Transurethral surgery and twice-daily radiation plus paclitaxel-cisplatin or fluorouracil-cisplatin with selective bladder preservation and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (RTOG 0233): a randomised multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of paclitaxel or fluorouracil when added to radiation plus cisplatin followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in a programme of selected bladder preservation for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: In our randomised phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with T2-4a transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder at 24 medical centres in the USA. We randomly allocated patients to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin (paclitaxel group) or fluorouracil plus cisplatin (fluorouracil group) with twice-daily radiation in random block sizes per site on the basis of clinical T-stage (T2 vs T3-4). Patients and physicians were aware of treatment assignment. All patients had transurethral resection of bladder tumour and twice-daily radiotherapy to 40·3 Gy, along with allocated chemotherapy, followed by cystoscopic and biopsy assessment of response. Patients who had a tumour response with downstaging to T0, Tcis, or Ta received consolidation chemoradiotherapy to 64·3 Gy, with the same chemotherapy regimen as in the induction phase. Patients received adjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel after the end of chemoradiotherapy. If, after induction, persistent disease was graded as T1 or worse, we recommended patients undergo cystectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. We assessed the primary endpoints of rates of treatment completion and toxic effects in all randomly allocated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055601. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2002, and Jan 11, 2008, we enrolled 97 patients, of whom 93 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 5·0 years (IQR 5·0-6·2). Of 46 patients in the paclitaxel group, 45 (98%) completed induction (16 [35%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (85%) completed induction and consolidation (11 [24%] with grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 31 (67%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 34 (85%) of 40 assessable patients in the paclitaxel group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Of 47 patients in the fluorouracil group, 45 (96%) completed induction (nine [19%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (83%) completed induction and consolidation (12 [26%] had grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 25 (53%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 31 (76%) of 41 assessable patients in the fluorouracil group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Five (11%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and three (6%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 radiotherapy toxicities. 11 (24%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and 16 (34%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 toxicities unrelated to radiotherapy. One patient (in the fluorouracil group) died during follow-up. Six (13%) patients in the paclitaxel group and in three (6%) patients in the fluorouracil group discontinued due to treatment-related toxicity. INTERPRETATION: In the absence of phase 3 data, our findings could inform selection of a bladder-sparing trimodality chemotherapy regimen for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Gleason scoring at a comprehensive cancer center: what's the difference?

This study attempted to determine whether the Gleason score (GS) assigned at a comprehensive cancer center better predicts risk of biochemical failure (BF) after prostate radiotherapy compared with the GS of the referring institution (RI). Between 1994 and 2007, 1649 men received radiotherapy for prostate cancer at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC). The Cox proportional hazard regression was used for inferences about the relationship of time to BF and GS. Harrell's C-index (HCI) was used to assess concordance in the Cox regression between predicted and observed events. The discordance rate was 26% for any change in either major or minor Gleason pattern. In the RI GS 2 through 6 group, 79 (8%) patients were upgraded to GS 7. Twenty percent of patients with RI GS 7 were downgraded and 2% were upgraded. In the RI GS 8 through 9 group, 58% were downgraded to GS 6 (12%) or GS 7 (88%). The FCCC GS altered the NCCN risk group assignment in 144 men (9%): 92 (64%) men to lower risk and 52 (36%) to higher risk. FCCC GS was a stronger predictor of BF; the hazard ratios for GS 2 through 6 (ref), 3+4, 4+3, and 8 through 9 were 1.00 (ref), 1.82, 4.14, and 2.92, respectively. In contrast, the hazard ratios for the RI GS were 1.00 (ref), 1.53, 2.44, and 1.76, respectively. FCCC GS (HCI=0.76) had improved performance compared with RI GS (HCI=0.74). Changes in GS were common and the GS assigned by a comprehensive cancer center provided better BF risk stratification and prognostication for patients. Changes in GS may impact treatment recommendations in 9% to 26% of patients.

Assessment of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging (sixth and seventh editions) for clinically localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy and comparison with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk-stratification method.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the sixth and seventh editions of the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual and the risk-stratification model of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). METHODS: Two-thousand four hundred twenty-nine men who received definitive radiotherapy with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (median follow-up, 74 months) were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a migration of stage II patients to stage I with AJCC seventh edition (stage I increased from 1% to 38%, and stage II decreased from 91% to 55%). One pair-wise comparison (4%) of Kaplan-Meier estimates of biochemical failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival between stages was statistically significant for the AJCC sixth edition. Conversely, 16 of 24 comparisons (67%) were significant for the AJCC seventh edition. With the NCCN risk-stratification model, 9 of 12 comparisons (75%) were significant. Concordance probability estimate (CPE) and standard error (SE) analysis indicated uniform and significant improvement in the predictive power of the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition for all outcomes. CPE ± SE values for the AJCC seventh edition versus the sixth edition were 0.51 ± 0.009 versus 0.59 ± 0.02, respectively, for biochemical failure; 0.54 ± 0.02 versus 0.70 ± 0.05, respectively, for distant metastasis; 0.57 ± 0.009 versus 0.76 ± 0.007, respectively, for prostate cancer-specific survival; and 0.52 ± 0.006 versus 0.57 ± 0.01, respectively, for overall survival. CPE ± SE values for the NCCN model were 0.59 ± 0.02 for biochemical failure, 0.72 ± 0.05 for distant metastasis, 0.80 ± 0.01 for prostate cancer-specific survival, and 0.57 ± 0.01 for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that the seventh edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual is a major improvement over the sixth edition, because it distributes patients better among the stages and is more prognostic. However, the NCCN model was superior to the AJCC seventh edition and remains the preferred method for risk-based clinical management of prostate cancer with radiotherapy.

Does transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) affect outcome in patients who subsequently develop prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a strong predictor of prostate cancer outcome after radiotherapy and is a key parameter in pretreatment risk assessment. Because PSA is secreted from both benign and malignant tissue, a prior transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) may lower pretreatment PSA levels out of proportion to the extent of cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a history of TURP is associated with increased biochemical failure (BF) after definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: From April 1989 to October 2001, 1135 men with low to intermediate risk T1c-2NX/0M0 (2002 AJCC) prostate cancer with a pretreatment PSA less than 20 ng/mL received three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (median dose, 76 Gy) without androgen deprivation. The median pretreatment PSA was 7.4 ng/mL (range, 0.4 to 19.9). There were 126 men with a prior history of TURP. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses for BF (nadir + 2 ng/mL definition). RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, Gleason score (GS), PSA, and T-stage were significant predictors of BF in a model containing TURP and dose. A history of TURP was not a significant independent predictor of BF on subgroup analysis. There was a trend toward significance for the subgroup of GS less than 7 (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A history of prior TURP does not affect outcome after RT for prostate cancer in low to intermediate risk patients.