Outcomes after definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer in a national health care delivery system.

PURPOSE: Accurate information regarding real-world outcomes after contemporary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer is important for shared decision-making. Clinically relevant end points at 10 years among men treated within a national health care delivery system were examined. METHODS: National administrative, cancer registry, and electronic health record data were used for patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy with or without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy within the Veterans Health Administration from 2005 to 2015. National Death Index data were used through 2019 for overall and prostate cancer-specific survival and identified date of incident metastatic prostate cancer using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier methods were estimated. RESULTS: Among 41,735 men treated with definitive radiation therapy, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years and median follow-up was 8.7 years. Most had intermediate (42%) and high-risk (33%) disease, with 40% receiving androgen deprivation therapy as part of initial therapy. Unadjusted 10-year metastasis-free survival was 96%, 92%, and 80% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. Similarly, unadjusted 10-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%, 97%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease. The unadjusted overall survival was lower across increasing disease risk categories at 77%, 71%, and 62% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide population-based 10-year benchmarks for clinically relevant end points, including metastasis-free survival, among patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy using contemporary techniques. The survival rates for high-risk disease in particular suggest that outcomes have recently improved.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (TROG 08.03/ANZUP RAVES): a randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3-7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81-92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82-93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65-1·90; pnon-inferiority=0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity. FUNDING: New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia.

Perineural invasion by prostate adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies predicts bone metastasis: Ten year data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR Trial.

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.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): 10-year results from a randomised, phase 3, factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: 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.

Using Online Meeting Software to Facilitate Geographically Dispersed Focus Groups for Health Workforce Research.

Focus groups as a data collection method in qualitative research have been used for several decades with great effect. Recent developments in online mechanisms for communication have prompted several researchers to explore alternate means of facilitating focus group participation. However, much of the online focus group literature has explored the use of text-based communication; there are few reports on the application of real-time online video-enabled software. In this article, we seek to inform the growing use of online-meeting software-mediated focus groups by reporting and analyzing its application within the context of a health workforce study among geographically dispersed radiation therapy professionals.

Health-related quality of life for immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with asymptomatic, non-curable prostate cancer (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer who have relapsed with rising prostate-specific antigen concentration only (PSA-only relapse), or with non-curable but asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, could adversely affect quality of life at a time when the disease itself does not. We aimed to compare the effect of immediate versus delayed androgen-deprivation therapy on health-related quality of life over 5 years in men enrolled in the TOAD (Timing of Androgen Deprivation) trial. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial done in 29 public and private cancer centres across Australia, New Zealand, and Canada compared immediate with delayed androgen-deprivation therapy in men with PSA-only relapse after definitive treatment, or de-novo non-curable disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a database-embedded, dynamically balanced algorithm to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy group) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy group). Any type of androgen-deprivation therapy was permitted, as were intermittent or continuous schedules. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaires QLQ-C30 and PR25 were completed before randomisation, every 6 months for 2 years, and annually for a further 3 years. The primary outcome of the trial, reported previously, was overall survival, with global health-related quality of life at 2 years as a secondary endpoint. Here we report prespecified secondary objectives of the quality-of-life endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. Statistical significance was set at p=0·0036. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12606000301561, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00110162. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, 293 men were recruited and randomly assigned; 151 to the delayed therapy group and 142 to the immediate therapy group. There was no difference between the two groups in global health-related quality of life over 2 years from randomisation. There were no statistically significant differences in global quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, or emotional functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, insomnia, or feeling less masculine over the entire 5 years after randomisation. Sexual activity was lower in the immediate therapy group than in the delayed group at 6 and 12 months (at 6 months mean score 29·20 [95% CI 24·59-33·80] in the delayed group vs 10·40 [6·87-13·93] in the immediate group, difference 18·80 [95% CI 13·00-24·59], p<0·0001; at 12 months 28·63 [24·07-33·18] vs 13·76 [9·94-17·59], 14·86 [8·95-20·78], p<0·0001), with the differences exceeding the clinically significant threshold of 10 points until beyond 2 years. The immediate therapy group also had more hormone-treatment-related symptoms at 6 and 12 months (at 6 months mean score 8·48 [95% CI 6·89-10·07] in the delayed group vs 15·97 [13·92-18·02] in the immediate group, difference -7·49 [-10·06 to -4·93], p<0·0001; at 12 months 9·32 [7·59-11·05] vs 17·07 [14·75-19·39], -7·75 [-10·62 to -4·89], p<0·0001), but with differences below the threshold of clinical significance. For the individual symptoms, hot flushes were clinically significantly higher in the immediate group (adjusted proportion 0·31 for delayed therapy vs 0·55 for immediate therapy, adjusted odds ratio 2·87 [1·96-4·21], p<0·0001) over the 5-year period, as were nipple or breast symptoms (0·06 vs 0·14, 2·64 [1·61-4·34], p=0·00013). INTERPRETATION: Immediate use of androgen-deprivation therapy was associated with early detriments in specific hormone-treatment-related symptoms, but with no other demonstrable effect on overall functioning or health-related quality of life. This evidence can be used to help decision making about treatment initiation for men at this disease stage. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia, Tolmar Australia.

Timing of androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer with a rising PSA (TROG 03.06 and VCOG PR 01-03 [TOAD]): a randomised, multicentre, non-blinded, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy is offered to men with prostate cancer who have a rising prostate-specific antigen after curative therapy (PSA relapse) or who are considered not suitable for curative treatment; however, the optimal timing for its introduction is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether immediate androgen-deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared with delayed therapy. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-blinded trial, we recruited men through 29 oncology centres in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Men with prostate cancer were eligible if they had a PSA relapse after previous attempted curative therapy (radiotherapy or surgery, with or without postoperative radiotherapy) or if they were not considered suitable for curative treatment (because of age, comorbidity, or locally advanced disease). We used a database-embedded, dynamically balanced, randomisation algorithm, coordinated by the Cancer Council Victoria, to randomly assign participants (1:1) to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (immediate therapy arm) or to delayed androgen-deprivation therapy (delayed therapy arm) with a recommended interval of at least 2 years unless clinically contraindicated. Randomisation for participants with PSA relapse was stratified by type of previous therapy, relapse-free interval, and PSA doubling time; randomisation for those with non-curative disease was stratified by metastatic status; and randomisation in both groups was stratified by planned treatment schedule (continuous or intermittent) and treatment centre. Clinicians could prescribe any form and schedule of androgen-deprivation therapy and group assignment was not masked. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial closed to accrual in 2012 after review by the independent data monitoring committee, but data collection continued for 18 months until Feb 26, 2014. It is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000301561) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00110162). FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2004, and July 13, 2012, we recruited 293 men (261 with PSA relapse and 32 with non-curable disease). We randomly assigned 142 men to the immediate therapy arm and 151 to the delayed therapy arm. Median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3·3-6·2) from the date of randomisation. 16 (11%) men died in the immediate therapy arm and 30 (20%) died in the delayed therapy arm. 5-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 78·5-91·5) in the delayed therapy arm versus 91·2% (84·2-95·2) in the immediate therapy arm (log-rank p=0·047). After Cox regression, the unadjusted HR for overall survival for immediate versus delayed arm assignment was 0·55 (95% CI 0·30-1·00; p=0·050). 23 patients had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events. 105 (36%) men had adverse events requiring hospital admission; none of these events were attributable to treatment or differed between treatment-timing groups. The most common serious adverse events were cardiovascular, which occurred in nine (6%) patients in the delayed therapy arm and 13 (9%) in the immediate therapy arm. INTERPRETATION: Immediate receipt of androgen-deprivation therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with delayed intervention in men with PSA-relapsed or non-curable prostate cancer. The results provide benchmark evidence of survival rates and morbidity to discuss with men when considering their treatment options. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Cancer Councils, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Mayne Pharma Australia.

Nurse-led group consultation intervention reduces depressive symptoms in men with localised prostate cancer: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer has many known and distressing side effects. The efficacy of group interventions for reducing psychological morbidity is lacking. This study investigated the relative benefits of a group nurse-led intervention on psychological morbidity, unmet needs, treatment-related concerns and prostate cancer-specific quality of life in men receiving curative intent radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: This phase III, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial included 331 men (consent rate: 72 %; attrition: 5 %) randomised to the intervention (n = 166) or usual care (n = 165). The intervention comprised four group and one individual consultation all delivered by specialist uro-oncology nurses. Primary outcomes were anxious and depressive symptoms as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Unmet needs were assessed with the Supportive Care Needs Survey-SF34 Revised, treatment-related concerns with the Cancer Treatment Scale and quality of life with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index -26. Assessments occurred before, at the end of and 6 months post-radiotherapy. Primary outcome analysis was by intention-to-treat and performed by fitting a linear mixed model to each outcome separately using all observed data. RESULTS: Mixed models analysis indicated that group consultations had a significant beneficial effect on one of two primary endpoints, depressive symptoms (p = 0.009), and one of twelve secondary endpoints, procedural concerns related to cancer treatment (p = 0.049). Group consultations did not have a significant beneficial effect on generalised anxiety, unmet needs and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individual consultations offered as part of usual care, the intervention provides a means of delivering patient education and is associated with modest reductions in depressive symptoms and procedural concerns. Future work should seek to confirm the clinical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of group interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN012606000184572 . 1 March 2006.

Cognitive existential couple therapy (CECT) in men and partners facing localised prostate cancer: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of cognitive existential couple therapy (CECT) for relationship function, coping, cancer distress and mental health in men with localised prostate cancer and in their partners. PATIENTS SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted with 62 couples randomly assigned to the six-session CECT programme or care as usual. The couple's relationship function (primary outcome), and coping, cancer distress and mental health (secondary outcomes) were evaluated at T0 (baseline), T1 (after treatment) and T2 (9 months from T0). A repeated-measures analysis of covariance model, which incorporated T0 measurements as a covariate, was used to compare treatment groups at T1 and T2. RESULTS: After CECT, patients reported significantly greater use of adaptive coping (P = 0.03) and problem-focused coping (P = 0.01). These gains were maintained at follow-up, while relationship cohesion had improved (P = 0.03), as had relationship function for younger patients (P = 0.01). Younger partners reported less cancer-specific distress (P = 0.008), avoidance (P = 0.04), intrusive thought (P = 0.006), and hyperarousal (P = 0.01). Gains were maintained at follow-up, while relationship cohesion (P = 0.007), conflict resolution (P = 0.01) and relational function (P = 0.009) all improved. CONCLUSION: CECT resulted in improved coping for patients and lower cancer-distress for partners. Maintained over time this manifests as improved relationship function. CECT was acceptable to couples, alleviated long-term relationship decline, and is therefore suitable as a preventative mental health intervention for couples facing prostate cancer. Given resourcing demands, we recommend dissemination of CECT be targeted at younger couples, as CECT was more acceptable to the younger group, and they derived greater benefit from it.

Tolerability and outcomes of curative radiotherapy in patients aged 85 or more years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the tolerability and survival outcome of curative radiotherapy in patients over the age of 85 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of all patients aged over 85 years who received radiotherapy as part of curative treatment for any cancer (excluding insignificant skin cancers) at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Poor treatment tolerability (defined as hospital admission during radiotherapy, treatment break, or early treatment cessation); predictors for poor treatment tolerability, overall survival and cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: 327 treatment courses met eligibility criteria. The median age of patients was 87 years. The most common treatment sites were pelvis (30%), head and neck (25%), and breast (18%). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score was 0 or 1 for 70% of patients. Overall, 79% of patients completed the prescribed treatment without poor treatment tolerability, and 95% of patients completed all treatment. Only unfavourable ECOG PS score (odds ratio [OR], 1.80; P = 0.005) and increasing age (OR, 1.18; P = 0.018) predicted poor treatment tolerability. ECOG PS score predicted overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.53; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Age should not be the sole discriminator in decisions to prescribe aggressive loco-regional radiotherapy. ECOG PS score predicts for treatment tolerability, and also overall survival. The risk of cancer death was higher than non-cancer death for more than 5 years after treatment.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial.

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.

The 'Timing of Androgen-Deprivation therapy in incurable prostate cancer' protocol (TOAD)--where are we now? Synopsis of the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group PR 01-03 and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.06 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the development of the 'Timing of Androgen Deprivation' (TOAD) protocol, a collaborative randomised clinical trial under the auspices of the Cancer Council Victoria, the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), which opened to recruitment in 2004. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The principal hypothesis for the trial was that the early introduction of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT; experimental arm) at the time when curative therapies are no longer considered an option, would improve overall survival for these patients, whilst maintaining an acceptable quality of life; compared with waiting for disease progression or the development of symptoms (control arm). An increase in overall survival at 5 years of 10% was judged to be clinically worthwhile. RESULTS: Recruitment was slow, with fewer than half of the protocol requirement of 750 patients eventually accrued, but nonetheless it is considered that the trial will still contribute a major source of evidence in this area. The study closed to follow-up at the end of 2013, with data analysis commencing mid-2014, and with the primary publication anticipated to be submitted by the end of 2014. CONCLUSION: The question of timing of ADT remains relevant in the current era of newer and more varied treatment methods. Even with the advent of novel chemotherapy and the biological agents that are undergoing investigation for progressively earlier disease stages, the dilemma of when to commence palliative treatment in an asymptomatic patient will remain, unless or until these agents are shown to increase overall survival. The TOAD trial will contribute to answering at least in part, some of these questions.

A Phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the Radiotherapy -- Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that observation with early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is not inferior to 'standard' treatment with adjuvant RT (ART) with respect to biochemical failure in patients with pT3 disease and/or positive surgical margins (SMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). To compare the following secondary endpoints between the two arms: patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, biochemical failure-free survival, overall survival, disease-specific survival, time to distant failure, time to local failure, cost utility analysis, quality adjusted life years and time to androgen deprivation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Radiotherapy - Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial led by the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), in collaboration with the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), and the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP). In all, 470 patients are planned to be randomised 1:1 to either ART commenced at ≤4 months of RP (standard of care) or close observation with early SRT triggered by a PSA level of >0.20 ng/mL (experimental arm). Eligible patients have had a RP for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with at least one of the following risk factors: positive SMs ± extraprostatic extension ± seminal vesicle involvement. The postoperative PSA level must be ≤0.10 ng/mL. Rigorous investigator credentialing and a quality assurance programme are designed to promote consistent RT delivery among patients. RESULTS: Trial is currently underway, with 258 patients randomised as of 31 October 2013. International collaborations have developed, including a planned meta-analysis to be undertaken with the UK Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group RADICALS (Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation In Combination with Local Surgery) trial and an innovative psycho-oncology sub-study to investigate a patient decision aid resource. CONCLUSION: On the current evidence available, it remains unclear if ART is equivalent or superior to observation with early SRT.

Impact of androgen suppression and zoledronic acid on bone mineral density and fractures in the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 03.04 Randomised Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (RADAR) randomized controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates on incident vertebral and non-spinal fracture rates and bone mineral density (BMD) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2007, 1071 men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly allocated, using a 2 × 2 trial design, to 6 months i.m. leuprorelin (androgen suppression [AS]) before radiotherapy alone ± 12 months additional leuprorelin ± 18 months zoledronic acid (ZdA), commencing at randomization. The main endpoint was incident thoraco-lumbar vertebral fractures, which were assessed radiographically at randomization and at 3 years, then reassessed by centralized review. Subsidiary endpoints included incident non-spinal fractures, which were documented throughout follow-up, and BMD, which was measured in 222 subjects at baseline, 2 years and 4 years. RESULTS: Incident vertebral fractures at 3 years were observed in 132 subjects. Their occurrence was not increased by 18 months' AS, nor reduced by ZdA. Incident non-spinal fractures occurred in 72 subjects and were significantly related to AS duration but not to ZdA. Osteopenia and osteoporosis prevalence rates at baseline were 23.4 and 1.4%, respectively, at the hip. Treatment for 6 and 18 months with AS caused significant reductions in hip BMD at 2 and 4 years (P < 0.01) and ZdA prevented these losses at both time points. CONCLUSION: In an AS-naïve population, 18 months of ZdA treatment prevented the sustained BMD losses caused by 18 months of AS treatment; however, the study power was insufficient to show that AS duration or ZdA influenced vertebral fracture rates.

Cognitive Existential Couple Therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients and their partners: a descriptive pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe 'Cognitive Existential Couple Therapy' (CECT), a novel couples-based intervention for men with early stage prostate cancer (PCa) and their partners, and to report preliminary findings from a pilot study that investigated the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and the measures to be used in a subsequent randomised controlled trial. METHODS: A manualised CECT programme was delivered to 12 couples facing a diagnosis of PCa within the previous 12 months by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Participants completed measures of psychological distress, marital function and coping pattern before and after CECT. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine couples shortly after the completion of CECT. RESULTS: The application of CECT was both feasible and acceptable as indicated by favourable participant compliance (10 of the 12 couples attended all six designated sessions), completion of measures before and after CECT and participation in semi-structured interviews by nine couples. Preliminary results included reduced levels of avoidance and hyperarousal after the programme, with this effect stronger in partners than in patients. Interviews demonstrated that couples valued the therapist's contribution to their overall care. CONCLUSIONS: Previous research suggests that a couple-focused psychological intervention is desirable in the context of early stage PCa. This pilot study has established that CECT is acceptable, feasible and valued by couples facing a recent PCa diagnosis and demonstrates a potential for reduced psychological distress following CECT. A randomised controlled trial is currently being undertaken to validate the efficacy of this novel approach.

Quality of life in men with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with leuprorelin and radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid (TROG 03.04 RADAR): secondary endpoints from a randomised phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates with escalating doses of radiotherapy might improve efficacy outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. In this study, we investigated whether these treatments had a detrimental effect on patient-reported-outcome (PRO) scores. METHODS: We undertook a phase 3 trial with a 2×2 factorial design in 23 centres in Australia and New Zealand in men with non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate (stage T2b-4 or T2a, Gleason score ≥7, and baseline prostate-specific antigen concentration [PSA] ≥10 µg/L), and without previous lymph node or systemic metastases or comorbidities that could reduce life expectancy to less than 5 years. The men were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 6 months of neoadjuvant (short-term) androgen suppression (STAS) with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) or an additional 12 months (intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]) of leuprorelin with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously). Study drug administration commenced at randomisation after which radiotherapy started within the fifth month in all groups. Treatment allocation was open-label, and computer-generated randomisation, stratified by centre, baseline concentrations of PSA, clinical stage of the tumour, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost, was done by use of the minimisation technique. PRO scores were calculated from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life and prostate-specific quality-of-life module questionnaires and compared with multiple regression models at baseline, and end of radiotherapy, and 18 months and 36 months according to group and radiation dose. The trial is ongoing and the primary endpoint, prostate-cancer-specific mortality, will be reported in 2014. This study is the final report of PRO scores (a secondary endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: 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). At the end of radiotherapy, significant detrimental changes in PRO scores (p<0·01) occurred in all groups. There were no significant differences in global health status between groups at any timepoint. At 18 months, PROs that were significantly worse in the ITAS groups when compared with STAS were hormone-treatment-related symptoms (HTRS; STAS, 10·20 [95% CI 8·66-11·75]; ITAS, 17·36 [13·63-21·08], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 19·14 [15·43-22·85], p<0·01), sexual activity (STAS, 26·38 [23·50-29·27]; ITAS, 14·40 [7·44-21·36], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 16·34 [9·39-23·28], p<0·01), social function (STAS, 90·31 [87·89-92·73]; ITAS, 87·35 [81·52-93·18], p=0·09; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 83·66 [77·85-89·48], p<0·01), fatigue (STAS, 17·05 [14·58-19·51]; ITAS 24·52 [18·58-30·46], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 24·26 [18·33-30·18], p<0·01), and financial problems (STAS, 3·39 [1·29-5·48]; ITAS, 8·97 [3·92-14·02], p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 8·92 [3·89-13·96], p<0·01). With the exception of HTRS, in which marginal differences remained, persisting significant differences disappeared by 36 months. Other factors associated with significant detrimental changes in PRO scores were a brachytherapy boost, incomplete testosterone and haemoglobin recoveries, age, and smoking. INTERPRETATION: Compared with 6 months of androgen suppression, 18 months of androgen suppression causes additional detrimental changes at the 18 month follow-up in some PRO scores but not in global quality-of-life scores. However, with the exception of HTRS, these differences resolved by 36 months. The use of zoledronic acid every 3 months over 18 months does not result in additional detrimental changes, but the use of a brachytherapy boost to achieve radiation dose escalation in the prostate can adversely affect emotional function and financial problems. 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), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.

Overcoming uncertainty: A framework to guide the implementation of Australian radiation therapy advanced practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of radiation therapy advanced practice in Australia has not yet been broadly realised. With anticipated growing demands on cancer services, it is imperative to understand why this is the case, and to strategise a way forward. As a result, we explored the factors influencing the implementation of advanced practitioner radiation therapists (APRT) in Australia. The research outcome was a complex process of Navigating Uncertainty, which described the contextual, social and personal factors surrounding implementation successes and challenges. Further synthesis of the findings was undertaken to highlight the fundamental features influencing this process, with the intention to provide a useful understanding for practitioners seeking APRT implementation. METHODS: Data were collected through national online focus groups and case studies with 53 participants. Analysis identified a constructivist grounded theory process of Navigating Uncertainty. Further analysis of the categories and properties of the process was undertaken to synthesise findings at a higher level of abstraction. RESULTS: Four overarching and intertwined factors were influencing the implementation of APRT. Uncertainty occurred when practitioners attempted to conceptualise and assimilate the new role into the workplace. Power was apparent in the advocacy and legitimisation of the APRT by centre leaders. Value was vital to achieving purposeful outcomes. Identity was evident in the personal transition of the APRT, and in the boundary work with others. CONCLUSION: Recognising and negotiating uncertainty, power, value and identity is essential for APRT implementation strategies to succeed. A framework to guide practitioners towards the implementation of APRT has been described that embodies these factors.