Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN).

CONTEXT: The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.

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

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

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation in Prostate Cancer: 12-Year Results of EORTC Trial 22991 in Patients With Localized Intermediate-Risk Disease.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22991 (NCT00021450) showed that 6 months of concomitant and adjuvant androgen suppression (AS) improves event- (EFS, Phoenix) and clinical disease-free survival (DFS) of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostatic carcinoma, treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 70-78 Gy. We report the long-term results in intermediate-risk patients treated with 74 or 78 Gy EBRT, as per current guidelines. PATIENT AND METHODS: Of 819 patients randomly assigned between EBRT or EBRT plus AS started on day 1 of EBRT, 481 entered with intermediate risk (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997 cT1b-c or T2a with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≤ 7 and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, N0M0) and had EBRT planned at 74 (342 patients, 71.1%) or 78 Gy (139 patients, 28.9%). We report the trial primary end point EFS, DFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat stratified by EBRT dose at two-sided α = 5%. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 92 of 245 patients and 132 of 236 had EFS events in the EBRT plus AS and EBRT arm, respectively, mostly PSA relapse (48.7%) or death (45.1%). EBRT plus AS improved EFS and DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; CI, 0.41 to 0.70; P < .001 and HR = 0.67; CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008). At 10 years, DMFS was 79.3% (CI, 73.4 to 84.0) with EBRT plus AS and 72.7% (CI, 66.2 to 78.2) with EBRT (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.02; P = .065). With 140 deaths (EBRT plus AS: 64; EBRT: 76), 10-year OS was 80.0% (CI, 74.1 to 84.7) with EBRT plus AS and 74.3% (CI, 67.8 to 79.7) with EBRT, but not statistically significantly different (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.04; P = .082). CONCLUSION: Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS statistically significantly improves EFS and DFS in intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma, treated by irradiation at 74 or 78 Gy. The effects on OS and DMFS did not reach statistical significance.

Association of Increased Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels After Treatment and Mortality in Men With Locally Advanced vs Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after treatment (PSA failure) may have different associations with outcomes for men with locally advanced vs localized prostate cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether the association between PSA failure and death may be different in locally advanced vs localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study included patients from 2 randomized clinical trials. The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) 95-096 trial randomized 206 men with localized prostate cancer from December 1, 1995, to April 15, 2001, whereas the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22961 trial randomized 970 men with locally advanced prostate cancer from October 30, 1997, to May 1, 2002. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2020. Interventions: The DFCI 95-096 trial randomized men to 0 vs 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external beam radiotherapy; the EORTC 22961 trial randomized men to 6 vs 36 months of ADT with external beam radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each trial, the PSA doubling time (time to doubling of PSA levels) associated with PSA failure was evaluated. The risk of all-cause mortality associated with PSA failure (nadir plus 2 definition) was evaluated after adjustment of baseline covariates and treatment. Results: This analysis included a total of 1173 men (206 from DFCI 95-096 and 967 with available tumor stage from EORTC 22961; median age, 70.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 65.0-74.0 years). For DFCI 95-096, 161 men died (30 [18.6%] due to prostate cancer) at a median follow-up of 18.2 (IQR, 17.3-18.8) years. Among the 108 men with PSA failure, the median PSA doubling time was 13.0 (IQR, 7.4-31.1) months. For EORTC 22961, 230 men died (75 [32.6%] due to prostate cancer) at a median follow-up of 6.4 (IQR, 6.3-6.6) years. Among 290 men who experienced PSA failure, the median PSA doubling time was 5.0 (IQR, 2.9-8.9) months. Compared with DFCI 95-096, PSA failure was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in EORTC 22961 (adjusted hazard ratios, 3.98 [95% CI, 2.92-5.44]; P < .001 vs 1.51 [95% CI, 1.03-2.23]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: The association of PSA failure with outcomes may differ between locally advanced and localized prostate cancer. This finding supports the study of treatment intensification with the use of novel antiandrogen agents in addition to ADT at the time of PSA failure after treatment for locally advanced disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00116220 and NCT00003026.

External evaluation of the Briganti nomogram to predict lymph node metastases in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The Briganti nomogram can be used with a threshold of 5% to decide when to offer lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy. The objective of the study was to assess the accuracy of the Briganti nomogram on intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients managed in a single academic department. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the files of all patients managed by radical prostatectomy (RP) and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (BPLND) in our center between 2005 and 2017. The overall accuracy of the model in predicting metastatic lymph node disease was quantified by the construction of a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve. A calibration plot was drawn to represent the relationship between the predicted and observed frequencies. RESULTS: We included 285 patients, among whom 175 (61.4%) were classified as intermediate risk as defined by D'Amico. The median follow-up was 60 (34-93) months. Twenty-seven patients (9.5%) were diagnosed with lymph node metastases. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 10 (7-14). The mean Briganti score was 19.3% in patients with lymph node involvement (LNI) and 6.3% in patients without LNI. Focusing on intermediate-risk patients, 91(52%) and 84 (48%) had a Briganti score < 5% and ≥ 5%, respectively, among whom 6 (6.6%) and 7(8.3%) had lymph node metastases. The accuracy of the score was low for intermediate risk patients with an area under the curve (AUC) of 53.1% (95% CI 0.45-0.61). CONCLUSION: The Briganti nomogram in our retrospective cohort showed low accuracy for the prediction of lymph node involvement in an intermediate-risk prostate cancer population.

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort†: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

Local Failure and Survival After Definitive Radiotherapy for Aggressive Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-level Meta-analysis of Six Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The importance of local failure (LF) after treatment of high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with definitive radiotherapy (RT) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical implications of LF after definitive RT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 992 patients (593 Gleason grade group [GG] 4 and 399 GG 5) enrolled in six randomized clinical trials. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), and distant metastasis (DM)-free survival (DMFS) and LF as a time-dependent covariate. Markov proportional hazard models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transitions between disease states on these endpoints. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 6.4 yr overall and 7.2 yr for surviving patients. LF was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.70 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.37-2.10]), PCSS (3.10 [95% CI 2.33-4.12]), and DMFS (HR 1.92 [95% CI 1.54-2.39]), p < 0.001 for all). Patients who had not transitioned to the LF state had a significantly lower hazard of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who transitioned to the LF state (HR 0.13 [95% CI 0.04-0.41], p < 0.001). Additionally, patients who transitioned to the LF state had a greater hazard of DM or death (HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.22-4.93], p = 0.01) than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: LF is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-grade localized PCa and a subset of DM events that are anteceded by LF events. LF events warrant consideration for intervention, potentially suggesting a rationale for upfront treatment intensification. However, whether these findings apply to all men or just those without significant comorbidity remains to be determined. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men who experience a local recurrence of high-grade prostate cancer after receiving upfront radiation therapy are at significantly increased risks of developing metastases and dying of prostate cancer.

The role of radiotherapy in localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.

For a patient suffering from non-metastatic prostate cancer, the individualized recommendation of radiotherapy has to be the fruit of a multidisciplinary approach in the context of a Tumor Board, to be explained carefully to the patient to obtain his informed consent. External beam radiotherapy is now delivered by intensity modulated radiotherapy, considered as the gold standard. From a radiotherapy perspective, low-risk localized prostate cancer is treated by image guided intensity modulated radiotherapy, or brachytherapy if patients meet the required eligibility criteria. Intermediate-risk patients may benefit from intensity modulated radiotherapy combined with 4-6 months of androgen deprivation therapy; intensity modulated radiotherapy alone or combined with brachytherapy can be offered to patients unsuitable for androgen deprivation therapy due to co-morbidities or unwilling to accept it to preserve their sexual health. High-risk prostate cancer, i.e. high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, requires intensity modulated radiotherapy with long-term (≥2 years) androgen deprivation therapy with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists. Post-operative irradiation, either immediate or early deferred, is proposed to patients classified as pT3pN0, based on surgical margins, prostate-specific antigen values and quality of life. Whatever the techniques and their degree of sophistication, quality assurance plays a major role in the management of radiotherapy, requiring the involvement of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, radiation technologists and computer scientists. The patients must be informed about the potential morbidity of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy and followed regularly during and after treatment for tertiary prevention and evaluation. A close cooperation is needed with general practitioners and specialists to prevent and mitigate side effects and maintain quality of life.

Association of Gleason Grade With Androgen Deprivation Therapy Duration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

Importance: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (RT). Whether this benefit differs between patients with Gleason grade group (GG) 4 (formerly Gleason score 8) and GG 5 (formerly Gleason score 9-10) disease remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the effectiveness of ADT duration varies between patients with GG 4 vs GG 5 PCa. Design, Setting, and Participants: Traditional and network individual patient data meta-analyses of 992 patients (593 GG 4 and 399 GG 5) who were enrolled in 6 randomized clinical trials were carried out. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to obtain hazard ratio (HR) estimates of ADT duration effects on overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Cause-specific competing risk models were used to estimate HRs for cancer-specific survival (CSS). The interaction of ADT with GS was incorporated into the multivariable models. Traditional and network meta-analysis frameworks were used to compare outcomes of patients treated with RT alone, short-term ADT (STADT), long-term ADT (LTADT), and lifelong ADT. Results: Five hundred ninety-three male patients (mean age, 70 years; range, 43-88 years) with GG 4 and 399 with GG 5 were identified. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Among GG 4 patients, LTADT and STADT improved OS over RT alone (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26-0.70 and HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93, respectively; P = .03 for both), whereas lifelong ADT did not (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P = .44). Among GG 5 patients, lifelong ADT improved OS (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P = .04), whereas neither LTADT nor STADT did (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44 and HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69-1.87; P = .45 and P = .64, respectively). Among all patients, and among those receiving STADT, GG 5 patients had inferior OS compared with GG 4 patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.47 and HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88, respectively; P = .02). There was no significant OS difference between GG 5 and GG 4 patients receiving LTADT or lifelong ADT (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.89-1.65 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.53-1.37; P = .23 and P = .52, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: These data suggest that prolonged durations of ADT improve survival outcomes in both GG 4 disease and GG 5 disease, albeit with different optimal durations. Strategies to maintain the efficacy of ADT while minimizing its duration (potentially with enhanced potency agents) should be investigated.

Quality of Life Outcomes after Primary Treatment for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 11486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review of the current evidence suggests that for a period of up to 6 yr after treatment, men with localised prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance reported high levels of quality of life (QoL). Men treated with surgery reported mainly urinary and sexual problems, while those treated with external beam radiotherapy reported mainly bowel problems. Men eligible for brachytherapy reported urinary problems up to a year after therapy, but then their QoL returned gradually to as it was before treatment.

International evaluation of the psychometrics of health-related quality of life questionnaires for use among long-term survivors of testicular and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding of the physical, functional and psychosocial health problems and needs of cancer survivors requires cross-national and cross-cultural standardization of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires that capture the full range of issues relevant to cancer survivors. To our knowledge, only one study has investigated in a comprehensive way whether a questionnaire used to evaluate HRQoL in cancer patients under active treatment is also reliable and valid when used among (long-term) cancer survivors. In this study we evaluated, in an international context, the psychometrics of HRQoL questionnaires for use among long-term, disease-free, survivors of testicular and prostate cancer. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited long-term survivors of testicular and prostate cancer from Northern and Southern Europe and from the United Kingdom who had participated in two phase III EORTC clinical trials. Participants completed the SF-36 Health Survey, the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, the QLQ-PR25 (for prostate cancer) or the QLQ-TC26 (for testicular cancer) questionnaires, and the Impact of Cancer questionnaire. Testicular cancer survivors also completed subscales from the Nordic Questionnaire for Monitoring the Age Diverse Workforce. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two men (66% response rate) were recruited into the study. The average time since treatment was more than 10 years. Overall, there were few missing questionnaire data, although scales related to sexuality, satisfaction with care and relationship concerns of men without partners were missing in more than 10% of cases. Debriefing showed that in general the questionnaires were accepted well. Many of the survivors scored at the upper extremes of the questionnaires, resulting in floor and ceiling effects in 64% of the scales. All of the questionnaires investigated met the threshold of 0.70 for group level reliability, with the exception of the QLQ-TC26 (mean reliability .64) and the QLQ-PR25 (mean reliability .69). The questionnaires were able to discriminate clearly between patients with and without comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available HRQoL questionnaires exhibit acceptable psychometric properties and were well received by patients, but additional efforts are needed to ensure that the full range of survivor-specific issues is assessed.

What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1-37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0-92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7-92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r=-0.64, p<0.0001) and csPCa (r=-0.75, p=0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77-99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56-79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative. PATIENT SUMMARY: This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer.

The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.

EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Relapse after local therapy is defined by a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >0.2ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography is of limited importance if PSA is <1.0ng/ml; bone scans and computed tomography can be omitted unless PSA is >10ng/ml. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy are important to assess biochemical failure following RT. Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5ng/ml and salvage RP, high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryosurgical ablation or salvage brachytherapy of the prostate in radiation failures. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the basis for treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, docetaxel combined with ADT should be considered the standard of care for men with metastases at first presentation, provided they are fit enough to receive the drug. Follow-up of ADT should include analysis of PSA, testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Level 1 evidence for the treatment of metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) includes, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), enzalutamide, radium 223 (Ra 223), docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 wk and sipuleucel-T. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium are approved for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with mCRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are the first endorsed by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: In men with a rise in their PSA levels after prior local treatment for prostate cancer only, it is important to balance overtreatment against further progression of the disease since survival and quality of life may never be affected in many of these patients. For patients diagnosed with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, several new drugs have become available which may provide a clear survival benefit but the optimal choice will have to be made on an individual basis.