A potential biomarker of radiosensitivity in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer patients treated with combination external beam radiotherapy and radium-223

PURPOSE

The ADRRAD trial reported the safety and feasibility of the combination of external beam radiotherapy and radium-223 in the treatment of de novo bone metastatic prostate. This study aimed to determine if any biomarkers predictive of response to these treatments could be identified.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

30 patients with newly diagnosed bone metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer were recruited to the ADRRAD trial. Blood samples were taken pre-treatment, before cycles 2 to 6 of radium-223, and 8 weeks and 6 months after treatment. Mononuclear cells were isolated and DNA damage was assessed at all timepoints.

RESULTS

DNA damage was increased in all patients during treatment, with bigger increases in foci observed in patients who relapsed late compared to those who relapsed early. Increases in DNA damage during the radium-223 only cycles of treatment were specifically related to response in these patients. Analysis of hematology counts also showed bigger decreases in red blood cell and hemoglobin counts in patients who experienced later biochemical relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

While some patients responded to this combination treatment, others relapsed within one year of treatment initiation. This study identifies a biomarker based approach that may be useful in predicting which patients will respond to treatment, by monitoring both increases in DNA damage above baseline levels in circulating lymphocytes and decreases in red blood cell and hemoglobin counts during treatment.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community.

PATIENT SUMMARY

There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

A Randomized Feasibility Trial of Stereotactic Prostate Radiation Therapy With or Without Elective Nodal Irradiation in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer (SPORT Trial)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial comparing SABR with prostate-only (P-SABR) or with prostate plus pelvic lymph nodes (PPN-SABR) in patients with unfavorable intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer and to explore potential toxicity biomarkers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty adult men with at least 1 of the following features were randomized 1:1 to P-SABR or PPN-SABR: clinical magnetic resonance imaging stage T3a N0 M0, Gleason score ≥7 (4+3), and prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL. P-SABR patients received 36.25 Gy/5 fractions/29 days, and PPN-SABR patients received 25 Gy/5 fractions to pelvic nodes, with the final cohort receiving a boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of 45 to 50 Gy. Phosphorylated gamma-H2AX (γH2AX) foci numbers, citrulline levels, and circulating lymphocyte counts were quantified. Acute toxicity information (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03) was collected weekly at each treatment and at 6 weeks and 3 months. Physician-reported late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity was recorded from 90 days to 36 months postcompletion of SABR. Patient-reported quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and International Prostate Symptom Score) scores were recorded with each toxicity time point.

RESULTS

The target recruitment was achieved, and treatment was successfully delivered in all patients. A total of 0% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 6.7% and 20.0% (PPN-SABR) experienced acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity, respectively. At 3 years, 6.7% and 6.7% (P-SABR) and 13.3% and 33.3% (PPN-SABR) had experienced late grade ≥2 GI and GU toxicity, respectively. One patient (PPN-SABR) had late grade 3 GU toxicity (cystitis and hematuria). No other grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. In addition, 33.3% and 60% (P-SABR) and 64.3% and 92.9% (PPN-SABR) experienced a minimally clinically important change in late Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel and urinary summary scores, respectively. γH2AX foci numbers at 1 hour after the first fraction were significantly higher in the PPN-SABR arm compared with the P-SABR arm (P = .04). Patients with late grade ≥1 GI toxicity had significantly greater falls in circulating lymphocytes (12 weeks post-radiation therapy, P = .01) and a trend toward higher γH2AX foci numbers (P = .09) than patients with no late toxicity. Patients with late grade ≥1 bowel toxicity and late diarrhea experienced greater falls in citrulline levels (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A randomized trial comparing P-SABR with PPN-SABR is feasible with acceptable toxicity. Correlations of γH2AX foci, lymphocyte counts, and citrulline levels with irradiated volume and toxicity suggest potential as predictive biomarkers. This study has informed a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial in the United Kingdom.

Ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction using docetaxel and Rose Bengal loaded Microbubbles for targeted Chemo-Sonodynamic therapy treatment of prostate cancer

Docetaxel (DTX) chemotherapy is commonly used in the treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer demonstrating modest improvements in survival. As these patients are often elderly and the chemotherapy treatment is not targeted, it is often poorly tolerated. More targeted approaches that increase therapeutic efficacy yet reduce the amount of toxic chemotherapy administered are needed. In this manuscript, we investigate the potential of ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction (UTMD) to deliver a combination of docetaxel chemotherapy and Rose Bengal mediated sonodynamic therapy (SDT) in pre-clinical prostate cancer models. A Rose Bengal modified phospholipid was synthesized and used as a component lipid to prepare a microbubble (MB) formulation that was also loaded with DTX. The DTX-MB-RB formulation was used in the UTMD mediated treatment of androgen sensitive and androgen resistant 3D spheroid and murine models of prostate cancer. Results from the 3D spheroid experiments showed UTMD mediated DTX-MB-RB chemo-sonodynamic therapy to be significantly more effective at reducing cell viability than UTMD mediated DTX or SDT treatment alone. In an androgen sensitive murine model of prostate cancer, UTMD mediated DTX-MB-RB chemo-sonodynamic therapy was as effective as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at controlling tumour growth. However, when both treatments were combined, a significant improvement in tumour growth delay was observed. In an androgen resistant murine model, UTMD mediated DTX-MB-RB chemo-sonodynamic therapy was significantly more effective than standard DTX monotherapy. Indeed, the DTX dose administered using the DTX-MB-RB formulation was 91% less than standard DTX monotherapy. As a result, UTMD mediated DTX-MB-RB treatment was well tolerated while animals treated with DTX monotherapy displayed significant weight loss which was attributed to acute toxic effects. These results highlight the potential of UTMD mediated DTX-MB-RB chemo-sonodynamic therapy as a targeted, well tolerated alternative treatment for advanced prostate cancer.

Feasibility of home-based exercise training during adjuvant treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (EXACT)

BACKGROUND

Exercise is an effective adjuvant therapy that can alleviate treatment-related toxicities for men with prostate cancer (PC). However, the feasibility of delivering exercise training to men with advanced disease and the wider impact on clinical outcomes remain unknown. The purpose of the EXACT trial was to determine the feasibility and effects of home-based exercise training in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

METHODS

Patients with mCRPC receiving ADT + an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) were prescribed 12 weeks of home-based, remotely monitored, moderate intensity, aerobic and resistance exercise. Feasibility was assessed using recruitment, retention and adherence rates. Safety and adverse events were monitored throughout, with functional and patient-reported outcomes captured at baseline, post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

From the 117 screened, 49 were deemed eligible and approached, with 30 patients providing informed consent (61% recruitment rate). Of those who consented, 28 patients completed baseline assessments, with 24 patients completing the intervention and 22 completing follow-up (retention rates: 86% and 79% respectively). Task completion was excellent throughout, with no intervention-related adverse events recorded. Self-reported adherence to the overall intervention was 82%. Exercise training decreased mean body mass (-1.5%), improved functional fitness (> 10%) and improved several patient-reported outcomes including clinically meaningful changes in fatigue (p = 0.042), FACT-G (p = 0.054) and FACT-P (p = 0.083), all with moderate effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

Home-based exercise training, with weekly remote monitoring, was feasible and safe for men with mCRPC being treated with an ARPI. Given that treatment-related toxicities accumulate throughout the course of treatment, and as a result, negatively impact functional fitness and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), it was positive that exercise training improved or prevented a decline in these clinically important variables and could better equip patients for future treatment. Collectively, these preliminary feasibility findings support the need for a definitive, larger RCT, which downstream may lead to the inclusion of home-based exercise training as part of adjuvant care for mCRPC.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated genetic loci exhibit spatially constrained gene regulatory effects across multiple tissues and immune cell types

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is an autoimmune, inflammatory joint disease with complex genetic etiology. Previous GWAS have found many genetic loci associated with JIA. However, the biological mechanism behind JIA remains unknown mainly because most risk loci are located in non-coding genetic regions. Interestingly, increasing evidence has found that regulatory elements in the non-coding regions can regulate the expression of distant target genes through spatial (physical) interactions. Here, we used information on the 3D genome organization (Hi-C data) to identify target genes that physically interact with SNPs within JIA risk loci. Subsequent analysis of these SNP-gene pairs using data from tissue and immune cell type-specific expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) databases allowed the identification of risk loci that regulate the expression of their target genes. In total, we identified 59 JIA-risk loci that regulate the expression of 210 target genes across diverse tissues and immune cell types. Functional annotation of spatial eQTLs within JIA risk loci identified significant overlap with gene regulatory elements (i.e., enhancers and transcription factor binding sites). We found target genes involved in immune-related pathways such as antigen processing and presentation (e.g., ERAP2, HLA class I and II), the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., LTBR, TYK2), proliferation and differentiation of specific immune cell types (e.g., AURKA in Th17 cells), and genes involved in physiological mechanisms related to pathological joint inflammation (e.g., LRG1 in arteries). Notably, many of the tissues where JIA-risk loci act as spatial eQTLs are not classically considered central to JIA pathology. Overall, our findings highlight the potential tissue and immune cell type-specific regulatory changes contributing to JIA pathogenesis. Future integration of our data with clinical studies can contribute to the development of improved JIA therapy.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival.

METHODS

We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; p_interaction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I² p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial).

INTERPRETATION

Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Integrating radium-223 therapy into the management of metastatic prostate cancer care: a plain language summary

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

Few life-prolonging treatment options are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This article provides an overview of the current systemic treatments available for mCRPC and reviews studies that investigate the optimal timing for the use of radium-223. The aim is to illustrate possible systemic treatment sequences to maximize benefit from radium-223 therapy.

WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER & HOW IS IT TREATED?

Prostate cancer is called mCRPC when it spreads to organs outside of the prostate (such as the lymph nodes, bones, liver, or lungs) and no longer responds to hormonal therapy. There are several treatment options available for mCRPC, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, radium-223, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, olaparib, rucaparib, sipuleucel-T, and 177Lu-PSMA. It is important to understand the risks and benefits associated with each treatment and whether current use may have an impact on future treatment options, including eligibility in certain clinical trials. Maintaining bone health is also an important part of prostate cancer care.

WHAT IS RADIUM-223?

Radium-223 is a radioactive molecule that releases strong radiation within a very small range around itself. It mainly travels to the bone where the prostate cancer has spread and kills the cancer cells in that area. Results from a clinical study named ALSYMPCA showed that men who received radium-223 lived longer in addition to having less bone pain. The most common side effects of radium-223 are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Radium-223 minimally suppresses the bone marrow, which means that it slightly reduces the levels of red and white blood cells.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

10-Year efficacy and co-morbidity outcomes of a phase III randomised trial of conventional vs. hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (CHHiP; CRUK/06/016)

304

Background: Five-year results from the CHHiP trial indicated that moderate hypofractionation of 60 Gray (Gy)/20 fractions (f) was non-inferior to 74Gy/37f (Lancet Oncology, 2016). Reporting of long-term efficacy and side effects is essential in a patient population that remain at risk of recurrence years after treatment. Here we report specific co-morbidity data collected at 10 years and an update of efficacy. Methods: Between October 2002 and June 2011, 3216 men with node negative T1b-T3a localised prostate cancer with risk of seminal vesical involvement ≤30% were randomised (1:1:1 ratio) to 74Gy/37f (control), 60Gy/20f or 57Gy/19f. Patients received 3-6 months of androgen deprivation prior to radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure (Phoenix consensus guidelines) or clinical failure (BCF). The non-inferiority design specified a critical hazard ratio (HR) of 1.208 for each hypofractionated schedule compared to control. Data on specific radiotherapy related co-morbidities were collected at 10-year follow-up and are presented as frequency and percentages. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; HRs quoted are unadjusted. Results: With a median follow up of 12.1 years, 10-year BCF-free rates (95% CI) were 74Gy: 76.0% (73.1%, 78.6%); 60Gy: 79.8% (77.1%, 82.3%) and 57Gy: 73.4% (70.5%, 76.1%). For 60Gy/20f, non-inferiority was confirmed: HR60=0.84 (90% CI 0.72, 0.97) with borderline significance for superiority (HR=0.84 (95% CI 0.70, 1.00). As in the primary analysis, for 57Gy/19f, non-inferiority could not be declared: HR57=1.13 (90% CI 0.98, 1.30). 10-year overall survival (95% CI) was 78.5% (75.9%, 81.0%), 82.9% (80.4%, 85.0%) and 79.9% (77.3%, 82.2%) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups. Bone fractures were reported in 2% (15/700), 2% (19/771) and 3% (22/719) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively at 10 years. The most common intervention reported was a sigmoidoscopy with 12% (79/681), 8% (60/739) and 9% (65/702) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively. Of those patients who underwent a sigmoidoscopy it was due to symptoms for 81% (63/78) 81% (48/59) and 85% (55/65) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy group respectively. Frequencies of all other pre-specified co-morbidities or related interventions (ureteric obstruction, bowel strictures, trans-urethral resection of prostate, urethrotomy, urethral dilatation or long term catheterisation or treatment of proctopathy with steroid, sucralfate, formalin, laser coagulation or rectal diversion) were <1% in all groups. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 12 years, oncological outcomes following 60Gy/20f continue to be non-inferior to those with 74Gy/37f. Late co-morbidities were very low across all treatment groups. These data support the long-term safety of moderate hypofractionation. Clinical trial information: 97182923 .

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10^-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival.

METHODS

Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) decline and overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with radium-223 (Ra-223) in the REASSURE study

5041

Background: Ra-223 extends OS in pts with mCRPC. Predictive markers of response to Ra-223 are needed to help select pts who would benefit most from Ra-223 therapy. The ALSYMPCA study suggested a correlation between ALP decline and longer OS. Here, we evaluated whether ALP decline is associated with OS in the global real-world REASSURE study. Methods: Pts treated with Ra-223 were grouped by baseline ALP ≤147 U/L vs >147 U/L and any ALP decline vs no decline at week 12 from the first Ra-223 dose. The 147 U/L cut-off was selected based on the highest upper limit of normal for ALP from literature. Pts with a trend of decreasing ALP at closest value to week 12 between weeks 8 and 16 were included in the any decline group. Association of ALP decline with OS was assessed in the ≤147 U/L and >147 U/L groups separately. Median OS is provided with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]). Multivariate Cox models provided adjusted HRs (95% CI) for the association of ALP decline with OS. Some baseline covariates were not included in the models due to missing data. Results: 785 of 1465 pts had baseline ALP measurements, of whom 779 had week 12 ALP measurements: 443 had ≤147 U/L and 336 >147 U/L. In the ≤147 U/L group, median OS was 23.0 months (m) (95% CI 20.9–25.7) in pts with ALP decline (n=329) and 16.4 m (95% CI 14.1–20.4) in pts with no decline (n=114). In the >147 U/L group, median OS was 12.9 m (95% CI 11.7–14.3) in pts with ALP decline (n=295) and 8.1 m (95% CI 5.6–10.3) in pts with no decline (n=41). Comparison of unadjusted and adjusted HRs is shown in the Table. Conclusions: Pts with an ALP decline in first 12 weeks of Ra-223 treatment had longer OS. The effect of other baseline variables, including age, PSA, Hgb and prior treatments, provided adjustment but did not change this outcome. [Table: see text]

Modulating Tumour Hypoxia in Prostate Cancer Through Exercise: The Impact of Redox Signalling on Radiosensitivity

Prostate cancer is a complex disease affecting millions of men globally. Radiotherapy (RT) is a common treatment modality although treatment efficacy is dependent upon several features within the tumour microenvironment (TME), especially hypoxia. A hypoxic TME heightens radioresistance and thus disease recurrence and treatment failure continues to pose important challenges. However, the TME evolves under the influence of factors in systemic circulation and cellular crosstalk, underscoring its potential to be acutely and therapeutically modified. Early preclinical evidence suggests exercise may affect tumour growth and some of the benefits drawn, could act to radiosensitise tumours to treatment. Intracellular perturbations in skeletal muscle reactive oxygen species (ROS) stimulate the production of numerous factors that can exert autocrine, paracrine, and endocrine effects on the prostate. However, findings supporting this notion are limited and the associated mechanisms are poorly understood. In light of this preclinical evidence, we propose systemic changes in redox signalling with exercise activate redox-sensitive factors within the TME and improve tumour hypoxia and treatment outcomes, when combined with RT. To this end, we suggest a connection between exercise, ROS and tumour growth kinetics, highlighting the potential of exercise to sensitise tumour cells to RT, and improve treatment efficacy.

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE

Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices.

METHODS

A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

Identifying patient profiles and mapping the patient journey across three countries in a large-scale, fully digital survey of patients with prostate cancer

16

Background: A survey of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) was conducted to map their experiences, expectations and attitudes, and to identify challenges and unmet needs in diagnosis, therapy patterns, care teams, quality of life (QoL), patient organizations and resources. Here, we describe the initial survey results and explore differences in diagnosis and therapy patterns between 3 countries. Methods: Don’tBePatient Intelligence conducted a large survey in patients with non-metastatic (M−) and metastatic (M+) PCa in Germany (DE), the UK and the US from Feb 9–Apr 10, 2021 in collaboration with patient organizations and medical experts. Recruitment was through social media advertising and patient organizations. Data were evaluated using descriptive and advanced statistics. Results: Of 33,882 survey starters, 15,824 completed, split 50.1%/49.9% in rural/urban areas. In DE/US, diagnosis through healthcare screening was more frequent than in the UK (M−/M+: DE 77%/58%; UK 42%/21%; US 77%/63%) where a higher percentage of symptomatic diagnosis was recorded (M−/M+: DE 18%/39%; UK 49%/75%; US 12%/31%). Prostatectomy was the predominant therapy in M− PCa in DE/US (71%/57%). In the UK, radiotherapy was slightly more frequent than prostatectomy (48% vs. 41%) and active surveillance was more common than in DE/US (14% vs. 6%/9%). Hormone therapy was the most common therapy in M+ PCa in all countries (DE 65%; UK 77%; US 73%). Chemotherapy was received by < 2% of patients with M− PCa in all countries but was more frequent in M+ PCa in the UK than DE/US (38% vs. 21%/27%; table). Satisfaction levels were generally high (> 80%) for all therapies in all countries. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the largest digital survey conducted in patients with PCa, allowing identification of unmet needs in the patient journey. Preliminary data suggest that rates of screening are lower in the UK than DE/US; this may correlate with the higher rate of symptomatic and potentially later-stage diagnosis, highlighting the role of routine screening. Relatively low active surveillance rates in DE/US may reflect a lower likelihood of men with M− versus M+ PCa to respond to the survey. Further analyses will include impact of differences in patient journey, trust in healthcare professionals, access to information, involvement with patient advocacy groups and QoL. [Table: see text]

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.

METHODS

These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Dose estimation after a mixed field exposure: Radium-223 and intensity modulated radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Radium-223 dichloride ([²²³Ra]RaCl₂), a radiopharmaceutical that delivers α-particles to regions of bone metastatic disease, has been proven to improve overall survival of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). mCRPC patients enrolled on the ADRRAD clinical trial are treated with a mixed field exposure comprising radium-223 (²²³Ra) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). While absorbed dose estimation is an important step in the characterisation of wider systemic radiation risks in nuclear medicine, uncertainties remain for novel radiopharmaceuticals such as ²²³Ra.

METHODS

24-Colour karyotyping was used to quantify the spectrum of chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes of ADRRAD patients at incremental times during their treatment. Dicentric equivalent frequencies were used in standard models for estimation of absorbed blood dose. To account for the mixed field nature of the treatment, existing models were used to determine the ratio of the component radiation types. Additionally, a new approach (M-FISH_LET), based on the ratio of cells containing damage consistent with high-LET exposure (complex chromosomal exchanges) and low-LET exposure (simple exchanges), was used as a pseudo ratio for ²²³Ra:IMRT dose.

RESULTS

Total IMRT estimated doses delivered to the blood after completion of mixed radiotherapy (after 37 IMRT fractions and two [²²³Ra]RaCl₂ injections) were in the range of 1.167 ± 0.092 and 2.148 ± 0.096 Gy (dose range across all models applied). By the last treatment cycle analysed in this study (four [²²³Ra]RaCl₂ injections), the total absorbed ²²³Ra dose to the blood was estimated to be between 0.024 ± 0.027 and 0.665 ± 0.080 Gy, depending on the model used. Differences between the models were observed, with the observed dose variance coming from inter-model as opposed to inter-patient differences. The M-FISH_LET model potentially overestimates the ²²³Ra absorbed blood dose by accounting for further PBL exposure in the vicinity of metastatic sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The models presented provide initial estimations of cumulative dose received during incremental IMRT fractions and [²²³Ra]RaCl₂ injections, which will enable improved understanding of the doses received by individual patients. While the M-FISH_LET method builds on a well-established technique for external exposures, further consideration is needed to evaluate this method and its use in assessing non-targeted exposure by ²²³Ra after its localization at bone metastatic sites.

Hormone therapy use and the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy is widely used in prostate cancer. However, studies have raised concerns that hormone therapy, particularly the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, could increase the risk of acute kidney injury.

METHODS

Men newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer, from 2012 to 2017, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. A matched comparison cohort of prostate cancer-free men was also identified. Hormone therapy use was determined from the Prescribing Information System in Scotland. The primary outcome was hospitalisations with acute kidney injury taken from Scottish hospital records (SMR01) up to June 2019. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for acute kidney injury by hormone therapy use.

RESULTS

The prostate cancer cohort contained 10,751 patients followed for 41,997 person years, during which there were 618 hospitalisations with acute kidney injury. Prostate cancer patients had higher rates of acute kidney injury compared with cancer-free controls (adjusted HR = 1.47 95% CI 1.29, 1.69). However, prostate cancer patients currently using hormone therapy (adjusted HR = 1.14 95% CI 0.92, 1.41), including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (adjusted HR = 1.13 95% CI 0.90, 1.40), did not appear to have a marked increase in acute kidney injury compared with prostate cancer patients not using hormone therapy after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, there was little evidence that gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists were associated with marked increases in acute kidney injury.

Impact of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Results up to 5 yr in the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016)

BACKGROUND

Moderate hypofractionation is the recommended standard of care for localised prostate cancer following the results of trials including Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP). Evaluation of long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is important to confirm safety and enhance patient information.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether 5-yr PROs from the CHHiP quality of life (QoL) substudy confirm 2-yr findings and assess patterns over follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A phase III randomised controlled trial recruited from 2002 to 2011. The QoL substudy completed accrual in 2009; participants were followed up to 5 yr after radiotherapy. Analyses used data snapshot taken on August 26, 2016. A total of 71 radiotherapy centres were included in the study (UK, Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, and New Zealand); all 57 UK centres participated in the QoL substudy. CHHiP recruited 3216 men with localised prostate cancer (cT1b-T3aN0M0).

INTERVENTION

Conventional (74 Gy/37 fractions/7.4 wk) or hypofractionated radiotherapy (60 Gy/20 fractions/4 wk or 57 Gy/19 fractions/3.8 wk) was delivered with intensity-modulated techniques.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, Short Form 36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and Short Form 12 questionnaires were administered at baseline, before radiotherapy, at 10 wk, and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 mo after radiotherapy. The QoL primary endpoint was overall bowel bother.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The QoL substudy recruited 2100 patients; 1141 5-yr forms were available from 1957 patients still alive (58%). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-yr prevalence of overall "moderate or big" bowel bother: 19/349 (5.4%), 29/381 (7.6%), and 21/393 (5.3%) for 74, 60, and 57 Gy, respectively; overall urinary or sexual bother at 5 yr was similar between schedules. Bowel and urinary symptoms remained stable from 2 to 5 yr for all schedules. Some evidence of worsening overall sexual bother from baseline to 5 yr was less likely in the hypofractionated schedules compared with 74 Gy (odds ratios for increase in bother score vs 74 Gy: 0.55 [0.30-0.99], p = 0.009 for 60 Gy, and 0.52 [0.29-0.94], p = 0.004 for 57 Gy). General QoL scores were similar between schedules at 5 yr.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer follow-up confirms earlier findings, with similar patient-reported bowel, urinary, and sexual problems between schedules overall. The continued low incidence of moderate or high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionation should be the standard of care for intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at patient-reported outcomes up to 5 yr after treatment in a trial of different radiotherapy schedules for prostate cancer. The findings confirmed that shorter radiotherapy schedules were as safe as standard radiotherapy in terms of bowel, urinary, and sexual problems. TAKE  HOME MESSAGE: Bowel, urinary, and sexual symptoms were similar between schedules up to 5 yr. The continued low incidence of moderate/high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered the standard of care for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

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.

Abstract 3054: Synergistic activity of DNA damage response kinase inhibitors in combination with the targeted alpha therapy radium-223 dichloride for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223, Xofigo®) is the first approved α-particle-emitting radionuclide for the treatment of symptomatic bone metastases in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with no known evidence of visceral metastases. Ra-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially binds with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite at areas of high bone turnover, such as bone metastases. This highly localized radiotherapy causes a high frequency of unrepairable double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs), resulting in a potent antitumor effect on bone metastases. Recent evidence has suggested that patients with mutations in the DNA damage response pathway (DDR), may have differential outcomes to Ra-223 treatment (1).DDR comprises a dynamic network of signaling pathways for the maintenance of genomic integrity. Ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and Rad3-related (ATR) are critical proteins which orchestrate the DDR and their activation is dependent on the type of DNA lesion. ATM is the primary responder to DSBs whilst ATR is activated by a range of lesions including single strand DNA structures at resected ends of DBSs and after replication fork stalling. In this study, we evaluated the impact of combining DDR kinase inhibitors with Ra-223 to investigate whether a greater radiosensitization response occurs in comparison to standard X-rays in PC3 and DU145 human prostate cell lines and normal prostate epithelial RWPE-1 cells. Cell assays including clonogenic survival, DNA damage assays and flow cytometry were used to assess the effect of DDR kinase inhibitors in combination with ionizing radiation. Cells were pre-treated with DDR inhibitors one-hour before exposure to 2Gy X-rays or an equivalent dose of 0.25Gy Ra-223. Our data show that, in all prostate models, DDR kinase inhibitors in combination with Ra-223 significantly enhanced radiosensitivity (p&lt;0.005) response in comparison to combined treatment with X-rays. Furthermore, a greater quantity of residual DSBs at 24 hours post combination treatment was observed after Ra-223 exposure in comparison to X-ray exposure (p&lt;0.001). Promisingly, this combined treatment had minimal effect on RWPE-1 normal cells. Our findings strongly support the combination of DNA damage induction by Ra-223 with DDR kinase inhibitors as a novel potential treatment option for mCRPC patients in order to improve clinical outcome.

{{References}}:1.Velho PI, Qazi F, Hassan S, et al. Efficacy of Radium-223 in Bone-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer with and Without Homologous Repair Gene Defects. European Urology. 2019; 76: 170-176.

Citation Format: Victoria L. Dunne, Timothy Wright, Francisco Liberal, Joe M. O'Sullivan, Kevin M. Prise. Synergistic activity of DNA damage response kinase inhibitors in combination with the targeted alpha therapy radium-223 dichloride for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 3054.

Toxicity and Efficacy of Concurrent Androgen Deprivation Therapy, Pelvic Radiotherapy, and Radium-223 in Patients with De Novo Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide associated with overall survival (OS) improvement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to prostate extends OS in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) limited to less than 4 metastases. We hypothesized that combination radium-223 + pelvic EBRT could safely deliver maximal radiotherapy doses to primary and metastatic prostate cancer and may improve disease control.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with de novo bone metastatic mHSPC who had commenced androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel were recruited to this single-arm, open-label, prospective clinical trial: Neo-adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy, Pelvic Radiotherapy and RADium-223 (ADRRAD; for new presentation T1-4 N0-1 M1B adenocarcinoma of prostate). Study treatments were: ADT, 6 cycles of radium-223 q28 days, conventionally fractionated prostate radiotherapy (74 Gy) and simultaneous integrated boost to pelvic lymph nodes (60 Gy).

RESULTS

No grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Three patients experienced grade 3 leukopenia, and 1 each experienced grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia; all were asymptomatic. One patient each experienced grade 3 dysuria and grade 3 urinary infection. No grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. On treatment completion, there was a signal of efficacy; 24 (80%) patients had whole-body MRI evidence of tumor response or stability. Twenty-seven (90%) patients showed a reduction in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) compared with pretreatment levels. Median progression-free survival was 20.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first trial of combination ADT, radium-223, and EBRT to pelvis, post docetaxel. The combination was safe, with an efficacy signal. Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) are warranted.

The stereotactic prostate radiotherapy (SPORT) trial: A randomized feasibility study comparing prostate SABR to prostate and pelvic nodal SABR

248

Background: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat low/intermediate risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). However, data on SABR +/- pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) in high-risk disease is limited to single institution, single-arm studies. The Stereotactic Prostate Radiotherapy (SPORT) trial examined the feasibility of delivering a randomised trial of SABR ± PNI. The composite primary endpoint to determine feasibility comprised: recruitment rate, technical feasibility, acute toxicity (CTCAE v4.0) and quality of life (QoL)(EPIC). Secondary and exploratory endpoints including late toxicity (RTOG) and QoL and potential biomarkers of toxicity (plasma citrulline and DNA damage in circulating lymphocytes) are also presented. Methods: Men with localised PCa demonstrating one of T3a, Gleason score ≥4+3 or PSA>20 were eligible. T3b and T4 disease were excluded. 30 participants were randomised 1:1 to prostate SABR (P-SABR) or prostate and pelvis SABR (PPN-SABR). The prostate and proximal 1-2cm seminal vesicles received 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions over 29 days (prostate CTV 40Gy). The PPN-SABR arm also received 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvic nodes. All patients had fiducial markers and a rectal spacer gel in-situ. As initial toxicity rates were low, the final 10 men received an additional integrated boost to the dominant intraprostatic lesion of up to 50 Gy, irrespective of randomisation. Results: Feasibility was demonstrated. The target recruitment of 30 men was met (83% high risk). Treatment, including an integrated boost plus PNI, was achievable using strict normal tissue constraints. Acute toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Table: Grade≥2 GU 7%, 27% and GI 0%, 7%; minimal clinically important change (MCIC) in EPIC urinary 40%, 60% and bowel score 33%, 47% in P and PPN arms respectively). At median follow up of 30 months (range 18-42 months), late toxicity and QoL were acceptable (Grade≥2 GU 7%, 20% and GI 0%, 13%; MCIC in EPIC urinary 33%, 67% and bowel score 33%, 67% in P and PPN arms respectively). All toxicity was ≤ grade 2 with the exception of one late grade 3 GU toxicity occurring in the PPN arm. Serum citrulline, a marker of small bowel function, trended towards lower levels in the PPN arm, in keeping with a significantly higher dose delivered to the small bowel in this arm. DNA damage foci in circulating lymphocytes increased at 1 hour after radiation. Foci count and repair correlated to toxicity measures will be presented. Conclusions: A randomised clinical trial comparing P-SABR to PPN-SABR is feasible. There was a suggestion of increased toxicity with PPN-SABR, but this remained acceptable. This data will inform a UK multi-centre phase 2 study. Clinical trial information: NCT03253978 . [Table: see text]

Use of bisphosphonates and other bone supportive agents in the management of prostate cancer-A UK perspective

AIM

To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the UK regarding their use of bone supportive agents in patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG).

RESULTS

Of 160 uro-oncologists invited, 81 completed the questionnaire. Approximately 70% of respondents never use a bone supportive agent in patients with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, use was more frequent in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, from first-line treatment onwards. The majority of uro-oncologists do not use a bone supportive agent to prevent skeletal-related events in men with non-metastatic disease unless the individual patient is at an increased risk of osteoporosis. In men with more advanced disease, respondents would use an oral or intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate in 41% and 61% of patients, respectively. Zoledronic acid is the first-choice bone supportive treatment in 77% of cases, with the lack of clinical data cited as a barrier to use for other IV bisphosphonates. Local guidelines also have a significant influence on the use of bone supportive agents, especially with respect to denosumab. Bone mineral density measurement is conducted in approximately 40% of men with ADT exposure of 2 years or longer, or those with metastatic prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

Uro-oncologists in the UK generally do not use bone supportive agents for men with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer or those with non-metastatic disease. However, increasing the duration of ADT and the presence of castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer increases use.

A novel tool for improving the interpretation of isotope bone scans in metastatic prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

The isotope bone scan (IBS) is the gold-standard imaging modality for detecting skeletal metastases as part of prostate cancer staging. However, its clinical utility for assessing skeletal metastatic burden is limited due to the need for subjective interpretation. We designed and tested a novel custom software tool, the Metastatic Bone Scan Tool (MetsBST), aimed at improving interpretation of IBSs, and compared its performance with that of an established software programme.

METHODS

We used IBS images from 62 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and suspected bone metastases to design and implement MetsBST in MATLAB by defining thresholds used to identify the texture and size of metastatic bone lesions. The results of MetsBST were compared with those of the commercially available automated Bone Scan Index (aBSI) with regression analysis.

RESULTS

There was strong agreement between the MetsBST and aBSI results (R² = 0.9189). In a subregional analysis, MetsBST quantified the extent of metastatic disease in multiple bone sites in patients receiving multimodality therapy (radium-223 and external beam radiotherapy) to illustrate the differences in bone metastatic response to different treatments.

CONCLUSION

The results of MetsBST and the commercial software aBSI were highly consistent. MetsBST introduces novel clinical utility by its ability to differentiate between the responses of different bone metastases to multimodality therapies.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

MetsBST reduces the variability in assessment of tumour burden caused by subjective interpretation. Therefore, it is a useful aid to physicians reporting nuclear medicine scans, and may improve decision-making in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

Clinical and functional characterization of CXCR1/CXCR2 biology in the relapse and radiotherapy resistance of primary PTEN-deficient prostate carcinoma

Functional impairment of the tumour suppressor PTEN is common in primary prostate cancer and has been linked to relapse post-radiotherapy (post-RT). Pre-clinical modelling supports elevated CXC chemokine signalling as a critical mediator of PTEN-depleted disease progression and therapeutic resistance. We assessed the correlation of PTEN deficiency with CXC chemokine signalling and its association with clinical outcomes. Gene expression analysis characterized a PTEN ^LOW/CXCR1^HIGH/CXCR2^HIGH cluster of tumours that associates with earlier time to biochemical recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 5.87 and 2.65, respectively] and development of systemic metastasis (HR 3.51). In vitro, CXCL signalling was further amplified following exposure of PTEN-deficient prostate cancer cell lines to ionizing radiation (IR). Inhibition of CXCR1/2 signalling in PTEN-depleted cell-based models increased IR sensitivity. In vivo, administration of a CXCR1/2-targeted pepducin (x1/2pal-i3), or CXCR2-specific antagonist (AZD5069), in combination with IR to PTEN-deficient xenografts attenuated tumour growth and progression compared to control or IR alone. Post-mortem analysis confirmed that x1/2pal-i3 administration attenuated IR-induced CXCL signalling and anti-apoptotic protein expression. Interventions targeting CXC chemokine signalling may provide an effective strategy to combine with RT in locally advanced prostate cancer patients with known presence of PTEN-deficient foci.

Targeted Alpha Therapy: Current Clinical Applications

α-Emitting radionuclides have been approved for cancer treatment since 2013, with increasing degrees of success. Despite this clinical utility, little is known regarding the mechanisms of action of α particles in this setting, and accurate assessments of the dosimetry underpinning their effectiveness are lacking. However, targeted alpha therapy (TAT) is gaining more attention as new targets, synthetic chemistry approaches, and α particle emitters are identified, constructed, developed, and realized. From a radiobiological perspective, α particles are more effective at killing cells compared to low linear energy transfer radiation. Also, from these direct effects, it is now evident from preclinical and clinical data that α emitters are capable of both producing effects in nonirradiated bystander cells and stimulating the immune system, extending the biological effects of TAT beyond the range of α particles. The short range of α particles makes them a potent tool to irradiate single-cell lesions or treat solid tumors by minimizing unwanted irradiation of normal tissue surrounding the cancer cells, assuming a high specificity of the radiopharmaceutical and good stability of its chemical bonds. Clinical approval of ²²³RaCl₂ in 2013 was a major milestone in the widespread application of TAT as a safe and effective strategy for cancer treatment. In addition, ²²⁵Ac-prostate specific membrane antigen treatment benefit in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients, refractory to standard therapies, is another game-changing piece in the short history of TAT clinical application. Clinical applications of TAT are growing with different radionuclides and combination therapies, and in different clinical settings. Despite the remarkable advances in TAT dosimetry and imaging, it has not yet been used to its full potential. Labeled ²²⁷Th and ²²⁵Ac appear to be promising candidates and could represent the next generation of agents able to extend patient survival in several clinical scenarios.

The Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapies

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with a proven role in prostate cancer management, has been associated with various cardiovascular diseases. However, few studies have investigated these associations by type of ADT, particularly for newer ADTs such as the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist degarelix. We investigated the risk of cardiovascular disease by type of ADT in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We identified men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, from 2009 to 2015, from the Scottish Cancer Registry and ADTs from the nationwide Prescribing Information System. Cardiovascular events were based upon hospitalization (from hospital records) or death from cardiovascular disease (from death records). We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events with time-varying ADT exposure, comparing ADT users with untreated patients, after adjusting for potential confounders, including prior cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

The cohort contained 20,216 prostate cancer patients, followed for 73,570 person-years, during which there were 3,853 cardiovascular events. ADT was associated with a 30% increase in cardiovascular events (adjusted HR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.4). This reflected increases in cardiovascular events associated with GnRH agonists (adjusted HR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.4), degarelix (adjusted HR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.9), but not bicalutamide monotherapy (adjusted HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.82, 1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

There were increased risks of cardiovascular disease with the use of GnRH agonists and degarelix, but not with bicalutamide monotherapy. This is the first study to observe increased cardiovascular risks with degarelix, but the cause of this association is unclear and merits further investigation.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

BACKGROUND

STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.

METHODS

We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.

RESULTS

Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Advances in targeted alpha therapy for prostate cancer

Amongst therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, targeted alpha therapy (TαT) can deliver potent and local radiation selectively to cancer cells as well as the tumor microenvironment and thereby control cancer while minimizing toxicity. In this review, we discuss the history, progress, and future potential of TαT in the treatment of prostate cancer, including dosimetry-individualized treatment planning, combinations with small-molecule therapies, and conjugation to molecules directed against antigens expressed by prostate cancer cells, such as prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) or components of the tumor microenvironment. A clinical proof of concept that TαT is efficacious in treating bone-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer has been demonstrated by radium-223 via improved overall survival and long-term safety/tolerability in the phase III ALSYMPCA trial. Dosimetry calculation and pharmacokinetic measurements of TαT provide the potential for optimization and individualized treatment planning for a precision medicine-based cancer management paradigm. The ability to combine TαTs with other agents, including chemotherapy, androgen receptor-targeting agents, DNA repair inhibitors, and immuno-oncology agents, is under investigation. Currently, TαTs that specifically target prostate cancer cells expressing PSMA represents a promising therapeutic approach. Both PSMA-targeted actinium-225 and thorium-227 conjugates are under investigation. The described clinical benefit, safety and tolerability of radium-223 and the recent progress in TαT trial development suggest that TαT occupies an important new role in prostate cancer treatment. Ongoing studies with newer dosimetry methods, PSMA targeting, and novel approaches to combination therapies should expand the utility of TαT in prostate cancer treatment.

Computed Tomography-based Radiomics for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To explore the role of Computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics features in prostate cancer risk stratification.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study population consisted of 506 patients with prostate cancer collected from a clinically annotated database. After applying exclusion criteria, 342 patients were included in the final analysis. CT-based radiomics features were extracted from planning CT scans for prostate gland-only structure, and machine learning was used to train models for Gleason score (GS) and risk group (RG) classifications. Repeated cross-validation was used. The discriminatory performance of the developed models was assessed using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

RESULTS

Classifiers using CT-based radiomics features distinguished between GS ≤ 6 versus GS ≥ 7 with AUC = 0.90 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus GS 7(4 + 3) with AUC = 0.98. Developed classifiers also showed excellent performance in distinguishing low versus high RG (AUC = 0.96) and low versus intermediate RG (AUC = 1.00), but poorer performance was observed for GS 7 versus GS > 7 (AUC = 0.69). An overall modest performance was observed for validation on holdout data sets with the highest AUC of 0.75 for classifiers of low versus high RG and an AUC of 0.70 for GS 7 versus GS > 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that radiomics features from routinely acquired planning CT scans could provide insights into prostate cancer aggressiveness in a noninvasive manner. Assessing models on training data sets, the classifiers were especially accurate in discerning high-risk from low-risk patients and in classifying GS 7 versus GS > 7 and GS 7(3 + 4) versus G7(4 + 3); however, classifiers were less adept at distinguishing high RG versus intermediate RG. External validation and prospective studies are warranted to verify the presented findings. These findings could potentially guide targeted radiation therapy strategies in radical intent radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.

Validation of a Metastatic Assay using biopsies to improve risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical radiation therapy

Background

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment of intermediate/high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, however, >30% of patients relapse within 5 years. Clinicopathological parameters currently fail to identify patients prone to systemic relapse and those whom treatment intensification may be beneficial. The purpose of this study was to independently validate the performance of a 70-gene Metastatic Assay in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy.

Patients and methods

A bridging cohort of prostate cancer diagnostic biopsy specimens was profiled to enable optimization of the Metastatic Assay threshold before further independent clinical validation in a cohort of diagnostic biopsies from patients treated with radical radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to assess assay performance in predicting biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS).

Results

Gene expression analysis was carried out in 248 patients from the independent validation cohort and the Metastatic Assay applied. Ten-year MFS was 72% for Metastatic Assay positive patients and 94% for Metastatic Assay negative patients [HR = 3.21 (1.35–7.67); P = 0.003]. On multivariable analysis the Metastatic Assay remained predictive for development of distant metastases [HR = 2.71 (1.11–6.63); P = 0.030]. The assay retained independent prognostic performance for MFS when assessed with the Cancer of the Prostate Assessment Score (CAPRA) [HR = 3.23 (1.22–8.59); P = 0.019] whilst CAPRA itself was not significant [HR = 1.88, (0.52–6.77); P = 0.332]. A high concordance [100% (61.5–100)] for the assay result was noted between two separate foci taken from 11 tumours, whilst Gleason score had low concordance.

Conclusions

The Metastatic Assay demonstrated significant prognostic performance in patients treated with radical radiotherapy both alone and independent of standard clinical and pathological variables. The Metastatic Assay could have clinical utility when deciding upon treatment intensification in high-risk patients. Genomic and clinical data are available as a public resource.

Plasma citrulline levels as a biomarker for bowel toxicity in prostate stereotactic radiotherapy with or without pelvic nodal radiation

73

Background: Plasma levels of citrulline, an amino acid, are derived mainly from small bowel enterocytes. Decreased levels occur in a range of bowel conditions and citrulline has been proposed as a biomarker of bowel toxicity in pelvic radiotherapy. In a prospective study, we identify no correlation between plasma citrulline and toxicity in men receiving prostate stereotactic radiotherapy randomized to receive either pelvic nodal irradiation or not. Furthermore, citrulline levels were not significantly different between these two groups. Methods: As part of an approved clinical trial, men with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer were randomised 1:1 to prostate only or prostate + pelvic nodal radiotherapy, delivered with a rectal spacer gel in situ. The prostate and proximal seminal vesicles received 40 Gy in 5 fractions. Those randomised to the pelvic nodal arm also received 25 Gy in 5 fractions to pelvic nodes. Citrulline was measured at 10 points during treatment – consent, before fraction 1, 1 and 24 hours following fraction 1, prior to each fraction 2 – 5 and at 6 weeks’ and 3 months’ follow up. Bowel toxicity was measured by EPIC patient reported scores. Results: 16 men with follow up of at least 3 months (median 9, maximum 18 months) were analysed. Reported toxicity was significantly higher in the prostate and pelvis arm: 5 of 9 men showed a decrease in EPIC bowel domain summary score of 10 points or more compared to 0 of 7 in the prostate-only arm (p = 0.0337, two tailed Fisher’s exact test). No significant correlation between toxicity and citrulline levels was seen, nor did citrulline vary significantly between arms or fall as treatment progressed. Data analysis for a further 8 men already recruited to the study is ongoing. Conclusions: Toxicity was more commonly reported by men randomised to receive pelvic radiotherapy, suggesting that the small bowel irradiated in pelvic fields plays a role in bowel toxicity experienced during stereotactic radiotherapy. Citrulline levels showed no significant correlation with toxicity or radiation dose to small bowel. We propose that citrulline is not a useful biomarker of small bowel toxicity in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03253978.

Radium-223 in asymptomatic patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases treated in an international early access program

BACKGROUND

Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is used to treat symptomatic patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases. Data for radium-223 in asymptomatic CRPC patients with bone metastases are lacking.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-arm phase 3b study. Patients with metastatic CRPC (malignant lymphadenopathy not exceeding 6 cm was allowed, visceral disease was excluded) received radium-223, 55 kBq/kg intravenously, every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Co-primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. Post hoc analyses were performed according to baseline asymptomatic or symptomatic disease status. Asymptomatic status was defined as no pain and no opioid use at baseline.

RESULTS

Seven hundred eight patients received ≥1 radium-223 injection: 548 (77%) were symptomatic to various degrees, and 135 (19%) were asymptomatic. Asymptomatic patients had more favorable baseline disease characteristics than symptomatic. A lower proportion of asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients had received prior abiraterone (25% vs 35%) and prior docetaxel (52% vs 62%). A higher proportion of asymptomatic (71%) versus symptomatic (55%) patients completed radium-223 treatment. Overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.486), time to disease progression (HR 0.722) and time to first symptomatic skeletal event (HR 0.328) were better in asymptomatic than symptomatic patients. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) response rates were similar (46% vs 47%), and ALP normalization (44% vs 25%) and prostate-specific antigen response rates (21% vs 13%) were higher in asymptomatic than symptomatic patients. A lower proportion of asymptomatic patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs, 61% vs 79%), grade 3-4 TEAEs (29% vs 40%) and drug-related TEAEs (28% vs 44%). There were two treatment-related deaths, both in patients with baseline symptomatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Using radium-223 earlier in the disease course, when patients are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, may enable patients to complete treatment and optimize treatment outcome compared to symptomatic patients, and therefore may allow sequencing with other life-prolonging therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01618370 on June 13, 2012 and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16 on April 4, 2012.

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy.

METHODS

We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy).

INTERPRETATION

Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE): Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy.

INTERVENTION

SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled.

CONCLUSIONS

Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.

Thirty-seven-year Population-based Study of Colorectal Cancer Rates in Renal Transplant Recipients in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Renal transplantation is associated with an increased risk of neoplasia, including colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in surgical techniques and immunosuppressive medications have resulted in increased survival rates of both patients and grafts, but the incidence of CRC in the Irish renal transplant population is currently unknown. The aim of this study is to review the incidence of CRC in the Irish renal transplant population and compare it to the general population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all renal transplant recipients in Ireland between January 1980 and July 2017 was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three out of 4230 transplant recipients (men = 20, women = 13) developed CRC subsequent to transplantation and were eligible for inclusion in the series. The mean age at transplantation was 51.5 years, with patients developing CRC on average 10.9 years post-transplantation; 6.1% (n = 2/33) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. The majority of patients (87.8%) had a pathologic T stage of T3/T4 and 45.5% had involvement of locoregional lymph nodes (N1/N2); 42.4% also had a mucinous component at histopathologic assessment. The incidence of CRC was higher in the transplant population compared to the general population.

CONCLUSION

This is the first population-based assessment of CRC development in the Irish renal transplant population. Our data suggest that Irish transplant recipients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a more advanced tumor than the general population, with most being diagnosed almost a decade after transplantation. This highlights the need for increased awareness among patients and clinicians and the potential need for coordinated lifelong surveillance of this patient population to ensure early detection and treatment.

The Efficacy and Safety of Conventional and Hypofractionated High-Dose Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in an Elderly Population: A Subgroup Analysis of the CHHiP Trial

PURPOSE

Outcome data on radiation therapy for prostate cancer in an elderly population are sparse. The CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer) trial provides a large, prospectively collected, contemporary dataset in which to explore outcomes by age.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CHHiP participants received 3 to 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 74 Gy in 37 fractions (conventional fractionation), 60 Gy in 20 fractions, or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Toxicity was assessed using clinician-reported outcome (CRO) and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Participants were categorized as aged < 75 years or ≥ 75 years. Outcomes were compared by age group.

RESULTS

Of 3216 patients, 491 (15%) were aged ≥ 75 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure rates between the groups aged < 75 years and ≥ 75 years for any of the fractionation schedules. In the group aged ≥ 75 years, biochemical or clinical failure-free rates favored hypofractionation, and at 5 years, they were 84.7% for 74 Gy, 91% for 60 Gy, and 87.7% for 57 Gy. The incidence of CRO (grade 3) acute bowel toxicity was 2% in both age groups. The incidence of grade 3 acute bladder toxicity was 8% in patients aged < 75 years and 7% in those aged ≥ 75 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of CRO grade ≥ 2 late bowel side effects was similar in both age groups. However, in the group aged ≥ 75 years, there was a suggestion of a higher cumulative incidence of bowel bother (small or greater) with 60 Gy compared with 74 Gy and 57 Gy. Patient-reported bladder bother was slightly higher in the group aged ≥ 75 years than the group aged < 75 years, and there was a suggestion of a lower cumulative incidence of bladder bother with 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy and 60 Gy in patients aged ≥ 75 years, which was not evident in those aged < 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionated radiation therapy appears to be well tolerated and effective in men aged ≥ 75 years. The 57-Gy schedule has potential advantages in that it may moderate long-term side effects without compromising treatment efficacy in this group.