External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

A Pooled Toxicity Analysis of Moderately Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Early-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.