The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown.
To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment.
Retrospective ...cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013.
Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy.
The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes.
Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 95% CI, 0.21-0.68 and 0.41 95% CI, 0.24-0.71). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 95% CI, 0.17-0.43 for RP and 0.30 95% CI, 0.19-0.47 for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 95% CI, 0.46-0.96 for RP and 0.61 95% CI, 0.45-0.84 for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 95% CI, 0.67-1.26, 0.90 95% CI, 0.70-1.14, 1.07 95% CI, 0.80-1.44, and 1.34 95% CI, 0.85-2.11).
Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.
To improve assessment of symptomatic toxicity in cancer clinical trials and complement clinician-based toxicity reporting, the US National Cancer Institute developed a measurement system called the ...Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). The objective of this study was to examine the content validity of PRO-CTCAE in patients undergoing radiation therapy and to establish anatomic site-specific item sets for implementation in cancer research.
Patients receiving radiation to the brain, head and neck, breast, thorax, abdomen, or pelvis were recruited during the final week of radiation. Participants described side effects qualitatively and completed anatomic site-specific checklists indicating the presence or absence of symptomatic toxicities drawn from the PRO-CTCAE library. Items endorsed by ≥20% of participants were selected for inclusion. Symptomatic toxicities described qualitatively were content analyzed and summarized. Symptomatic toxicities not reflected in the PRO-CTCAE item library were tabulated.
We conducted 389 interviews of patients receiving radiation to the brain (n = 46), head and neck (n = 69), breast (n = 134), thorax (n = 30), abdomen (n = 27), female pelvis (n = 36), or male pelvis (n = 47). Median age was 62 years; 62% were female. The 53 solicited PRO-CTCAE symptoms reflected all reported radiation-induced toxicities with the exception of phlegm/mucus production and mouth/throat pain with swallowing in patients receiving head and neck radiation, eye dryness/irritation in patients undergoing brain radiation, and obstructive urinary symptoms in men receiving pelvic radiation. The PRO-CTCAE items "skin burns" and "pain" require greater specificity to adequately reflect toxicities experienced during radiation.
PRO-CTCAE demonstrates strong content validity as a measure of symptomatic toxicities in patients receiving radiation. These results provide empirical support for the definition of site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets to assess the symptomatic toxicities of radiation therapy. The site-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets developed herein are currently being deployed in our department via an electronic platform to capture treatment-related toxicity.
Abstract Objectives We report single-institution clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with stereotactic body ...radiation therapy (SBRT) and a subset of patients who received neoadjuvant SBRT and chemotherapy as part of an orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) protocol. Methods and materials From October 2008 to June 2015, 31 consecutive patients with unresectable extrahepatic (n = 25) or intrahepatic (n = 6) cholangiocarcinoma were treated with SBRT and retrospectively analyzed. Four patients underwent liver transplantation, and 1 underwent resection. SBRT was delivered in 5 fractions with a median dose of 40 Gy. Toxicity was scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. Overall survival (OS), time to progression, and local control were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The median follow-up time was 11.5 months. The 1- and 2-year OS rates were 59% and 33%, respectively, with a median survival of 15.7 months. The 1- and 2-year freedom from progression was 67% and 34%, respectively. Median time to progression was 16.8 months. Nine patients had local failure. The actuarial 1- and 2-year local control rates were 78% and 47%, respectively. Among patients who also had OLT, the median OS was 31.3 months. Twenty-four patients (77%) experienced some form of acute grade 1-2 toxicity, most commonly fatigue or pain. Five patients (16%) experienced grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusions SBRT is a promising option for patients with unresectable or recurrent cholangiocarcinoma either as a component of neoadjuvant therapy prior to OLT or as part of definitive therapy for patients who are unresectable and not eligible for transplantation.
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and heat-based ablation (HBA) are both potentially safe and effective treatments for primary and metastatic lung tumors. Both are suboptimal for centrally ...located tumors, with SBRT having a higher risk of significant toxicity and HBA having lower efficacy. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of combination SBRT-HBA to determine whether combined treatment can result in superior outcomes to each treatment alone.
Patients with 1 or 2 primary or metastatic lung tumors ≤ 5 cm in size were enrolled in a prospective phase 2 trial and treated with SBRT in 3 fractions followed by HBA. Tumors < 1 cm from the central bronchial tree received a total of 36 Gy, and tumors 1 to 2 cm away received 42 Gy. HBA was delivered within 10 days after SBRT. The primary endpoints were local control, toxicity, and degree of decline in lung function. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival.
We treated 16 patients with 17 tumors. The median follow-up time was 26 months. Fifteen tumors were evaluable for local control. The 1- and 2-year actuarial local control rates were 93% and 81%, respectively. Three patients had grade ≥ 3 toxicity: bronchial stenosis, pain, and pulmonary hemorrhage. The percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second and functional vital capacity decreased by 8% and 8.5%, respectively, at 3 months after treatment (P < .001 for both).
Combining SBRT and HBA for centrally located lung tumors offers reasonable local control and toxicity despite the anatomic challenges of this location. HBA may be a reasonable supplement to SBRT when trachea and bronchus, large vessel, or esophageal constraints cannot be met with full-dose SBRT and a biologically effective dose < 100 Gy is delivered because of an ultra-central location or large tumor size.
The ProtecT trial provides Level 1 evidence supporting active surveillance for low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The impact of these findings on the opinions of North American ...genitourinary oncology expert radiation oncologists regarding the role of active surveillance was investigated; active surveillance is well-regarded for low-risk but not intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These preferences may affect the design of future clinical studies, influencing the adoption of active surveillance in North American clinical practice.
The ProtecT trial has provided level 1 evidence supporting active surveillance for prostate cancer patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk disease. The effect of these findings on the opinions of North American genitourinary (GU) experts regarding the role of active surveillance for these patients has not been previously examined.
A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to appropriateness of active surveillance in patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk (Gleason 3+4) disease. Opinions regarding active surveillance were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher exact test.
Forty-two radiation oncologists completed the survey. Forty percent had been in practice for more than 20 years; 90% practice at an academic center. Forty-five percent see ≥ 20 patients per month in consultation. More than 95% (40 of 42) recommended active surveillance for Gleason 6 disease, whereas only 17% recommended active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease. There were no demographic differences between supporters or opponents regarding active surveillance with regard to monthly patient volume, practice type, likelihood of self-identifying as an expert brachytherapist, belief in advanced imaging techniques, or preferred default external beam radiation therapy dose/fractionation for either low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. However, there was a trend toward greater support of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease among experts having practiced < 10 years versus ≥ 10 years (P = .085).
Active surveillance is almost universally supported by North American GU expert radiation oncologists for low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is very weak support for this strategy in Gleason 3+4 disease despite the ProtecT trial providing level 1 evidentiary support in both risk groups. There were no significant differences between experts supporting versus opposing active surveillance for either low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. These preferences might affect the design of future clinical studies, influencing the adoption of active surveillance in North American clinical practice.
The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal ...metastases.
To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT).
We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT).
Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment.
A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio HR 0.5, 95% confidence interval CI 0.2–0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6–1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7–1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4–1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3–1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2–1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS).
WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted.
When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.
In this multi-institutional observational study, whole-pelvis radiation therapy was found to improve biochemical recurrence-free survival in men receiving radiation with a brachytherapy boost, but not in men receiving radiation alone. It is unknown whether this will ultimately improve survival.
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (RT). Whether this benefit differs between patients with ...Gleason grade group (GG) 4 (formerly Gleason score 8) and GG 5 (formerly Gleason score 9-10) disease remains unknown.
To determine whether the effectiveness of ADT duration varies between patients with GG 4 vs GG 5 PCa.
Traditional and network individual patient data meta-analyses of 992 patients (593 GG 4 and 399 GG 5) who were enrolled in 6 randomized clinical trials were carried out.
Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to obtain hazard ratio (HR) estimates of ADT duration effects on overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Cause-specific competing risk models were used to estimate HRs for cancer-specific survival (CSS). The interaction of ADT with GS was incorporated into the multivariable models. Traditional and network meta-analysis frameworks were used to compare outcomes of patients treated with RT alone, short-term ADT (STADT), long-term ADT (LTADT), and lifelong ADT.
Five hundred ninety-three male patients (mean age, 70 years; range, 43-88 years) with GG 4 and 399 with GG 5 were identified. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Among GG 4 patients, LTADT and STADT improved OS over RT alone (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.70 and HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93, respectively; P = .03 for both), whereas lifelong ADT did not (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P = .44). Among GG 5 patients, lifelong ADT improved OS (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P = .04), whereas neither LTADT nor STADT did (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44 and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69-1.87; P = .45 and P = .64, respectively). Among all patients, and among those receiving STADT, GG 5 patients had inferior OS compared with GG 4 patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.47 and HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88, respectively; P = .02). There was no significant OS difference between GG 5 and GG 4 patients receiving LTADT or lifelong ADT (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.89-1.65 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.37; P = .23 and P = .52, respectively).
These data suggest that prolonged durations of ADT improve survival outcomes in both GG 4 disease and GG 5 disease, albeit with different optimal durations. Strategies to maintain the efficacy of ADT while minimizing its duration (potentially with enhanced potency agents) should be investigated.
The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to ...no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts.
A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher's exact test.
Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance.
There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with high-risk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.
PDF
