Summary Background The TROG 96.01 trial assessed whether 3-month and 6-month short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) decreases clinical progression and mortality after radiotherapy ...for locally advanced prostate cancer. Here we report the 10-year results. Methods Between June, 1996, and February, 2000, 818 men with T2b, T2c, T3, and T4 N0 M0 prostate cancers were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT plus radiotherapy, or 6 months of NADT plus radiotherapy. The radiotherapy dose for all groups was 66 Gy, delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles (excluding pelvic nodes) in 33 fractions of 2 Gy per day (excluding weekends) over 6·5–7·0 weeks. NADT consisted of 3·6 mg goserelin given subcutaneously every month and 250 mg flutamide given orally three times a day. NADT began 2 months before radiotherapy for the 3-month NADT group and 5 months before radiotherapy for the 6-month NADT group. Primary endpoints were prostate-cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Treatment allocation was open label and randomisation was done with a minimisation technique according to age, clinical stage, tumour grade, and initial prostate-specific antigen concentration (PSA). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial has been closed to follow-up and all main endpoint analyses are completed. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry , number ACTRN12607000237482. Findings 802 men were eligible for analysis (270 in the radiotherapy alone group, 265 in the 3-month NADT group, and 267 in the 6-month NADT group) after a median follow-up of 10·6 years (IQR 6·9–11·6). Compared with radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT decreased the cumulative incidence of PSA progression (adjusted hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57–0·90; p=0·003) and local progression (0·49, 0·33–0·73; p=0·0005), and improved event-free survival (0·63, 0·52–0·77; p<0·0001). 6 months of NADT further reduced PSA progression (0·57, 0·46–0·72; p<0·0001) and local progression (0·45, 0·30–0·66; p=0·0001), and led to a greater improvement in event-free survival (0·51, 0·42–0·61, p<0·0001), compared with radiotherapy alone. 3-month NADT had no effect on distant progression (0·89, 0·60–1·31; p=0·550), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·86, 0·60–1·23; p=0·398), or all-cause mortality (0·84, 0·65–1·08; p=0·180), compared with radiotherapy alone. By contrast, 6-month NADT decreased distant progression (0·49, 0·31–0·76; p=0·001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·49, 0·32–0·74; p=0·0008), and all-cause mortality (0·63, 0·48–0·83; p=0·0008), compared with radiotherapy alone. Treatment-related morbidity was not increased with NADT within the first 5 years after randomisation. Interpretation 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined radiotherapy is an effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly in men without nodal metastases or pre-existing metabolic comorbidities that could be exacerbated by prolonged androgen deprivation. Funding Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, Hunter Medical Research Institute, AstraZeneca, and Schering-Plough.
The optimal duration of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy with curative intent is yet to be defined. Zoledronic acid is effective in preventing ...androgen suppression-induced bone loss, but its role in preventing castration-sensitive bone metastases in locally advanced prostate cancer is unclear. The RADAR trial assessed whether the addition of 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression, 18 months of zoledronic acid, or both, can improve outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer who receive 6 months of androgen suppression and prostatic radiotherapy. This report presents 10-year outcomes from this trial.
For this randomised, phase 3, 2 × 2 factorial trial, eligible men were 18 years or older with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2b-4, N0 M0 tumours or T2a, N0 M0 tumours provided Gleason score was ≥7 and baseline prostate-specific antigen PSA concentration was ≥10 μg/L). We randomly allocated participants in a 2 × 2 factorial design by computer-generated randomisation (using the minimisation technique, and stratified by centre, baseline PSA concentration, clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four treatment groups. Patients in the control group received 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) and radiotherapy alone (short-term androgen suppression STAS); this treatment was either followed by another 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly; intermediate-term androgen suppression ITAS), or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously) starting at randomisation (STAS plus zoledronic acid), or both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). All patients received radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, starting from the end of the fifth month of androgen suppression; dosing options were 66, 70, and 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions per day, or 46 Gy in 2-Gy fractions followed by a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose of 19·5 Gy in 6·5-Gy fractions. Treatment allocation was open label. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality and was analysed according to intention-to-treat using competing-risks methods. The trial is closed to follow-up and this is the final report of the main endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856.
Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were enrolled and randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), ITAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 10·4 years (IQR 7·9–11·7). At this 10-year follow-up, no interactions were observed between androgen suppression and zoledronic acid so the treatment groups were collapsed to compare treatments according to duration of androgen suppression: 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (6AS+RT) versus 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (18AS+RT) and to compare treatments according to whether or not patients received zoledronic acid. The total number of deaths was 375 (200 men receiving 6AS+RT and 175 men receiving 18AS+RT), of which 143 (38%) were attributable to prostate cancer (81 men receiving 6AS+RT and 62 men receiving 18AS+RT). When analysed by duration of androgen suppression, the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 13·3% (95% CI 10·3–16·0) for 6AS+RT versus 9·7% (7·3–12·0) for 18AS+RT, representing an absolute difference of 3·7% (95% CI 0·3–7·1; sub-hazard ratio sHR 0·70 95% CI 0·50–0·98, adjusted p=0·035). The addition of zoledronic acid did not affect prostate cancer-specific mortality; the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 11·2% (95% CI 8·7–13·7) with zoledronic acid vs 11·7% (9·2–14·1) without, representing an absolute difference of −0·5% (95% CI −3·8 to 2·9; sHR 0·95 95% CI 0·69–1·32, adjusted p=0·78). Although safety analysis was not prespecified for this 10-year analysis, one new serious adverse event (osteonecrosis of the mandible, in a patient who received 18 months of androgen suppression plus zoledronic acid) occurred since our previous report, bringing the total number of cases of this serious adverse event to three (<1% out of 530 patients who received zoledronic acid evaluated for safety) and the total number of drug-related serious adverse events to 12 (1% out of all 1065 patients evaluable for safety). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study.
18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy is a more effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer than 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, but the addition of zoledronic acid to this treatment regimen is not beneficial. Evidence from the RADAR and French Canadian Prostate Cancer Study IV trials suggests that 18 months of androgen suppression with moderate radiation dose escalation is an effective but more tolerable option than longer durations of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer including intermediate and high risk elements.
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.
Aims
Perineural invasion (PNI) by prostatic adenocarcinoma is debated as a prognostic parameter. This study investigates the prognostic predictive value of PNI in a series of patients with locally ...advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation using 10 years outcome data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial.
Methods
Diagnostic prostate biopsies from 976 patients were reviewed and the presence of PNI noted. Patients were followed for 10 years according to the trial protocol or until death. The primary endpoint for the study was time to bone metastasis. Secondary endpoints included time to soft tissue metastasis, transition to castration resistance, prostate cancer‐specific mortality and all‐cause mortality.
Results
PNI was detected in 449 cases (46%), with 234 cases (24%) having PNI in more than one core. The presence of PNI was significantly associated with higher ISUP grade, clinical T staging category, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, and percent positive biopsy cores. The cumulative probability of bone metastases according to PNI status was significant over the 10 years follow‐up interval of the study (log‐rank test P < 0.0001). PNI was associated with all endpoints on univariable analysis. After adjusting for baseline clinicopathological and treatment factors, bone metastasis was the only endpoint in which PNI retained its prognostic significance (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.05–1.92, P = 0.021).
Conclusions
The association between PNI and the development of bone metastases supports the inclusion of this parameter as a component of the routine histology report. Further this association suggests that evaluation of PNI may assist in selecting those patients who should be monitored more closely during follow‐up.
Summary Background We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen ...suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. Methods We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen PSA ≥10 μg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b–4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation—stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost—to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00193856. Findings Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5–8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2–7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9–11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6–11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3–7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0–22·1), 18·9% (14·6–24·2), 19·4% (15·0–24·7), and 13·9% (10·3–18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6–39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6–45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8–34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8–31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio SHR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2–7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7–9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5–3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7–6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8–11·1), 14·6% (10·6–19·2), 8·4% (5·5–12·2), and 7·6% (4·8–11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14–3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7–19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0–22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3–18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6–15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5–30·9), 28·9% (23·5–34·5), 20·7% (16·1–25·9), and 15·3% (11·3–20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8–10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. Interpretation Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8–10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on whole‐body and regional muscle, fat and bone mass in men with prostate cancer without metastatic bone disease.
PATIENTS AND ...METHODS
Seventy‐two men aged 44–88 years underwent spine, hip and whole‐body dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry scans at baseline and after 36 weeks of ADT. The change in whole‐body and regional lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM), and bone mineral content and density (BMD) were determined. In addition, the prostate specific antigen (PSA), serum testosterone and haemoglobin levels were measured, and the level of physical activity and fatigue assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire‐30.
RESULTS
The upper limb, lower limb, trunk and whole‐body LM decreased by a mean (sem) of 5.6 (0.6)%, 3.7 (0.5)%, 1.4 (0.5)% and 2.4 (0.4)% (P < 0.01), respectively, while FM increased by 20.7 (3.3)%, 18.7 (2.7)%, 12.0 (2.5)% and 13.8 (2.3)% (P < 0.001). Hip, spine, whole‐body and upper limb BMD decreased by 1.5 (0.5)%, 3.9 (0.4)%, 2.4 (0.3)% and 1.3 (0.3%) (P < 0.001), but not lower limb BMD. Serum testosterone, PSA and haemoglobin levels decreased by 93.3 (0.4)%, 98.2 (0.5)%, and 8.8 (0.9)% (P < 0.001), respectively. In addition, physical activity levels decreased and levels of fatigue increased.
CONCLUSION
After 36 weeks of ADT there was a significant decrease in whole‐body and regional LM and bone mass, while whole‐body and regional FM increased in older men with prostate cancer. Strategies to counteract changes in soft tissue and bone mass during ADT should be formulated to minimize the risk of sarcopenia, osteoporosis and obesity.
Abstract
Background
Despite its therapeutic role during cancer treatment, exercise is not routinely integrated into care and implementation efforts are largely absent from the literature. The aim of ...this study was to evaluate a strategy to integrate the workflow of a co-located exercise clinic into routine care within a private oncology setting in two clinics in the metropolitan region of Western Australia.
Methods
This prospective evaluation utilised a mixed methods approach to summarise lessons learned during the implementation of an integrated exercise workflow and supporting implementation plan. Data collection was informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Reports detailing utilisation of the exercise service and its referral pathways, as well as patient surveys and meeting minutes documenting the implementation process informed the evaluation.
Results
The co-located exercise service achieved integration into routine care within the clinical oncology setting. Patient utilisation was near capacity (reach) and 100% of clinicians referred to the service during the 13-month evaluation period (adoption). Moreover, ongoing adaptations were made to improve the program (implementation) and workflows were integrated into standard operating practices at the clinic (maintenance). The workflow performed as intended for ~70% of exercise participants (effectiveness); however, gaps were identified in utilisation of the workflow by both patients and clinicians.
Conclusion
Integration of exercise into standard oncology care is possible, but it requires the ongoing commitment of multiple stakeholders across an organisation. The integrated workflow and supporting implementation plan greatly improved utilisation of the co-located exercise service, demonstrating the importance of targeted implementation planning. However, challenges regarding workflow fidelity within and across sites limited its success highlighting the complexities inherent in integrating exercise into clinical oncology care in a real-world setting.
To clarify the relative effects of duration of androgen suppression (AS) and radiation dose escalation (RDE) on distant progression (DP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer.
Participants ...with locally advanced prostate cancer in the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial were randomized to 6 or 18 months AS ± 18 months zoledronic acid (Z). The trial incorporated a RDE program by stratification at randomization and dosing options were 66, 70, or 74 Gy external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), or 46 Gy EBRT plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDRB). The primary endpoint for this study was distant progression (DP). Secondary endpoints included local progression, bone progression, prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Effect estimates for AS duration and RDE were derived using Fine and Gray competing risk models adjusting for use of Z, age, tumor stage, Gleason grade group, prostate-specific antigen, and treatment center. Cumulative incidence at 10 years was estimated for each RDE group.
A total of 1051 out of 1071 randomized subjects were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS significantly reduced DP independently of radiation dose (subhazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.56-0.87; P = .002). No statistically significant interaction between effect of AS duration and RT dose was observed (Wald test P = .76). In subgroup analyses, DP was significantly reduced by the longer duration of AS in the 70 Gy and HDRB groups but not in the 66 Gy and 74 Gy. Compared with 70 Gy, HDRB significantly reduced DP (subhazard ratio 0.68 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .0001) independently of AS duration. At 10 years, adjusted cumulative incidences were 26.1% (95% CI, 18.9%-33.2%), 26.7% (22.9%-30.6%), 24.9% (20.0%-29.8%) and 19.7% (15.5%-23.8%) for DPs in the respective radiation dose groups.
Compared with 6 months AS, 18 months AS reduced DP independently of radiation dose. Men treated with HDRB gained a significant benefit from a longer duration of AS. Evidence of improved oncologic outcomes for HDRB compared with dose-escalated EBRT needs to be confirmed in a randomized trial.
Exercise has emerged as a promising therapy for people with cancer. Novel programs have been developed to translate research into practice; however, implementation barriers have limited their success ...in part because successful translation of exercise oncology research into practice requires context-specific implementation plans. The aim of this study was to employ the implementation mapping protocol to develop an implementation plan to support programming of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment center.
The Implementation Mapping protocol, which consists of five specific iterative tasks, was used. A stakeholder advisory group advised throughout the process.
A comprehensive needs assessment was used to identify the organization's general manager as the program adopter; oncologists, center leaders, and various administrative staff as program implementers; and the operations manager as the program maintainer. Twenty performance objectives were identified. The theoretical domains framework was used to identify likely determinants of change, which informed the selection of eight individual implementation strategies across the individual and organizational levels. Finally, an evaluation plan was developed which will be used to measure the success of the implementation plan in the project's next phase.
The Implementation Mapping protocol provided a roadmap to guide development of a comprehensive implementation plan that considered all ecological domains, was informed by theory, and demonstrated an extensive understanding of the implementation context. Strong research-practitioner partnerships and effective stakeholder engagement were critical to development of the plan.
Purpose
While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed ...to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems.
Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system.
Results
A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research.
Conclusions
Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.
Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment (CRT) in rectal cancer patients is associated with a reduction in physical capacity, lean mass and increased fatigue. As a countermeasure to these ...treatment-related adverse effects, we examined the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a 10-week exercise program during CRT. Methods: Ten rectal cancer patients (7 men, aged 27-70 years, body mass index = 26.4 ± 3.8 kg/m2) receiving CRT undertook supervised resistance and aerobic exercise twice weekly. Assessments were undertaken pre- and post-intervention for upper and lower body muscle strength by 1-RM, muscle endurance, physical performance tests, body composition by dual X-ray absorptiometry, quality of life, and fatigue. Results: There was a significant loss in appendicular skeletal muscle (−1.1 kg, P = .012), and fat mass (−0.8 kg, P = .029) following CRT. Despite the loss in skeletal muscle, leg press (P = .030) and leg extension (P = .046) strength improved by 27.2% and 22.7%, respectively, and leg press endurance by 76.7% (P = .007). Changes in strength were accompanied by improved performance (P < .05) in 6-m fast walking speed (6.9%) and dynamic balance as determined by the 6-m backwards walk (15.5%). There was minimal change in quality of life and fatigue, and no adverse events related to training. Conclusions: Exercise during neoadjuvant CRT appears to be feasible and well tolerated in rectal cancer patients and may enhance physical function while minimizing adverse changes in body composition and cancer-related fatigue. These initial findings need to be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.
PDF
