A practical guide for assessing and managing cardiovascular risk during androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men worldwide, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment. There are observational data demonstrating an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients who receive ADT, particularly those who have an elevated baseline cardiovascular risk. Because, for most patients with prostate cancer, death is predominantly from noncancer-related causes, cardiovascular disease and its risk factors should be optimized during cancer treatment. This review provides an overview of the landscape of ADT treatment and serves as a guide for appropriate cardiovascular screening and risk-mitigation strategies. The authors emphasize the importance of shared communication between the multidisciplinary cancer team and primary care to improve baseline cardiovascular screening and treatment of modifiable risk factors within this higher risk population.

Prostate cancer - major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) Staging Manual has been updated and improved to ensure the highest degree of clinical relevance and to improve its utility for patient evaluation and clinical research. Major changes include: 1) pathologically organ-confined disease is now considered pT2 and is no longer subclassified by extent of involvement or laterality, 2) tumor grading now includes both the Gleason score (as in the seventh edition criteria) and the grade group (introduced in the eighth edition criteria), 3) prognostic stage group III includes select, organ-confined disease based on prostate-specific antigen and Gleason/grade group status, and 4) 2 statistical prediction models are included in the staging manual. The AJCC will continue to critically analyze emerging prostate cancer biomarkers and tools for their ability to prognosticate and guide treatment decision making with the highest level of accuracy and confidence for patients and physicians. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:245-253. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Body composition and mortality in men receiving prostate radiotherapy: A pooled analysis of NRG/RTOG 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126.

PURPOSE: To validate the association between body composition and mortality in men treated with radiation for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Secondarily, to integrate body composition as a factor to classify patients by risk of all-cause mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants of NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126 with archived computed tomography were included. Muscle mass and muscle density were estimated by measuring the area and attenuation of the psoas muscles on a single slice at L4-L5. Bone density was estimated by measuring the attenuation of the vertebral body at mid-L5. Survival analyses, including Cox proportional hazards models, assessed the relationship between body composition and mortality. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to create a classification tree to classify participants by risk of death. RESULTS: Data from 2066 men were included in this study. In the final multivariable model, psoas area, comorbidity score, baseline prostate serum antigen, and age were significantly associated with survival. The RPA yielded a classification tree with four prognostic groups determined by age, comorbidity, and psoas area. Notably, the classification among older (≥70 years) men into prognostic groups was determined by psoas area. CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly supports that body composition is related to mortality in men with localized PCa. The inclusion of psoas area in the RPA classification tree suggests that body composition provides additive information to age and comorbidity status for mortality prediction, particularly among older men. More research is needed to determine the clinical impact of body composition on prognostic models in men with PCa.

The addition of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymph node treatment to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0534 SPPORT): an international, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of patients being free of progression at 5 years. A three-group randomised trial was designed to determine whether incremental gains in patient outcomes can be achieved by adding either 4-6 months of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to PBRT, or both short-term ADT and pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to PBRT. METHODS: The international, multicentre, randomised, controlled SPPORT trial was done at 283 radiation oncology cancer treatment centres in the USA, Canada, and Israel. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were those who after prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate had a persistently detectable or an initially undetectable and rising PSA of between 0·1 and 2·0 ng/mL. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy (N0/Nx) were eligible if there was no clinical or pathological evidence of lymph node involvement. Other eligibility criteria included pT2 or pT3 disease, prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive PBRT alone at a dose of 64·8-70·2 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction daily (group 1), PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 2), or PLNRT (45 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction, and then a volume reduction made to the planning target volume for the remaining 19·8-25 ·2 Gy) plus PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 3). The primary endpoint was freedom from progression, in which progression was defined as biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), clinical failure (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. A planned interim analysis of 1191 patents with minimum potential follow-up time of 5 years applied a Haybittle-Peto boundary of p<0·001 (one sided) for comparison of 5-year freedom from progression rates between the treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00567580. The primary objectives of the trial have been completed, although long-term follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2008, and March 30, 2015, 1792 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (592 to group 1 [PBRT alone], 602 to group 2 [PBRT plus short-term ADT], and 598 to group 3 [PLNRT plus PBRT plus short-term ADT]). 76 patients subsequently found to be ineligible were excluded from the analyses; thus, the evaluable patient population comprised 1716 patients. At the interim analysis (n=1191 patients; data cutoff May 23, 2018), the Haybittle-Peto boundary for 5-year freedom from progression was exceeded when group 1 was compared with group 3 (difference 17·9%, SE 2·9%; p<0·0001). The difference between groups 2 and 3 did not exceed the boundary (p=0·0063). With additional follow-up beyond the interim analysis (the final planned analysis; data cutoff May 26, 2021), at a median follow-up among survivors of 8·2 years (IQR 6·6-9·4), the 5-year freedom from progression rates in all 1716 eligible patients were 70·9% (95% CI 67·0-74·9) in group 1, 81·3% (78·0-84·6) in group 2, and 87·4% (84·7-90·2) in group 3. Per protocol criteria, freedom from progression in group 3 was superior to groups 1 and 2. Acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or worse adverse events were significantly more common in group 3 (246 [44%] of 563 patients) than in group 2 (201 [36%] of 563; p=0·0034), which, in turn, were more common than in group 1 (98 [18%] of 547; p<0·0001). Similar findings were observed for grade 3 or worse adverse events. However, late toxicity (>3 months after radiotherapy) did not differ significantly between the groups, apart from more late grade 2 or worse blood or bone marrow events in group 3 versus group 2 (one-sided p=0·0060) attributable to the addition of PLNRT in this group. INTERPRETATION: The results of this randomised trial establish the benefit of adding short-term ADT to PBRT to prevent progression in prostate cancer. To our knowledge, these are the first such findings to show that extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes when combined with short-term ADT results in meaningful reductions in progression after prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Development and Validation of an Improved Pathological Nodal Staging System in Men with Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer pathological nodal staging uses a single category for all node-positive patients. We sought to improve risk stratification by creating and validating a novel pathological nodal staging system incorporating number of metastatic lymph nodes (+LNs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 118,450 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the National Cancer Database comprised our development cohort. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis with restricted cubic splines was used to assess the nonlinear association between number of +LNs and overall mortality (OM). A novel staging system based on number of +LNs was derived by recursive partitioning analysis. The staging system was validated for prediction of OM and prostate-specific mortality in 105,568 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Discrimination was assessed via Harrell's c-index. RESULTS: In multivariable Cox analysis, OM risk increased with higher number of +LNs up to 4 (HR 1.30 per each LN+, 95% CI 1.23-1.38), with a nonstatistically significant increase in risk (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99-1.11) beyond 4 +LN. In the development cohort, recursive partitioning analysis identified optimal cutoffs at 0 (N0: referent), 1 (N1: HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.25-1.58), 2 (N2: HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.40-1.99), 3-5 (N3a: HR 2.18, 95% CI 0.84-2.60) and ≥6 (N3b: HR 3.00, 95% CI 2.37-3.79) +LNs. In the validation cohort, these groups had markedly different 10-year OM (0+ LNs, N0: 15%; 1+ LN, N1: 35%; 2+ LNs, N2: 43%; 3-5 +LNs, N3a: 52%; and ≥6 +LNs, N3b: 59%; p <0.05) and prostate-specific mortality. The novel staging system improved survival classification over current staging for node-positive patients (optimism-corrected c-index 0.669 [95% CI 0.668-0.671] vs 0.649 [95% CI 0.648-0.651]). CONCLUSIONS: Pathological nodal staging in prostate cancer is improved with stratification by number of +LNs.

Variation in Communication of Competing Risks of Mortality in Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

PURPOSE: Men with prostate cancer prefer patient-specific, quantitative assessments of longevity in shared decision making. We sought to characterize how physicians communicate the 3 components of competing risks-life expectancy (LE), cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit-in treatment consultations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conversation related to LE, cancer prognosis and treatment-related survival benefit was identified in transcripts from treatment consultations of 42 men with low- and intermediate-risk disease across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Consensus of qualitative coding by multiple reviewers noted the most detailed mode of communication used to describe each throughout the consultation. RESULTS: Physicians frequently failed to provide patient-specific, quantitative estimates of LE and cancer mortality. LE was omitted in 17% of consultations, expressed as a generalization (eg "long"/"short") in 17%, rough number of years in 31%, probability of mortality/survival at an arbitrary timepoint in 17% and in only 19% as a specific number of years. Cancer mortality was omitted in 24% of consultations, expressed as a generalization in 7%, years of expected life in 2%, probability at no/arbitrary timepoint in 40% and in only 26% as the probability at LE. Treatment-related survival benefit was often omitted; cancer mortality was reported without treatment in 38%, with treatment in 10% and in only 29% both with and without treatment. Physicians achieved "trifecta"-1) quantifying probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE-in only 14% of consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often fail to adequately quantify competing risks. We recommend the "trifecta" approach, reporting 1) probability of cancer mortality 2) with and without treatment 3) at the patient's LE.

Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The international Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate working group has established metastasis-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in localised prostate cancer based on the findings of 19 predominantly radiotherapy-based trials. We sought to comprehensively assess aggregate trial-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints across all randomised trials in localised prostate cancer. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed for all trials in localised or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer published between Jan 1, 1970, and Jan 15, 2020. Eligible trials had to be randomised, therapeutic, reporting overall survival and at least one intermediate clinical endpoint, and with a sample size of at least 70 participants. Trials of metastatic disease were excluded. Intermediate clinical endpoints included biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastases, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed using the second condition of the meta-analytical approach (ie, correlation of the treatment effect of the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival), using R2 weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical endpoint hazard ratio. The intermediate clinical endpoint was deemed to be a surrogate for overall survival if R2 was 0·7 or greater. FINDINGS: 75 trials (53 631 patients) were included in our analysis. Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·7-10·6). Biochemical failure (R2 0·38 [95% CI 0·11-0·64]), biochemical failure-free survival (R2 0·12 [0·0030-0·33]), biochemical failure and clinical failure (R2 0·28 [0·0045-0·65]), and local failure (R2 0·085 [0·00-0·37]) correlated poorly with overall survival. Progression-free survival (R2 0·46 [95% CI 0·22-0·67]) showed moderate correlation with overall survival, and metastasis-free survival (R2 0·78 [0·59-0·89]) correlated strongly. INTERPRETATION: Intermediate clinical endpoints based on biochemical and local failure did not meet the second condition of the meta-analytical approach and are not surrogate endpoints for overall survival in localised prostate cancer. Our findings validate metastasis-free survival as the only identified surrogate endpoint for overall survival to date. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

Integrating PARP Inhibitors Into Advanced Prostate Cancer Therapeutics.

DNA-damage repair (DDR) pathway mutations can sensitize cancer cells to a class of cancer therapeutics known as PARP inhibitors. Given that DDR alterations can be found in up to one-third of advanced prostate cancers, PARP inhibitors have recently been established in treatment-refractory settings. We provide an updated review of the clinical data supporting the 4 PARP inhibitors that have undergone the most investigation thus far in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Two of these agents are currently approved for the treatment of DDR-altered mCRPC. We end with a discussion on integration of approved PARP inhibitors into advanced prostate cancer clinical practice.

Radiation with or without Antiandrogen Therapy in Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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 .).

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop.

PURPOSE: The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics. RESULTS: The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO, ASCO and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this guideline is to present recommendations regarding moderately hypofractionated (240-340 cGy per fraction) and ultrahypofractionated (500 cGy or more per fraction) radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 8 key questions on appropriate indications and dose-fractionation for moderately and ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy, as well as technical issues, including normal tissue dose constraints, treatment volumes, and use of image guided and intensity modulated radiation therapy. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and Society-approved tools for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength. RESULTS: Based on high-quality evidence, strong consensus was reached for offering moderate hypofractionation across risk groups to patients choosing external beam radiation therapy. The task force conditionally recommends ultrahypofractionated radiation may be offered for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer but strongly encourages treatment of intermediate-risk patients on a clinical trial or multi-institutional registry. For high-risk patients, the task force conditionally recommends against routine use of ultrahypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. With any hypofractionated approach, the task force strongly recommends image guided radiation therapy and avoidance of nonmodulated 3-dimensional conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation therapy provides important potential advantages in cost and convenience for patients, and these recommendations are intended to provide guidance on moderate hypofractionation and ultrahypofractionation for localized prostate cancer. The limits in the current evidentiary base-especially for ultrahypofractionation-highlight the imperative to support large-scale randomized clinical trials and underscore the importance of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options.

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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/). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Modified risk stratification grouping using standard clinical and biopsy information for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from SEARCH.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and risk stratification systems have been proposed to guide treatment decisions. However, significant heterogeneity remains for those with unfavorable-risk disease. METHODS: This study included 3335 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy in the SEARCH database. High-risk patients were dichotomized into standard and very high-risk (VHR) groups based on primary Gleason pattern, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC), number of NCCN high-risk factors, and stage T3b-T4 disease. Similarly, intermediate-risk prostate cancer was separated into favorable and unfavorable groups based on primary Gleason pattern, PPBC, and number of NCCN intermediate-risk factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 78 months. Patients with VHR prostate cancer had significantly worse PSA relapse-free survival (PSA-RFS, P < 0.001), distant metastasis (DM, P = 0.004), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM, P = 0.015) in comparison to standard high-risk (SHR) patients in multivariable analyses. By contrast, there was no significant difference in PSA-RFS, DM, or PCSM between SHR and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) patients. Therefore, we propose a novel risk stratification system: Group 1 (low-risk), Group 2 (favorable intermediate-risk), Group 3 (UIR and SHR), and Group 4 (VHR). The c-index of this new grouping was 0.683 for PSA-RFS and 0.800 for metastases, compared to NCCN-risk groups which yield 0.666 for PSA-RFS and 0.764 for metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients classified as VHR have markedly increased rates of PSA relapse, DM, and PCSM in comparison to SHR patients, whereas UIR and SHR patients have similar prognosis. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed for patients with VHR, likely involving multimodality therapy.

Number of Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Factors Predicts Pathologic Upstaging and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality Following Radical Prostatectomy: Results From the SEARCH Database.

BACKGROUND: To validate and further improve the stratification of intermediate risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEARCH database was queried for IR patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. UIR disease was defined any patient with at least one unfavorable risk factor (URF), including primary Gleason pattern 4, 50% of more biopsy cores containing cancer, or multiple National Comprehensive Cancer Network IR factors. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred eighty-six patients with IR prostate cancer comprised the study cohort. Median follow-up was 62 months. Patients classified as UIR were significantly more likely to have pathologic high-risk features, such as Gleason score 8 - 10, pT3-4 disease, or lymph node metastases, than FIR patients (P < 0.001). Furthermore, UIR patients had significantly higher rates of PSA-relapse (PSA, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.89, P < 0.001) and distant metastasis (DM, HR = 2.92, P = 0.001), but no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) or all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. On secondary analysis, patients with ≥2 URF had significantly worse PSA-RFS, DM, and PCSM than those with 0 or 1 URF. Moreover, 40% of patients with ≥2 URF had high-risk pathologic features. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UIR prostate cancer are at increased risk of PSA relapse, DM, and pathologic upstaging following prostatectomy. However, increased risk of PCSM was only detected in those with ≥2 URF. This suggests that further refinement of the UIR subgroup may improve risk stratification. Prostate Prostate 77:154-163, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Adjuvant radiation therapy, androgen deprivation, and docetaxel for high-risk prostate cancer postprostatectomy: Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG study 0621.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials have demonstrated a benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for men who have adverse factors at radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients have a high risk of progression despite ART. The role of systemic therapy with ART in this high-risk group remains to be defined. METHODS: Patients who had either a post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir > 0.2 ng/mL and a Gleason score ≥7 or a PSA nadir ≤0.2 ng/mL, a Gleason score ≥8, and a pathologic tumor (pT) classification ≥ pT3 received 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiotherapy and 6 cycles of docetaxel. The primary objective was to assess whether the addition of ADT and docetaxel to ART resulted in a freedom from progression (FFP) rate ≥ 70% compared with an expected rate of 50%. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to model associations between factors and outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 74 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The pathologic tumor classification was pT2 in 4% of patients, pT3 in 95%, and pT4 in 1%. The Gleason score was 7 in 18% of patients and ≥8 in 82%. Post-RP PSA levels were ≤0.2 ng/mL in 53% of patients and >0.2 ng/mL in 47%. The 3-year FFP rate was 73% (95% confidence interval, 61%-83%), and the 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical, distant, and local failure was 26%, 7%, and 0%, respectively. In multivariate models, postprostatectomy PSA nadir was associated with 3-year FFP, Gleason score, and PSA with biochemical failure. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was common; however, only 3 episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Late toxicities were not impacted by the addition of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined ADT, docetaxel, and ART for men with high-risk prostate cancer after prostatectomy exceeded the prespecified study endpoint of 70% 3-year FFP. Phase 3 trials assessing combined local and systemic therapies for these high-risk patients are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2489-96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.