To give a preliminary report of clinical and treatment factors associated with toxicity in men receiving high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on a phase 3 dose-escalation trial.
The trial was initiated ...with 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and amended after 1 year to allow intensity modulated RT (IMRT). Patients treated with 3D-CRT received 55.8 Gy to a planning target volume that included the prostate and seminal vesicles, then 23.4 Gy to prostate only. The IMRT patients were treated to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles to 79.2 Gy. Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late morbidity scores were used for acute and late effects.
Of 763 patients randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol, 748 were eligible and evaluable: 491 and 257 were treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. For both bladder and rectum, the volumes receiving 65, 70, and 75 Gy were significantly lower with IMRT (all P<.0001). For grade (G) 2+ acute gastrointestinal/genitourinary (GI/GU) toxicity, both univariate and multivariate analyses showed a statistically significant decrease in G2+ acute collective GI/GU toxicity for IMRT. There were no significant differences with 3D-CRT or IMRT for acute or late G2+ or 3+ GU toxicities. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in late G2+ GI toxicity for IMRT (P=.039). On multivariate analysis, IMRT showed a 26% reduction in G2+ late GI toxicity (P=.099). Acute G2+ toxicity was associated with late G3+ toxicity (P=.005). With dose-volume histogram data in the multivariate analysis, RT modality was not significant, whereas white race (P=.001) and rectal V70 ≥15% were associated with G2+ rectal toxicity (P=.034).
Intensity modulated RT is associated with a significant reduction in acute G2+ GI/GU toxicity. There is a trend for a clinically meaningful reduction in late G2+ GI toxicity with IMRT. The occurrence of acute GI toxicity and large (>15%) volumes of rectum >70 Gy are associated with late rectal toxicity.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the ...evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall's τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R
was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects-measured by log hazard ratios-for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R
, 0.73 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82 for DFS and 0.92 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95 for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.
This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The ...summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.
The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).
The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.
This guideline attempts to improve a clinician’s ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.
A course of androgen-deprivation therapy before and during radiotherapy prolonged 10-year survival by about 7% among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The risk of erectile dysfunction from ...the addition of hormone therapy was also about 7% higher.
In the 1980s, advances in both surgery and radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer led to their acceptance as successful treatments, with considerable reductions in harmful side effects as compared with earlier treatments.
1
In the 1990s, reversible androgen suppression with the use of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone analogues and oral antiandrogen agents was shown to induce apoptotic regression in androgen-responsive cancers,
2
potentially improving the prospects of local control and the duration of survival free of metastatic disease. Among patients with locally advanced disease, phase 3 clinical trials
3
,
4
showed that when added to radiotherapy, long-term treatment with these agents (≥2 years) . . .
With a median follow-up of 13 years, a randomized comparison of radiotherapy with or without antiandrogen therapy in patients with a rising PSA level after prostatectomy showed that 2 years of ...antiandrogen therapy resulted in a significantly higher overall survival rate.
Patients with localized prostatic cancer are often treated with radical prostatectomy. More than 30% of such patients will subsequently have recurrence. This recurrence manifests first as a rising serum level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA),
1
–
3
termed biochemical recurrence. Large, retrospective studies suggest that salvage radiation therapy after biochemical recurrence may be associated with long-term freedom from cancer recurrence.
4
,
5
However, 50% of the patients who are treated with salvage radiation therapy will have further disease progression, particularly when there are aggressive disease features.
4
–
7
The combination of radiation therapy and either androgen-deprivation therapy or antiandrogen therapy prolongs survival among some . . .
Trial RTOG 9202 was a phase 3 randomized trial designed to determine the optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) when combined with definitive radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment ...of locally advanced nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Long-term follow-up results of this study now available are relevant to the management of this disease.
Men (N=1554) with adenocarcinoma of the prostate (cT2c-T4, N0-Nx) with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <150 ng/mL and no evidence of distant metastasis were randomized (June 1992 to April 1995) to short-term ADT (STAD: 4 months of flutamide 250 mg 3 times per day and goserelin 3.6 mg per month) and definitive RT versus long-term ADT (LTAD: STAD with definitive RT plus an additional 24 months of monthly goserelin).
Among 1520 protocol-eligible and evaluable patients, the median follow-up time for this analysis was 19.6 years. In analysis adjusted for prognostic covariates, LTAD improved disease-free survival (29% relative reduction in failure rate, P<.0001), local progression (46% relative reduction, P=.02), distant metastases (36% relative reduction, P<.0001), disease-specific survival (30% relative reduction, P=.003), and overall survival (12% relative reduction, P=.03). Other-cause mortality (non-prostate cancer) did not differ (5% relative reduction, P=.48).
LTAD and RT is superior to STAD and RT for the treatment of locally advanced nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate and should be considered the standard of care.
To determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT).
Prostate cancer patients ...with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT STAD + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT LTAD + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms.
At 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P <or= .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein.
LTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.
PDF
