Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial Exploring Optimal Sequencing of Short-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Prostate Radiation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Two phase 3 randomized controlled trials (OTT-0101, RTOG-9413) and a meta-analysis have shown an impact of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy on oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the impact of sequencing strategy on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is unclear. Here, we present the patient-reported HR-QoL outcomes from the OTT-0101 study. METHODS AND MATERIALS In this trial, patients with PCa with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen level <30 ng/mL were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT for 6 months, starting 4 months before or concurrent with prostate radiation therapy, or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months, starting simultaneously with prostate radiation therapy. HR-QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaires. Time until definitive deterioration was defined as time from random allocation to the first deterioration of at least 10 points with no further improvement of ≥10 points or if the patient experienced progression, died, or dropped out after deterioration, resulting in missing data. Stratified log-rank tests were applied for between-group comparisons of time-to-event estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients (194 and 199 in the 2 arms, respectively) were evaluable, except 214 (101 and 113 in the 2 arms, respectively) for sexual function. Five-year rates of freedom from definitive deterioration of urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms, and sexual activity were 33.5%, 33.1%, and 38.5% in the neoadjuvant group and 34.1%, 35.4%, and 36.7% in the adjuvant group, respectively, with no significant between-group differences. The adjuvant approach was associated with a reduced risk of definitive deterioration of sexual function (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94; P = .02). With respect to clinical relevance, the mean change in score for sexual function showed only a small to moderate difference favoring the adjuvant group at and beyond 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, no differences were found in the bowel or urinary symptoms between the adjuvant and neoadjuvant approach. Considering a significant likelihood of type I and type II errors and because of a lack of a persistent and clinically meaningful between-group difference in mean score changes over time, our findings do not confer a clear and conclusive picture of the impact of sequencing strategy on sexual function.