Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted. INTERVENTION: Short-term ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175 (22.8%) had a low omega score. The overall discordance in risk classification was 26.1%. Both standard criteria and omega score identified significant interactions for the effect of ADT on cancer-related events and late mortality in low- versus high-risk subgroups. Within the low-risk/FIR subgroup, a higher omega score identified patients in whom ADT significantly reduced cancer events and improved event-free survival. Limitations are the need for external/prospective validation and lower RT doses than contemporary standards. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification based on competing event risk is useful for identifying prostate cancer patients who selectively benefit from ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed the effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localised prostate cancer among patients, defined by the relative risk (RR) for cancer versus noncancer events. Among patients with traditional low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk disease, those with a higher RR benefitted from short-term ADT.

Mapping expanded prostate cancer index composite to EQ5D utilities to inform economic evaluations in prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28-1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: "EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)- 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)"; RMSE was 0.10462. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

Tolerance doses for late adverse events after hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer on trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy (HRT) regimens for prostate cancer are emerging, but tolerance doses for late adverse events are scarce. The purpose of this study is to define dose-volume predictors for late gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GI and GU) toxicities after HRT in the multi-center NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 low-risk prostate cancer trial (N = 521). MATERIAL/METHODS: Treatment in the studied HRT arm was delivered as 70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction with 3D-CRT/IMRT (N = 108/413). At a median follow-up of 5.9 years, the crude late ≥Grade 2 GI and GU toxicities were 19% and 29%, respectively. For modeling, the complete HRT cohort was randomly split into training and validation (70% and 30%; preserved toxicity rates). Within training, dose-response modeling was based on dose-volume cut-points (EQD2Gy; bladder/rectum: α/ß = 6 Gy/3Gy), age, acute ≥Grade 2 toxicity, and treatment technique using univariate and multivariate logistic regression on bootstrapping (UVA and MVA). Candidate predictors were determined at p ≤ 0.05, and the selected MVA models were explored on validation where model generalizability was judged if the area under the receiver-operating curve in validation (AUCvalidation) was within AUCtraining ±â€¯SD with p ≤ 0.05, and with an Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value (pHL) > 0.05. RESULTS: Three candidate predictors were suggested for late GI toxicity: the minimum dose to the hottest 5% rectal volume (D5%[Gy]), the absolute rectal volume <35 Gy, and acute GI toxicity (AUC = 0.59-0.63; p = 0.02-0.04). The two generalizable MVA models, i.e., D5%[Gy] with or without acute GI toxicity (AUCvalidation = 0.64, 0.65; p = 0.01, 0.03; pHL = 0.45-0.56), suggest that reducing late GI toxicity from 20% to 10% would require reducing D5%[Gy] from ≤65 Gy to ≤62 Gy (logistic function argument: 17+(0.24D5%[Gy])). Acute GU toxicity showed only a trend to predict late GU toxicity (AUCtraining = 0.57; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Late GI toxicity, following moderate HRT for low-risk prostate cancer, increases with higher doses to small rectal volumes. This work provides quantitative evidence that limiting small rectal dose 'hotspots' in clinical practice of such HRT regimens is likely to further reduce the associated rates of GI toxicity.

A randomized phase II study of everolimus in combination with chemoradiation in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0913.

Background: This phase II study was designed to determine the efficacy of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus administered daily with conventional radiation therapy and chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Methods: Patients were randomized to radiation therapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide with or without daily everolimus (10 mg). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicities. Results: A total of 171 patients were randomized and deemed eligible for this study. Patients randomized to receive everolimus experienced a significant increase in both grade 4 toxicities, including lymphopenia and thrombocytopenia, and treatment-related deaths. There was no significant difference in PFS between patients randomized to everolimus compared with control (median PFS time: 8.2 vs 10.2 mo, respectively; P = 0.79). OS for patients randomized to receive everolimus was inferior to that for control patients (median survival time: 16.5 vs 21.2 mo, respectively; P = 0.008). A similar trend was observed in both O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase promoter hypermethylated and unmethylated tumors. Conclusion: Combining everolimus with conventional chemoradiation leads to increased treatment-related toxicities and does not improve PFS in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Although the median survival time in patients receiving everolimus was comparable to contemporary studies, it was inferior to the control in this randomized study.

Pictorial review. Magnetic resonance for radiotherapy management and treatment planning in prostatic carcinoma.

MRI has an important role for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning in prostate cancer (PCa) providing accurate visualization of the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) and locoregional anatomy, assessment of local staging and depiction of implanted devices. MRI enables the radiation oncologist to optimize RT planning by better defining target tumour volumes (thereby increasing local tumour control), as well as decreasing morbidity (by minimizing the dose to adjacent normal structures). Using MRI, radiation oncologists can define the DIL for delivery of boost doses of RT using a variety of techniques including: stereotactic body radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton RT or brachytherapy to improve tumour control. Radiologists require a familiarity with the different RT methods used to treat PCa, as well as an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various MR pulse sequences available for RT planning in order to provide an optimal multidisciplinary RT treatment approach to PCa. Understanding the expected post-RT appearance of the prostate and typical characteristics of local tumour recurrence is also important because MRI is rapidly becoming an integral component for diagnosis, image-guided histological sampling and treatment planning in the setting of biochemical failure after RT or surgery.

Is primary tumor detectable in prostatic carcinoma at routine contrast-enhanced CT?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if prostatic carcinoma (PCa) is detectable at routine contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 63 consecutive PCa patients underwent CECT before therapy. Two blinded radiologists assessed for rounded focal enhancing peripheral zone nodules. Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement were compared by Gleason Score (GS). RESULTS: Overall sensitivity was 63-76% with moderate agreement, K=0.42. The false-positive rate was 15%. Sensitivities and agreement for GS 9-10, 7-8 and 6 PCa were 84-91%, 73-84%, 41-71%, (P=.023 and .001) and K=(0.72, 0.69, 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: CECT has good sensitivity for detecting GS ≥7 PCa with substantial agreement and a low false-positive rate.

Randomized controlled trial of resistance or aerobic exercise in men receiving radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa) may cause unfavorable changes in fatigue, quality of life (QOL), and physical fitness. We report results from the Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy and Exercise Versus Normal Treatment study examining the effects of 24 weeks of resistance or aerobic training versus usual care on fatigue, QOL, physical fitness, body composition, prostate-specific antigen, testosterone, hemoglobin, and lipid levels in men with PCa receiving radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in Ottawa, Canada, where 121 PCa patients initiating radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 41), resistance (n = 40), or aerobic exercise (n = 40) for 24 weeks. Our primary end point was fatigue assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue scale. RESULTS: The follow-up assessment rate for our primary end point of fatigue was 92.6%. Median adherence to prescribed exercise was 85.5%. Mixed-model repeated measures analyses indicated both resistance (P =.010) and aerobic exercise (P = .004) mitigated fatigue over the short term. Resistance exercise also produced longer-term improvements (P = .002). Compared with usual care, resistance training improved QOL (P = .015), aerobic fitness (P = .041), upper- (P < .001) and lower-body (P < .001) strength, and triglycerides (P = .036), while preventing an increase in body fat (P = .049). Aerobic training also improved fitness (P = .052). One serious adverse event occurred in the group that performed aerobic exercise. CONCLUSION: In the short term, both resistance and aerobic exercise mitigated fatigue in men with PCa receiving radiotherapy. Resistance exercise generated longer-term improvements and additional benefits for QOL, strength, triglycerides, and body fat.

Three independent factors predicted adherence in a randomized controlled trial of resistance exercise training among prostate cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of adherence in a randomized controlled trial of resistance exercise training (RET) in prostate cancer survivors receiving androgen deprivation therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial conducted at fitness centers in Ottawa and Edmonton, Canada. Prostate cancer survivors (n=155) completed measures of social cognitive variables, quality of life (QOL), behavior, and fitness before being randomized to either an exercise (n=82) or control (n=73) group. The exercise group was asked to perform supervised RET three times per week for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The exercise group attended 28.2 of the 36 (78.3%) RET sessions. Univariate analyses revealed eight different significant (Ps <.05) predictors of exercise adherence including exercise stage of change, intention, age, QOL, fatigue, subjective norm, leg-press test, and perceived behavioral control. A multivariate analysis indicated that there were three independent predictors of adherence that explained 20.4% of the variance: exercise stage of change (beta=0.26; P=.013), age (beta=-0.22; P=.037), and intention (beta=0.19; P=.073). CONCLUSION: Exercise adherence in the trial was very good but not optimal. Adherence was predicted by variables from many different categories including social cognitive, QOL, behavioral, fitness, and demographic. These findings may have important implications for maximizing adherence during clinical trials of exercise in prostate cancer survivors.

Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy is a common treatment in men with prostate cancer that may cause fatigue, functional decline, increased body fatness, and loss of lean body tissue. These physical changes can negatively affect health-related quality of life. Resistance exercise may help to counter some of these side effects by reducing fatigue, elevating mood, building muscle mass, and reducing body fat. METHODS: In a two-site study, 155 men with prostate cancer who were scheduled to receive androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months after recruitment were randomly assigned to an intervention group that participated in a resistance exercise program three times per week for 12 weeks (82 men) or to a waiting list control group (73 men). The primary outcomes were fatigue and disease-specific quality of life as assessed by self-reported questionnaires after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were muscular fitness and body composition. RESULTS: Men assigned to resistance exercise had less interference from fatigue on activities of daily living (P =.002) and higher quality of life (P =.001) than men in the control group. Men in the intervention group demonstrated higher levels of upper body (P =.009) and lower body (P <.001) muscular fitness than men in the control group. The 12-week resistance exercise intervention did not improve body composition as measured by changes in body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, or subcutaneous skinfolds. CONCLUSION: Resistance exercise reduces fatigue and improves quality of life and muscular fitness in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy. This form of exercise can be an important component of supportive care for these patients.