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.

Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer exhibits biological and clinical heterogeneity even within established clinico-pathologic risk groups. The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is a validated method to further risk-stratify disease in patients with prostate cancer, but its performance solely within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease has not been undertaken to date. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 405 men with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent primary treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at 11 centers from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the hazard ratios (HR) for the development of metastatic disease based on clinico-pathologic variables, risk groups, and GC score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined for regression models without and with the GC score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 82 months, 104 patients (26%) developed metastatic disease. On univariable analysis, increasing GC score was significantly associated with metastatic disease ([HR]: 1.34 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.50, p < 0.001), while age, serum PSA, biopsy GG, and clinical T-stage were not (all p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, GC score (HR: 1.33 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI: 1.19-1.48, p < 0.001) and GC high-risk (vs low-risk, HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.79-4.87, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with metastasis. The addition of GC score to regression models based on NCCN risk group improved model AUC from 0.46 to 0.67, and CAPRA from 0.59 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, conventional clinico-pathologic data had poor discrimination to risk stratify development of metastatic disease. GC score was a significant and independent predictor of metastasis and may help identify men best suited for treatment intensification/de-escalation.

Phase I Trial of Weekly Cabazitaxel with Concurrent Intensity Modulated Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy for the Treatment of High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cabazitaxel has been demonstrated to improve the overall survival for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose for concurrent cabazitaxel with androgen deprivation and intensity modulated radiation therapy in men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty men were enrolled in this institutuional review board-approved phase I clinical trial using a 3 + 3 design. Patients were followed prospectively for safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite). Efficacy was assessed biochemically using the Phoenix definition. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 56 months, the maximum tolerated dose of concurrent cabazitaxel was 6 mg/m2. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was 73%, despite 75% of patients having very high risk prostate cancer per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Four patients were unable to complete chemotherapy owing to dose-limiting toxicities (eg, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and elevated transaminase). There was no significant minimally important difference in Expanded Prostate Index Composite patient-reported outcomes for either the urinary or bowel domains; however, there was a significant decrease in the sexual domain. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first clinical trial of prostate cancer to report on the combination of cabazitaxel and radiation therapy. The maximum tolerated dose of concurrent cabazitaxel with radiation and androgen deprivation therapy was determined to be 6 mg/m2. Despite the aggressive nature of the disease, robust biochemical control was observed.

Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

A phase I study of the combination of sorafenib with temozolomide and radiation therapy for the treatment of primary and recurrent high-grade gliomas.

PURPOSE: Despite recent advances in the management of high-grade and recurrent gliomas, survival remains poor. Antiangiogenic therapy has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of high-grade gliomas both in preclinical models and in clinical trials. We sought to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of sorafenib when combined with both radiation and temozolomide in the primary setting or radiation alone in the recurrent setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a preclinical study and an open-label phase I dose escalation trial. Multiple glioma cell lines were analyzed for viability after treatment with radiation, temozolomide, or sorafenib or combinations of them. For patients with primary disease, sorafenib was given concurrently with temozolomide (75 mg/m(2)) and 60 Gy radiation, for 30 days after completion of radiation. For patients with recurrent disease, sorafenib was combined with a hypofractionated course of radiation (35 Gy in 10 fractions). RESULTS: Cell viability was significantly reduced with the combination of radiation, temozolomide, and sorafenib or radiation and sorafenib. Eighteen patients (11 in the primary cohort, 7 in the recurrent cohort) were enrolled onto this trial approved by the institutional review board. All patients completed the planned course of radiation therapy. The most common toxicities were hematologic, fatigue, and rash. There were 18 grade 3 or higher toxicities. The median overall survival was 18 months for the entire population. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib can be safely combined with radiation and temozolomide in patients with high-grade glioma and with radiation alone in patients with recurrent glioma. The recommended phase II dose of sorafenib is 200 mg twice daily when combined with temozolomide and radiation and 400 mg with radiation alone. To our knowledge, this is the first publication of concurrent sorafenib with radiation monotherapy or combined with radiation and temozolomide.