Use of combined androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiation treatment for prostate cancer: Impact of randomized trials on clinical practice.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of RTOG-9601 and GETUG-AFU-16 on the routine use of combination androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for prostate cancer (CaP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with localized CaP treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and PORT with or without ADT at a comprehensive cancer center from January 2006 to June 2007 (Period 1 = P1), July 2011 to December 2012 (Period 2 = P2), and January 2017 to June 2018 (Period 3 = P3) were included. Clinicopathologic features and treatment characteristics were analyzed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess prognostic factors and association with ADT use. Statistical tests were two-sided and a P value <0.05 was considered significant. To validate the findings, United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data were collected to assess rates of combined ADT and PORT from 2004 to 2015. RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients were included: 152 (P1), 185 (P2), and 165 (P3). PORT was most commonly delivered as early SRT (delivered >1 year post-RP with undetectable PSA or PSA >0.05 and ≤0.5 ng/ml) in all periods. The use of combination PORT and ADT increased over time: 14.5% (P1), 32% (P2), and 41% (P3) (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients that met eligibility criteria for either GETUG-AFU-16 or RTOG-9601 decreased from 47% (P1) to 35% (P3) (P = 0.04). International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥4 (P < 0.002) and pre-PORT PSA >0.5 ng/ml (P < 0.001) were associated with use of ADT. Positive surgical margin status had a negative association (RR 0.5, P < 0.002). The NCDB demonstrated similar trends for use of combined ADT with PORT, increasing from 37% to 49% from 2004 to 2015. CONCLUSION: The use of combined ADT with PORT increased over time. However, only a third of contemporary patients undergoing PORT are represented in the major trials supporting the evidence for combination treatment, highlighting the need to characterize the modern impact of this intensification strategy.

Effect of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy on Survival for Patients With Cervical Esophageal Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of consecutive protocols on overall survival (OS) for cervical esophageal carcinoma (CEC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All CEC cases that received definitive radiation therapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy from 1997 to 2013 in 3 consecutive protocols were reviewed. Protocol 1 (P1) consisted of 2-dimensional RT of 54 Gy in 20 fractions with 5-fluorouracil plus either mitomycin C or cisplatin. Protocol 2 (P2) consisted of 3-dimensional conformal RT (3DRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Protocol 3 (P3) consisted of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the effect of the treatment protocol, RT technique, and RT dose on OS, separately. RESULTS: Of 81 cases (P1, 21; P2, 23; and P3, 37), 34 local (P1, 11 [52%]; P2, 12 [52%]; and P3, 11 [30%]), 16 regional (P1, 6 [29%]); P2, 3 [13%]; and P3, 7 [19%]), and 34 distant (P1, 10 [48%]; P2, 9 [39%]; and P3, 15 [41%]) failures were identified. After adjusting for age (P=.49) and chemotherapy (any vs none; hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.9; P=.023), multivariable analysis showed P3 had improved OS compared with P1 (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8; P=.005), with a trend shown for benefit compared with P2 (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.0; P=.061). OS between P1 and P2 did not differ (P=.29). Analyzed as a continuous variable, higher RT doses were associated with a borderline improved OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.0; P=.075). IMRT showed improved OS compared with non-IMRT (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.3-0.8; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: The present retrospective consecutive cohort study showed improved OS with our current protocol (P3; high-dose IMRT with concurrent high-dose cisplatin) compared with historical protocols. The outcomes for patients with CEC remain poor, and novel approaches to improve the therapeutic ratio are warranted.