Radiation therapy to the pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk prostate cancer is required on several Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trials. Based on a prior lymph node contouring ...project, we have shown significant disagreement in the definition of pelvic lymph node volumes among genitourinary radiation oncology specialists involved in developing and executing current RTOG trials.
A consensus meeting was held on October 3, 2007, to reach agreement on pelvic lymph node volumes. Data were presented to address the lymph node drainage of the prostate. Extensive discussion ensued to develop clinical target volume (CTV) pelvic lymph node consensus.
Consensus was obtained resulting in computed tomography image-based pelvic lymph node CTVs. Based on this consensus, the pelvic lymph node volumes to be irradiated include: distal common iliac, presacral lymph nodes (S(1)-S(3)), external iliac lymph nodes, internal iliac lymph nodes, and obturator lymph nodes. Lymph node CTVs include the vessels (artery and vein) and a 7-mm radial margin being careful to "carve out" bowel, bladder, bone, and muscle. Volumes begin at the L5/S1 interspace and end at the superior aspect of the pubic bone. Consensus on dose-volume histogram constraints for OARs was also attained.
Consensus on pelvic lymph node CTVs for radiation therapy to address high-risk prostate cancer was attained and is available as web-based computed tomography images as well as a descriptive format through the RTOG. This will allow for uniformity in evaluating the benefit and risk of such treatment.
Radiation therapy to the prostate involves increasingly sophisticated delivery techniques and changing fractionation schedules. With a low estimated α/β ratio, a larger dose per fraction would be ...beneficial, with moderate fractionation schedules rapidly becoming a standard of care. The integration of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and linear accelerator allows for accurate soft tissue tracking with the capacity to replan for the anatomy of the day. Extreme hypofractionation schedules become a possibility using the potentially automated steps of autosegmentation, MRI-only workflow, and real-time adaptive planning. The present report reviews the steps involved in hypofractionated adaptive MRI-guided prostate radiation therapy and addresses the challenges for implementation.
The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk ...localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment.
The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial.
Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07–13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18–17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3–33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7–28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9–24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0–35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group.
In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT.
National Cancer Institute.
...there was an absence of any evaluation as to the reliability of patient masking in the study.6,7 Third, the absence of physician masking is a concern. Many patients with prostate cancer will die ...of other competing medical comorbidities and interventions for prostate cancer must be carefully considered for the risks and benefits that they confer. ...all prostate interventions should provide a substantial benefit before they are recommended as standard of care. In summary, genitourinary oncologists need to carefully review and consider the validity of the current data supporting the use of SpaceOAR before routinely using this device. ...individuals who select patients for SpaceOAR implantation should be vigilant at reporting toxicity to MAUDE to ensure that the oncology community is aware of these events.
In 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further ...informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas.
A literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity.
Eighteen radiation oncologists' contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists' volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm
, intact node positive case was 409 cm
, and intact node negative case was 342 cm
. Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached.
Discordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.
Salvage radiation therapy is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-cancer recurrence signaled by a persistently or recurrently elevated ...prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Whether antiandrogen therapy with radiation therapy will further improve cancer control and prolong overall survival is unknown.
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1998 through 2003, we assigned 760 eligible patients who had undergone prostatectomy with a lymphadenectomy and had disease, as assessed on pathological testing, with a tumor stage of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond the prostatic capsule), no nodal involvement, and a detectable PSA level of 0.2 to 4.0 ng per milliliter to undergo radiation therapy and receive either antiandrogen therapy (24 months of bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily) or daily placebo tablets during and after radiation therapy. The primary end point was the rate of overall survival.
The median follow-up among the surviving patients was 13 years. The actuarial rate of overall survival at 12 years was 76.3% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 71.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). The 12-year incidence of death from prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 13.4% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at 12 years was 14.5% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 23.0% in the placebo group (P=0.005). The incidence of late adverse events associated with radiation therapy was similar in the two groups. Gynecomastia was recorded in 69.7% of the patients in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001).
The addition of 24 months of antiandrogen therapy with daily bicalutamide to salvage radiation therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of long-term overall survival and lower incidences of metastatic prostate cancer and death from prostate cancer than radiation therapy plus placebo. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; RTOG 9601 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002874 .).
There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal ...sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa.
MEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS).
The median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29%
36%, hazard ratio HR, 1.25 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47,
= .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR sHR, 1.37 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68,
= .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95,
= .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37,
= .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2%
3%,
= .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5%
5%,
= .76) between groups.
The sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.
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.
This trial was designed to test the hypothesis that total androgen suppression and whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) followed by a prostate boost improves progression-free survival (PFS) by > or =10% ...compared with total androgen suppression and prostate only RT (PORT). This trial was also designed to test the hypothesis that neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) followed by concurrent total androgen suppression and RT improves PFS compared with RT followed by adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) by > or =10%.
Patients eligible for the study included those with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate and an elevated prostate-specific antigen level of <100 ng/mL. Patients were stratified by T stage, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score and were required to have an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of >15%.
The difference in overall survival for the four arms was statistically significant (p = 0.027). However, no statistically significant differences were found in PFS or overall survival between NHT vs. AHT and WPRT compared with PORT. A trend towards a difference was found in PFS (p = 0.065) in favor of the WPRT + NHT arm compared with the PORT + NHT and WPRT + AHT arms.
Unexpected interactions appear to exist between the timing of hormonal therapy and radiation field size for this patient population. Four Phase III trials have demonstrated better outcomes when NHT was combined with RT compared with RT alone. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413 trial results have demonstrated that when NHT is used in conjunction with RT, WPRT yields a better PFS than does PORT. It also showed that when NHT + WPRT results in better overall survival than does WPRT + short-term AHT. Additional studies are warranted to determine whether the failure to demonstrate an advantage for NHT + WPRT compared with PORT + AHT is chance or, more likely, reflects a previously unrecognized biologic phenomenon.
PDF
