Time of metastatic disease presentation and volume of disease are prognostic for metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no universally accepted prognostic classification for patients (pts) with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that pts with low volume (LV), per CHAARTED trial definition, mHSPC, and those who relapse after prior local therapy (PLT) have longer overall survival (OS) compared to high volume (HV) and de-novo (DN), respectively. Using a hospital-based registry, we aimed to assess whether a classification based on time of metastatic disease (PLT vs DN) and disease volume (LV vs HV) are prognostic for mHSPC pts treated with ADT. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with mHSPC treated with ADT between 1990 and 2013 was selected from the prospectively collected Dana-Farber Cancer Institute database and categorized as DN or PLT and HV or LV, at time of ADT start. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), respectively, which were measured from date of ADT start using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models using known prognostic factors was used. RESULTS: The analytical cohort consisted of 436 patients. The median OS and time to CRPC for PLT/LV were 92.4 (95%CI: 80.4-127.2) and 25.6 (95%CI: 21-35.7) months and 43.2 (95%CI: 37.2-56.4) and 12.2 (95%CI: 9.8-14.8) months for DN/HV, respectively, whereas intermediate values were observed for PLT/HV and DN/LV. A robust gradient for both outcomes was observed (Trend test P < 0.0001) in the four groups. In a multivariable analysis, DN presentation, HV, and cancer-related pain were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: In our hospital-based registry, time of metastatic presentation and disease volume were prognostic for mHSPC pts treated with ADT. This simple prognostic classification system can aid patient counseling and future trial design.

Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, or External Beam Radiotherapy With Brachytherapy Boost and Disease Progression and Mortality in Patients With Gleason Score 9-10 Prostate Cancer.

Importance: The optimal treatment for Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer is unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 12 tertiary centers (11 in the United States, 1 in Norway), with 1809 patients treated between 2000 and 2013. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy, or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival were secondary outcomes. Results: Of 1809 men, 639 underwent RP, 734 EBRT, and 436 EBRT+BT. Median ages were 61, 67.7, and 67.5 years; median follow-up was 4.2, 5.1, and 6.3 years, respectively. By 10 years, 91 RP, 186 EBRT, and 90 EBRT+BT patients had died. Adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were RP, 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%); EBRT, 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%); and EBRT+BT, 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%). EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower prostate cancer-specific mortality than either RP or EBRT (cause-specific HRs of 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.68] and 0.41 [95% CI, 0.24-0.71]). Adjusted 5-year incidence rates of distant metastasis were RP, 24% (95% CI, 19%-30%); EBRT, 24% (95% CI, 20%-28%); and EBRT+BT, 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%). EBRT+BT was associated with a significantly lower rate of distant metastasis (propensity-score-adjusted cause-specific HRs of 0.27 [95% CI, 0.17-0.43] for RP and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19-0.47] for EBRT). Adjusted 7.5-year all-cause mortality rates were RP, 17% (95% CI, 11%-23%); EBRT, 18% (95% CI, 14%-24%); and EBRT+BT, 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%). Within the first 7.5 years of follow-up, EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (cause-specific HRs of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.96] for RP and 0.61 [95% CI, 0.45-0.84] for EBRT). After the first 7.5 years, the corresponding HRs were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.70-1.92) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.57-1.32). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality, distant metastasis, or all-cause mortality (≤7.5 and >7.5 years) were found between men treated with EBRT or RP (cause-specific HRs of 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67-1.26], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.14], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.80-1.44], and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.85-2.11]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer, treatment with EBRT+BT with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with significantly better prostate cancer-specific mortality and longer time to distant metastasis compared with EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy or with RP.

Association of Concomitant Bone Resorption Inhibitors With Overall Survival Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Bone Metastases Receiving Abiraterone Acetate With Prednisone as First-Line Therapy.

Importance: Bone resorption inhibitors (BRIs) are recommended by international guidelines to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs) among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. Abiraterone acetate with prednisone is currently the most common first-line therapy for the treatment of patients with mCRPC; however, the clinical impact of the addition of BRIs to abiraterone acetate with prednisone in this disease setting is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association of the use of concomitant BRIs with overall survival (OS) and time to first SRE among patients with mCRPC and bone metastases receiving abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study collected data from 745 consecutive patients who began receiving abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for mCRPC with bone metastases between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected from 8 hospitals in Canada, Europe, and the US from June 15 to September 15, 2019. Exposures: Patients were classified by receipt vs nonreceipt of concomitant BRIs and subclassified by volume of disease (high volume or low volume, using definitions from the Chemohormonal Therapy Vs Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer [CHAARTED] E3805 study) at the initiation of abiraterone acetate with prednisone therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. The secondary end point was time to first SRE. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Results: Of the 745 men (median age, 77.6 years [interquartile range, 68.1-83.6 years]; 699 White individuals [93.8%]) included in the analysis, 529 men (71.0%) received abiraterone acetate with prednisone alone (abiraterone acetate cohort), and 216 men (29.0%) received abiraterone acetate with prednisone plus BRIs (BRI cohort). A total of 420 men (56.4%) had high-volume disease, and 276 men (37.0%) had low-volume disease. The median follow-up was 23.5 months (95% CI, 19.8-24.9 months). Patients in the BRI cohort experienced significantly longer OS compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (31.8 vs 23.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P < .001). The OS benefit in the BRI cohort was greater for patients with high-volume vs low-volume disease (33.6 vs 19.7 months; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68; P < .001). The BRI cohort also had a significantly shorter time to first SRE compared with the abiraterone acetate cohort (32.4 vs 42.7 months; HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.60; P = .04), and the risk of a first SRE was more than double in the subgroup with low-volume disease (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.57-3.35; P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, concomitant BRIs use was independently associated with longer OS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the addition of BRIs to abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for the treatment of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases was associated with longer OS, particularly in patients with high-volume disease. These results suggest that the use of BRIs in combination with abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for the treatment of mCRPC with bone metastases could be beneficial.

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS). CONCLUSIONS: WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.

Impact of new systemic therapies on overall survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a hospital-based registry.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, docetaxel was shown to prolong the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC). Since 2010, five new systemic therapies have been shown to prolong OS in men with mCRPC. We sought to evaluate the aggregate impact of these newer therapies on the OS of patients with mCRPC. METHODS: Two cohorts of patients diagnosed with mCRPC between 2004 and 2007, treated with drugs used in the limited treatment era only (A), and between 2010 and 2013, treated also with newer therapies (B), were identified from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute database. The analysis endpoint was OS within 5 years after mCRPC diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier method assessed time-to-event distributions with median (95% confidence interval (CI)). A piece-wise regression model assessed the association between endpoint and treatment cohorts with estimate of hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI within two time segments in univariate and multivariable analyses adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Compared to cohort A (n = 318), cohort B (n = 272) patients in newer therapy era demonstrated an OS advantage (2.8 vs. 2.2 years) with a 41% decreased risk of death (HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74; P < 0.0001), and a 3-year OS rate of 46% vs. 33%. This benefit was accentuated (median OS 2.7 vs. 2.1 years; HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.67; P < 0.0001) in patients who initially presented with de-novo metastatic disease (de-novo). On multivariable analysis, longer OS was associated with cohort B vs. A and performance status 0 vs. 1. CONCLUSIONS: Using a single-institution registry, mCRPC patients treated since 2010 had a significant survival improvement vs. those treated before 2010. Although the median survival was only modestly improved and less than predicted when simply adding each newer drug survival advantage, the cumulative benefit from the new therapies was more pronounced in longer-term survivors and de-novo patients.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide for Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer After Androgen Deprivation Therapy + Docetaxel or ADT Alone for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The CHAARTED (ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) and STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) trials showed that the addition of docetaxel (D) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prolonged longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the impact of upfront D on subsequent therapies is still unexplored. As abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (E) are the most commonly used first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), we aimed to assess whether they maintained their efficacy after ADT+D versus ADT alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of patients with mCRPC treated between 2014 and 2017 with first-line AA or E for mCRPC was identified from 3 hospitals' institutional review board-approved databases. Patients were classified by use of D for mHSPC. This time frame was chosen as ADT+D became a valid therapeutic option for mHSPC in 2014, and it inherently entailed a short follow-up time on AA/E. The endpoints included overall survival from ADT start, overall survival from AA/E start, and time to AA/E start from ADT start. Differences between groups were assessed using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients with mCRPC identified, 50 (49%) had previously received ADT alone, while 52 (51%) had ADT+D. No statistically significant difference in any of the evaluated outcomes was observed between the 2 cohorts. Yet, deaths in the ADT+D group were 12 versus 21 in the ADT alone, after a median follow-up of 24.4 and 29.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of ADT/ADT+D-treated patients with mCRPC with short times to first-line AA/E and follow-up, the efficacy of AA/E is similar regardless of previous use of D.

Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Gleason Score 10 Prostate Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Multi-institutional Consortium Study.

PURPOSE: Gleason score (GS) 10 disease is the most aggressive form of clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa). The long-term clinical outcomes and overall prognosis of patients presenting with GS 10 PCa are largely unknown because of its rarity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study included 112 patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa who received treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP, n = 26), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 48), or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-BT, n = 38) between 2000 and 2013. Propensity scores were included as covariates for comparative analysis. Overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method with inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for confounding. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.9 years overall (3.9 years for RP, 4.8 years for EBRT, and 5.7 years for EBRT-BT). Significantly more EBRT patients than EBRT-BT patients received upfront androgen deprivation therapy (98% vs 79%, P < .01 by χ2 test), though the durations were similar (median, 24 months vs 22.5 months). Of the RP patients, 34% received postoperative EBRT, and 35% received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. The propensity score-adjusted 5-year overall survival rate was 80% for the RP group, 73% for the EBRT group, and 83% for the EBRT-BT group. The corresponding adjusted 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival rates were 87%, 75%, and 94%, respectively. The EBRT-BT group trended toward superior DMFS when compared with the RP group (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval 0.1-1.06; P = .06) and had superior DMFS when compared with the EBRT group (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.99; P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest series ever reported on the clinical outcomes of patients with biopsy-determined GS 10 PCa. These data provide useful prognostic benchmark information for physicians and patients. Aggressive therapy with curative intent is warranted, as >50% of patients remain free of systemic disease 5 years after treatment.