and high risk PCa. The ACROP clinical committee identified 13 European experts who discussed and analyzed the body of evidence concerning the use of ADT with EBRT for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Key issues were identified and are discussed: It was concluded that no additional ADT is recommended for low-risk prostate cancer patients, whereas for intermediate- and high-risk patients four to six months and two to three years of ADT are recommended. Likewise, patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are recommended to receive ADT for two to three years and when ≥ 2 high-risk factors (cT3-4, ISUP grade ≥ 4 or PSA ≥ 40 ng/ml) or cN1 is present ADT for three years plus additional Abiraterone for two years is recommended. For postoperative patients no ADT is recommended for adjuvant EBRT in pN0 patients whereas for pN1 patients adjuvant EBRT with long-term ADT is performed for at least 24 to 36 months. In the setting of salvage EBRT ADT is performed in biochemically persistent PCa patients with no evidence of metastatic disease. Long-term ADT (24 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with high risk of further progression (PSA ≥ 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group ≥ 4) and a life expectancy of over ten years, whereas short-term ADT (6 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with lower risk profile (PSA < 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group 4). Patients considered for ultra-hypofractionated EBRT as well as patients with image based local recurrence within the prostatic fossa or lymph node recurrence should participate in appropriate clinical trials evaluating the role of additional ADT.

CONCLUSION

These ESTRO-ACROP recommendations are evidence-based and relevant to the use of ADT in combination with EBRT in PCa for the most common clinical settings.

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.

Stereotactic prostate radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy, study protocol for a phase III, multi-institutional randomized-controlled trial

Objective

The therapeutic landscape for localized prostate cancer (PC) is evolving. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) has been reported to be at least not inferior to standard radiotherapy, but the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in this setting is still unknown and its use is left to clinical judgment. There is therefore the need to clarify the role of ADT in association with SRT, which is the aim of the present study.

Methods

We present a study protocol for a randomized, multi-institutional, Phase III clinical trial, designed to study SRT in unfavorable intermediate and a subclass of high-risk localized PC. Patients (pts) will be randomized 1:1 to SRT + ADT or SRT alone. SRT will consists in 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions, ADT will be a single administration of Triptorelin 22.5 mg concurrent to SRT. Primary end point will be biochemical disease-free survival. Secondary end points will be disease-free survival, freedom from local recurrence, freedom from regional recurrence, freedom from distant metastasis and overall survival (OS); quality of life QoL and patient reported outcomes will be an exploratory end point and will be scored with EPIC-26, EORTC PR 25, IPSS, IIEF questionnaires in SRT + ADT and SRT alone arms. Moreover, clinician reported acute and late toxicity, assessed with CTCAE v. 5.0 scales will be safety end points.

Results

Sample size is estimated of 310 pts. For acute toxicity and quality of life results are awaited after 6 months since last patient in, whereas, for efficacy end points and late toxicity mature results will be available 3-5 years after last patient in.

Conclusion

Evidence is insufficient to guide decision making concerning ADT administration in the new scenario of prostate ultra-hypofractionation. Hence, the need to investigate the ADT role in SRT specific setting.

Advances in knowledge

The stereotactic prostate radiotherapy with or without ADT trial (SPA Trial) has been designed to establish a new standard of care for SRT in localized unfavorable intermediate and a subclass of localized high risk PC.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN)

CONTEXT

The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium

BACKGROUND

The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.

Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates

BACKGROUND

We tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non-organ-confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable-risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of radiotherapy (RT) and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2015). Proportions of (a) upgrading, (b) upstaging, or (c) upgrading and/or upstaging were tabulated and tested in multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 7269 IU PCa patients. Upgrading was recorded in 479 (6.6%) and upstaging in 2398 (33.0%), for a total of 2616 (36.0%) upgraded and/or upstaged patients, who no longer fulfilled the IU grade and stage definition. Prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores, neither individually nor in multivariable logistic regression models, discriminated between upgraded and/or upstaged patients versus others.

CONCLUSIONS

IU PCa patients showed very high (36%) upgrading and/or upstaging proportion. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those were upstaged to NOC. Conversely, very few were upgraded to GGG ≥ 4. In consequence, more than one-third of IU PCa patients treated with RT may be exposed to suboptimal dose and/or type of RT and to insufficient duration of ADT, since their true grade and stage corresponded to high-risk PCa definition, instead of IU PCa. Data about magnetic resonance imaging were not available but may potentially help with better stage discrimination.

Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial

PURPOSE

CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ2 trend test.

RESULTS

Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.

The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) Score Is Associated With Metastasis After Radiation Therapy and Provides Guidance on When to Forgo Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Dose-Escalated Radiation

PURPOSE

The clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score, which combines the University of California, San Francisco's Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) and the cell cycle progression (CCP) molecular score, has been validated to be prognostic of disease progression for men with prostate cancer. This study evaluated the ability of the CCR score to prognosticate the risk of metastasis in men receiving dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study included men with localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk prostate cancer (N = 741). Patients were treated with dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. The primary outcome was time to metastasis.

RESULTS

The CCR score prognosticated metastasis with a hazard ratio (HR) per unit score of 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.89; P < .001). The CCR score better prognosticated metastasis than NCCN risk group (CCR, P < .001; NCCN, P = .46), CAPRA score (CCR, P = .002; CAPRA, P = .59), or CCP score (CCR, P < .001; CCP, P = .59) alone. In bivariable analyses, CCR score remained highly prognostic when accounting for ADT versus no ADT (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.61-2.96; P < .001), ADT duration as a continuous variable (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.59-2.79; P < .001), or ADT given at or below the recommended duration for each NCCN risk group (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.69-2.86; P < .001). Men with CCR scores below or above the multimodality threshold (CCR score, 2.112) had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7% and 21.24%, respectively. Men with below-threshold scores receiving RT alone had a 10-year risk of metastasis of 3.7%, and for men receiving RT plus ADT, the 10-year risk of metastasis was also 3.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCR score accurately and precisely prognosticates metastasis and adds clinically actionable information relative to guideline-recommended therapies based on NCCN risk in men undergoing dose-escalated RT with or without ADT. For men with scores below the multimodality threshold, adding ADT may not significantly reduce their 10-year risk of metastasis.

Stereotactic Radiation Therapy versus Brachytherapy: Relative Strengths of Two Highly Efficient Options for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a valid option for the treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. In randomized trials, it was found not inferior to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). It also compares favorably to brachytherapy (BT) even if level 1 evidence is lacking. However, BT remains a strong competitor, especially for young patients, as series with 10-15 years of median follow-up have proven its efficacy over time. SBRT will thus have to confirm its effectiveness over the long-term as well. SBRT has the advantage over BT of less acute urinary toxicity and, more hypothetically, less sexual impairment. Data are limited regarding SBRT for high-risk disease while BT, as a boost after EBRT, has demonstrated superiority against EBRT alone in randomized trials. However, patients should be informed of significant urinary toxicity. SBRT is under investigation in strategies of treatment intensification such as combination of EBRT plus SBRT boost or focal dose escalation to the tumor site within the prostate. Our goal was to examine respective levels of evidence of SBRT and BT for the treatment of localized prostate cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes, toxicity and quality of life, and to discuss strategies of treatment intensification.

Evolution of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and Its New Emerging Modalities in Prostate Cancer: An Update for Practicing Urologists, Clinicians and Medical Providers

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the main management strategy for prostate cancer for more than eight decades, nowadays achieved commonly by administration of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists. ADT markedly suppresses androgen hormones with the long-term risks of adverse events such as muscle weakness, impairment of glucose and lipid metabolism, impotence, osteoporosis, and secondary fractures. Extensive research has provided significantly better insight into the dynamics of ADT including identification of the benefits of sequential and combination therapies. This has led to the development of new pharmaceutical ADT modalities. This review provides a general overview of the evolution of ADT in the context of the new emerging pharmaceutical ADT modalities so that clinicians and medical providers have a better understanding of personalizing the available ADT options with their different risk-benefit profiles.

Outcomes of Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated With External-Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone

BACKGROUND

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer currently recommend several definitive radiotherapy (RT) options for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) prostate cancer: external-beam RT (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost with or without ADT. However, brachytherapy alone with or without ADT is not well defined and is currently not recommended for UIR prostate cancer. We hypothesized that men treated with brachytherapy with or without ADT have comparable survival rates to men treated with EBRT with or without ADT.

METHODS

A total of 31,783 men diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with UIR prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed from the National Cancer Database. Men were stratified into 4 groups: EBRT (n=12,985), EBRT plus ADT (n=12,960), brachytherapy (n=4,535), or brachytherapy plus ADT (n=1,303). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for covariable imbalances, and weight-adjusted multivariable analysis (MVA) using Cox regression modeling was used to compare overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Relative to EBRT alone, the following treatments were associated with improved OS: EBRT plus ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P=.002), brachytherapy alone (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; P=.01), and brachytherapy plus ADT (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P=.00006). Brachytherapy correlated with improved OS relative to EBRT in men who were not treated with ADT (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99; P=.03) and in those receiving ADT (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P=.004). At 10-year follow-up, 56% and 63% of men receiving EBRT and brachytherapy, respectively, were alive (P<.0001). IPTW was used to determine the average treatment effect of definitive brachytherapy. Relative to EBRT, definitive brachytherapy correlated with improved OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P=.009) on weight-adjusted MVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. The addition of ADT to both EBRT and definitive brachytherapy was associated with improved OS. These results suggest that definitive brachytherapy should be considered as an option for men with UIR prostate cancer.

Outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: a single-institutional study

BACKGROUND

There are few reports from Japan about the outcomes of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. This study was aimed at assessing the efficacy and toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the data, retrieved from our institutional database, of patients who had received intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer at a radiation dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions. Data of 201 patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and 311 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period after the completion of intensity-modulated radiation therapy was 100 months (range, 24-154). The rates of cause-specific survival, overall survival, metastasis-free survival and biochemical recurrence-free survival in the intermediate-risk patients were 99, 95, 95 and 94% at 5 years and 99, 91, 90 and 86% at 8 years, respectively; the corresponding rates in the high-risk patients were 100, 97, 91 and 84% at 5 years and 96, 92, 84 and 76% at 8 years, respectively. The crude incidence of late grade 2-3 genitourinary toxicity was 28.1%, and that of late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was 2.0%. The crude incidence of late grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was 5.1%, and there were no cases of late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrated that intensity-modulated radiation therapy is effective for patients with localized intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer while having minimal toxicity.

NEAR trial: A single-arm phase II trial of neoadjuvant apalutamide monotherapy and radical prostatectomy in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Treatment efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy with radical prostatectomy for intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer is less well-studied. The NEAR trial is a single-arm, phase II investigation of neoadjuvant apalutamide monotherapy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in the treatment of D'Amico intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (NCT03124433).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with histologically-proven, D'Amico intermediate- to high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma received apalutamide 240 mg once-daily for 12 weeks followed by RP + /-lymphadenectomy. Primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR) rate. Secondary outcomes included rate of biochemical response (defined by PSA < 0.03 ng/mL at week 24 from starting apalutamide without subsequent PSA relapse), treatment-related adverse events, and RP complication rates. Correlative biomarker analyses were performed to examine for molecular predictors of treatment responses.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2019, 30 patients were recruited, of which 20 and 10 were high and intermediate risk, respectively; 25 completed treatment as per-protocol. We did not observe any pCR on trial; median reduction of cancer burden was 41.7% (IQR: 33.3%-60.0%). 18 out of 25 patients were classified as having a biochemical response (4 did not achieve PSA of <0.03 ng/mL at week 24 and 3 developed PSA relapse subsequently). Dry skin (N = 16; 53.3%), fatigue (N = 10; 33.3%) and skin rash (N = 9; 30.0%) were the most common adverse events, and there was no major peri-operative complication. We observed an association between tumours of low androgen receptor activity and PAM50 basal status with biochemical non-responders, albeit these molecular phenotypes were not associated with pathological response.

CONCLUSIONS

A 12-week course of neoadjuvant apalutamide prior to RP did not meet the primary endpoint of pCR in this trial. Tumours with low androgen receptor activity or of the PAM50 basal subtype may have a reduced response to apalutamide.

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.

Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for the treatment of prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues is standard treatment for intermediate and advanced prostate cancer. GnRH agonist therapy results in an initial testosterone flare, and increased metabolic and cardiovascular risks. The GnRH antagonist relugolix is able to reduce serum testosterone levels in men with prostate cancer without inducing testosterone flare. In the HERO Phase III trial, relugolix was superior to leuprolide acetate at rapidly reducing testosterone and continuously suppressing testosterone, with faster post-treatment recovery of testosterone levels. Relugolix was associated with a 54% lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events than leuprolide acetate. As the first oral GnRH antagonist approved for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, relugolix offers a new treatment option.

Influence of Timing Between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy in Patients With Localized, High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) is the nonsurgical standard-of-care for patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC), but the optimal timing between ADT and RT initiation is unknown. We evaluate the influence of timing between ADT and RT on outcomes in patients with HR-PC using a large national cancer database.

Methods and Materials

Data for patients with clinical T1-T4 N0, M0, National Cancer Comprehensive Network HR-PC who were treated with definitive external RT (≥60 Gy) and ADT starting either before or within 14 days after RT start were extracted from the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). Patients were grouped on the basis of ADT initiation: (1) >11 weeks before RT, (2) 8 to 11weeks before RT, and (3) <8 weeks before RT. Kaplan-Meier, propensity score matching, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate overall survival (OS).

Results

With a median follow-up of 68.9 months, 37,606 patients with HR-PC were eligible for analysis: 13,346 (35.5%) with >11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT, 11,456 (30.5%) with 8 to 11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT; and 12,804 (34%) patients with <8 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. The unadjusted 10-year OS rates for >11 weeks, 8 to 11 weeks, and <8 weeks neoadjuvant ADT groups were 49.9%, 51.2%, and 46.9%, respectively (P = .002). On multivariable and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, there was a significant OS advantage for patients in the 8 to 11 weeks neoadjuvant ADT group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.95; P < .001) but not the >11 weeks group.

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant ADT initiation 8 to 11 weeks before RT is associated with significantly improved OS compared with shorter neoadjuvant ADT duration. Although prospective validation is warranted, this analysis is the largest retrospective study suggesting an influence of timing between ADT and RT initiation in HR-PC.

125I Interstitial brachytherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy among unfavorable-intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To determine if patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR), high-risk (HR), or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We reviewed our institutional database of patients with UIR, HR, or VHR PCa, per 2018 NCCN risk classification, treated with definitive ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy with or without ADT from 1998-2017. Outcomes including biochemical failure (bF), distant metastases (DM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) was analyzed with Fine-Gray competing-risk regression.

RESULTS

Of 1033 patients, 262 (25%) received ADT and 771 (75%) did not. Median ADT duration was 6 months. By risk group, 764 (74%) patients were UIR, 219 (21%) HR, and 50 (5%) VHR. ADT was more frequently given to HR (50%) and VHR (56%) patients compared to UIR (16%; p<0.001), to older patients (p<0.001), corresponding with increasing PSA (p<0.001) and Grade Group (p<0.001). Median follow-up was 4.9 years (0.3-17.6 years). On multivariable analysis accounting for risk group, age, and year of treatment, ADT was not associated with bF, DM, PCSM, or OS (p≥0.05 each).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa, the addition of ADT to ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy was not associated with improved outcomes, and no subgroup demonstrated benefit. Our findings do not support the use of ADT in combination with ¹²⁵I interstitial brachytherapy. Prospective studies are required to elucidate the role of ADT for patients with UIR, HR, and VHR PCa treated with prostate brachytherapy.

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials

Background

The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians’ input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated.

Results

Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and − 13 to − 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and − 10 to − 5 for deterioration.

Conclusions

Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08609-7.

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.

The risk of death from prostate cancer in men with Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer treated using brachytherapy with or without a short course of androgen deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether intermediate-risk factors, in addition to age, were associated with risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among men with Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 1,920 men with Gleason 3+4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate who received brachytherapy (BT) or BT and a median of 4 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Separate multivariable Fine and Gray competing risks regression models among men treated with BT or BT and ADT were used to assess whether percentage of positive biopsies (PPB), cT2b-T2c stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10.1-20.0 ng/ml, and age >70 years (median) were associated with risk of PCSM after adjustment for comorbidity.

RESULTS

After median follow-up of 7.8 years, 284 men (14.8%) had died (31 from prostate cancer). For BT alone, increasing PPB, PSA of 10.1-20.0 vs. 4.0-10.0 ng/mL, and age >70 vs. ≤70 were significantly associated with increased risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.015, 95% confidence interval 1.000-1.031, P = 0.048; 5.55, 2.01-15.29, P<0.001; and 3.66, 1.16-11.56, P = 0.03, respectively). The respective results for BT and ADT were 1.009, 0.987-1.031, P = 0.44; 4.17, 1.29-13.50, P = 0.02; and 3.74, 0.87-16.05, P = 0.08.

CONCLUSION

Among men with Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer treated with BT, the risk of PCSM was elevated in those with PSA of 10.1-20.0 ng/mL and possibly age >70 years, despite the addition of ADT. Should these findings be validated in future studies, then advanced imaging and targeted biopsy of suspicious areas should be investigated in an effort to personalize treatment and minimize the risk of PCSM in these men.

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation in Prostate Cancer: 12-Year Results of EORTC Trial 22991 in Patients With Localized Intermediate-Risk Disease

PURPOSE

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22991 (NCT00021450) showed that 6 months of concomitant and adjuvant androgen suppression (AS) improves event- (EFS, Phoenix) and clinical disease-free survival (DFS) of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostatic carcinoma, treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 70-78 Gy. We report the long-term results in intermediate-risk patients treated with 74 or 78 Gy EBRT, as per current guidelines.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Of 819 patients randomly assigned between EBRT or EBRT plus AS started on day 1 of EBRT, 481 entered with intermediate risk (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997 cT1b-c or T2a with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≤ 7 and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, N0M0) and had EBRT planned at 74 (342 patients, 71.1%) or 78 Gy (139 patients, 28.9%). We report the trial primary end point EFS, DFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat stratified by EBRT dose at two-sided α = 5%.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 92 of 245 patients and 132 of 236 had EFS events in the EBRT plus AS and EBRT arm, respectively, mostly PSA relapse (48.7%) or death (45.1%). EBRT plus AS improved EFS and DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; CI, 0.41 to 0.70; P < .001 and HR = 0.67; CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008). At 10 years, DMFS was 79.3% (CI, 73.4 to 84.0) with EBRT plus AS and 72.7% (CI, 66.2 to 78.2) with EBRT (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.02; P = .065). With 140 deaths (EBRT plus AS: 64; EBRT: 76), 10-year OS was 80.0% (CI, 74.1 to 84.7) with EBRT plus AS and 74.3% (CI, 67.8 to 79.7) with EBRT, but not statistically significantly different (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.04; P = .082).

CONCLUSION

Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS statistically significantly improves EFS and DFS in intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma, treated by irradiation at 74 or 78 Gy. The effects on OS and DMFS did not reach statistical significance.

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

PURPOSE

Two phase 3 randomized controlled trials (OTT-0101, RTOG-9413) and a meta-analysis have shown an impact of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy on oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the impact of sequencing strategy on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is unclear. Here, we present the patient-reported HR-QoL outcomes from the OTT-0101 study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this trial, patients with PCa with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen level <30 ng/mL were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT for 6 months, starting 4 months before or concurrent with prostate radiation therapy, or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months, starting simultaneously with prostate radiation therapy. HR-QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaires. Time until definitive deterioration was defined as time from random allocation to the first deterioration of at least 10 points with no further improvement of ≥10 points or if the patient experienced progression, died, or dropped out after deterioration, resulting in missing data. Stratified log-rank tests were applied for between-group comparisons of time-to-event estimates.

RESULTS

Overall, 393 patients (194 and 199 in the 2 arms, respectively) were evaluable, except 214 (101 and 113 in the 2 arms, respectively) for sexual function. Five-year rates of freedom from definitive deterioration of urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms, and sexual activity were 33.5%, 33.1%, and 38.5% in the neoadjuvant group and 34.1%, 35.4%, and 36.7% in the adjuvant group, respectively, with no significant between-group differences. The adjuvant approach was associated with a reduced risk of definitive deterioration of sexual function (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94; P = .02). With respect to clinical relevance, the mean change in score for sexual function showed only a small to moderate difference favoring the adjuvant group at and beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, no differences were found in the bowel or urinary symptoms between the adjuvant and neoadjuvant approach. Considering a significant likelihood of type I and type II errors and because of a lack of a persistent and clinically meaningful between-group difference in mean score changes over time, our findings do not confer a clear and conclusive picture of the impact of sequencing strategy on sexual function.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy Combined With Particle Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Purpose

There is high-level evidence for addition of androgen deprivation therapy to photon-based radiotherapy of the prostate in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Little is known about the value of ADT in particle therapy of prostate cancer. We are conducting a systematic review on biochemical disease-free survival, overall survival, and morbidity after combined particle therapy and ADT for prostate cancer.

Methods

A thorough search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were conducted, searching for relevant studies. Clinical studies on prostate cancer and the treatment combination of particle therapy and androgen deprivation therapy were included. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021230801).

Results

A total of 298 papers were identified. Fifteen papers reporting on 7,202 patients after proton or carbon-ion therapy for localized prostate cancer where a fraction or all patients received ADT were selected for analysis. Three thousand five hundred and nineteen (49%) of the patients had received combined ADT and particle therapy. Primarily high-risk (87%), to a lesser extent intermediate-risk (34%) and low-risk patients (12%) received ADT. There were no comparative studies on the effect of ADT in patients treated with particles and no studies identified ADT as an independent prognostic factor related to survival outcomes.

Conclusions

The review found no evidence to support that the effects on biochemical disease-free survival and morbidity of combining ADT to particle therapy differs from the ADT effects in conventional photon based radiotherapy. The available data on the topic is limited.

Association of Increased Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels After Treatment and Mortality in Men With Locally Advanced vs Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after treatment (PSA failure) may have different associations with outcomes for men with locally advanced vs localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the association between PSA failure and death may be different in locally advanced vs localized prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study included patients from 2 randomized clinical trials. The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) 95-096 trial randomized 206 men with localized prostate cancer from December 1, 1995, to April 15, 2001, whereas the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22961 trial randomized 970 men with locally advanced prostate cancer from October 30, 1997, to May 1, 2002. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The DFCI 95-096 trial randomized men to 0 vs 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external beam radiotherapy; the EORTC 22961 trial randomized men to 6 vs 36 months of ADT with external beam radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For each trial, the PSA doubling time (time to doubling of PSA levels) associated with PSA failure was evaluated. The risk of all-cause mortality associated with PSA failure (nadir plus 2 definition) was evaluated after adjustment of baseline covariates and treatment.

RESULTS

This analysis included a total of 1173 men (206 from DFCI 95-096 and 967 with available tumor stage from EORTC 22961; median age, 70.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 65.0-74.0 years). For DFCI 95-096, 161 men died (30 [18.6%] due to prostate cancer) at a median follow-up of 18.2 (IQR, 17.3-18.8) years. Among the 108 men with PSA failure, the median PSA doubling time was 13.0 (IQR, 7.4-31.1) months. For EORTC 22961, 230 men died (75 [32.6%] due to prostate cancer) at a median follow-up of 6.4 (IQR, 6.3-6.6) years. Among 290 men who experienced PSA failure, the median PSA doubling time was 5.0 (IQR, 2.9-8.9) months. Compared with DFCI 95-096, PSA failure was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in EORTC 22961 (adjusted hazard ratios, 3.98 [95% CI, 2.92-5.44]; P < .001 vs 1.51 [95% CI, 1.03-2.23]; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The association of PSA failure with outcomes may differ between locally advanced and localized prostate cancer. This finding supports the study of treatment intensification with the use of novel antiandrogen agents in addition to ADT at the time of PSA failure after treatment for locally advanced disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00116220 and NCT00003026.

Genomic Strategies to Personalize Use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Radiotherapy

The use of combination RT and androgen deprivation therapy in many prostate cancer curative-intent treatment scenarios is supported by level 1 evidence. However, in our current clinical paradigm, we have no ability to determine a priori which patients truly benefit from combination therapy and therefore apply the combination RT and androgen deprivation therapy intensification strategy to all patients, which results in overtreatment or undertreatment of the majority of our patients. Genomics has the ability to more deeply and objectively characterize the disease, in turn refining our prognostication capabilities and enabling the individualization of treatments. We review the commercially available prostate cancer genomic tests, focusing on those able to predict patient outcomes following radiotherapy or guide radiotherapy treatment decisions.