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.

A Phase II prospective study of hypofractionated proton therapy of prostate and pelvic lymph nodes: Acute effects on patient-reported quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to report acute changes in patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire in a prospective study using hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (H-IMPT) targeting the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled. H-IMPT consisted of 45 GyE to the pelvic lymph nodes and 67.5 GyE to the prostate and seminal vesicles in 25 fractions. PRQOL was assessed with the urinary incontinence (UI), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and bowel function (BF) domains of EPIC-26 questionnaire. Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of treatment and 3 months posttreatment. A clinically meaningful change (or minimum important change) was defined as a score change > 50% of the baseline standard deviation. RESULTS: The mean scores of UO, UI, and BF at baseline were 84.6, 91.1, and 95.3, respectively. At the end of treatment, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful declines in UO and BF scores (-13.5 and -2.3, respectively), while the decline in UI score was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful (-13.7). A clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores occurred in 53.5%, 22.7%, and 73.2% of the patients, respectively. At 3 months posttreatment, all three mean scores showed an improvement, with fewer patients having a clinically meaningful decline in UO, UI, and BF scores (18.4%, 20.5%, and 45.0%, respectively). There was no significant reduction in the mean UO and UI scores compared to baseline, although the mean BF score remained lower than baseline and the difference was clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: UO, UI, and BF scores of PRQOL declined at the end of H-IMPT. UO and UI scores showed improvement at 3 months posttreatment and were similar to the baseline scores. However, BF score remained lower at 3 months posttreatment with a clinically meaningful decline.

Impact of adjuvant trastuzumab on locoregional failure rates in a randomized clinical trial: North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 (alliance) study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of trastuzumab on locoregional failure. METHODS: The analysis included 2763 patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer who were randomly assigned to adjuvant doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C), paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (arm A, AC→T [n = 922]; arm B, AC→T→H [n = 988]; arm C, AC→T+H→H [n = 853]). Radiotherapy was given after AC→T concurrently with H. Radiotherapy was given after lumpectomy (L) or after mastectomy (M) with ≥4 positive lymph nodes but was optional for 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. Locoregional failures at 10 years (LFR10) as first events were compared using competing risk analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 13.0 years. The first site of failure was local-only in 96 cases, locoregional in 16 cases, regional in 32 cases, and not specified in 2 cases; LFR10 was 4.8% (95% CI 4.1%-5.7%). LFR10 was 5.5% (95% CI 4.3%-7.2%), 4.9% (95% CI 3.7%-6.4%), and 2.8% (95% CI 1.9%-4.1%) in arms A, B, and C (B vs A: hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, P = .62; C vs A: HR 0.72, P = .12). For estrogen receptor-positive patients, LFR10 was 3.7% (95% CI 2.8%-4.8%) and for estrogen receptor-negative patients, it was 6.1% (95% CI 5.0%-7.4%; HR 0.61, P = .004). Local treatment included L+RT (n = 1044 [38%]), M+RT (n = 1025 [37%]), and M (n = 694 [25%]). LFR10 was 6.% (95% CI 5.0%-7.8%), 3.0% (95% CI 2.1%-4.3%), and 5.5% (95% CI 4.0%-7.4%) for L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M+RT vs L+RT: HR 0.43, P < .001; M vs L+RT: HR 0.88, P = .57). For 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, LFR10 was 6.5% (95% CI 4.8%-8.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.4%-7.0%), and 4.3% (95% CI 2.9%-6.5%) in L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M vs L+RT: HR 0.68, P = .14; M vs M+RT: HR 1.2, P = .6). CONCLUSION: Low 10-year LFRs were seen regardless of trastuzumab use. Differences in local therapy in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes did not appear to improve local control. Local therapy studies for HER2+ and other tumor characteristics are important as the role of local therapies continues to evolve.

Radiation with or without Antiandrogen Therapy in Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radiation therapy is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-cancer recurrence signaled by a persistently or recurrently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Whether antiandrogen therapy with radiation therapy will further improve cancer control and prolong overall survival is unknown. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1998 through 2003, we assigned 760 eligible patients who had undergone prostatectomy with a lymphadenectomy and had disease, as assessed on pathological testing, with a tumor stage of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond the prostatic capsule), no nodal involvement, and a detectable PSA level of 0.2 to 4.0 ng per milliliter to undergo radiation therapy and receive either antiandrogen therapy (24 months of bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily) or daily placebo tablets during and after radiation therapy. The primary end point was the rate of overall survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up among the surviving patients was 13 years. The actuarial rate of overall survival at 12 years was 76.3% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 71.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). The 12-year incidence of death from prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 13.4% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at 12 years was 14.5% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 23.0% in the placebo group (P=0.005). The incidence of late adverse events associated with radiation therapy was similar in the two groups. Gynecomastia was recorded in 69.7% of the patients in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 24 months of antiandrogen therapy with daily bicalutamide to salvage radiation therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of long-term overall survival and lower incidences of metastatic prostate cancer and death from prostate cancer than radiation therapy plus placebo. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; RTOG 9601 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002874 .).

Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy after Prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA Guideline Amendment 2018-2019.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate newly-published literature into the original ASTRO/AUA Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy after Prostatectomy Guideline and to provide an updated clinical framework for clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original systematic review yielded 294 studies published between January 1990 and December 2012. In April 2018, the guideline underwent an amendment and incorporated 155 references that were published from January 1990 through December 2017. Two new key questions were added. One on the use of genomic classifiers and the other on the treatment of oligo-metastases with radiation post-radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: A new statement on the use of hormone therapy with salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy was added and long-term data was used to update an existing statement on adjuvant radiotherapy. The balance of the guideline statements were re-affirmed and references were added to the existing literature base. A discussion on the use of genomic classifiers as a risk stratification tool was added to the future research discussion. No relevant data on oligo-metastases was found. CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy should be offered to patients who have had radical prostatectomy and who are candidates for salvage radiotherapy. The clinician should discuss possible short- and long-term side effects with the patient as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to use hormone therapy should be made by the patient and a multi-disciplinary team of providers with full consideration of the patient's history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. METHODS: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Proposed prognostic scoring system evaluating risk factors for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after salvage radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To update a previously proposed prognostic scoring system that predicts risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for recurrent prostate cancer when using additional patients and a PSA value of 0.2 ng/mL and rising as the definition of BCR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 577 patients who received SRT for a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical, pathological, and SRT characteristics were evaluated for association with BCR using relative risks (RRs) from multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 5.5 years after SRT, 354 patients (61%) experienced BCR. At 5 years after SRT, 40% of patients were free of BCR. Independent associations with BCR were identified for the PSA level before SRT (RR [doubling]: 1.25, P < 0.001), pathological tumour stage (RR [T3a vs T2] 1.21, P = 0.19; RR [T3b/T4 vs T2] 2.09, P < 0.001; overall P < 0.001), Gleason score (RR [7 vs <7] 1.63, P < 0.001; RR [8-10 vs <7] 2.28, P < 0.001; overall P < 0.001), and surgical margin status (RR [positive vs negative] 0.71, P = 0.003). We combined these four variables to create a prognostic scoring system that predicted BCR risk with a c-index of 0.66. Scores ranged from 0 to 7, and 5-year freedom from BCR for different levels of the score was as follows: Score = 0-1: 66%, Score = 2: 46%, Score = 3: 28%, Score = 4: 19%, and Score = 5-7: 15%. CONCLUSION: We developed a scoring system that provides an estimation of the risk of BCR after SRT. These findings will be useful for patients and physicians in decision making for radiation therapy in the salvage setting.

Tadalafil for prevention of erectile dysfunction after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [0831] randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Tadalafil is used to treat erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, but its role as a preventive agent is undefined. OBJECTIVES: To determine primarily whether tadalafil preserved erectile function in men treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and secondarily to determine whether participant- or partner-reported overall sexual function and sexual and marital satisfaction were affected. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Stratified, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study with 1:1 randomization at 76 community-based and tertiary medical sites in the United States and Canada. Two hundred forty-two participants with intact erectile function scheduled to receive radiotherapy for prostate cancer were recruited between November 2009 and February 2012 with follow-up through March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred twenty-one participants were assigned 5 mg of tadalafil daily and 121 were assigned placebo for 24 weeks starting with external radiotherapy (63%) or brachytherapy (37%). Participant-reported International Index of Erectile Function response before radiotherapy and at weeks 2 and 4, between weeks 20 and 24, between weeks 28 and 30, and 1 year thereafter. Participants and partners could respond also to the Sexual Adjustment Questionnaire and to the Locke Marital Adjustment Test before radiotherapy, between weeks 20 and 24 and weeks 28 and 30, and at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was off-drug spontaneous erectile function 28 to 30 weeks after radiotherapy started. Secondary end points were spontaneous erection at 1 year; overall sexual function and satisfaction; marital adjustment; and partner-reported satisfaction and marital adjustment at 28 to 30 weeks and 1 year, predictors of tadalafil response; and adverse events. RESULTS: Among 221 evaluable participants, 80 (79%; 95% CI, 70%-88%) assigned to receive tadalafil retained erectile function between weeks 28 and 30 compared with 61 (74%; 95% CI, 63%-85%) assigned to receive placebo (P = .49); an absolute difference of 5% (95% CI, -9% to 19%). A significant difference was also not observed at 1 year (72%; 95% CI, 60%-84% vs 71%; 95% CI, 59%-84%; P = .93). Tadalafil was not associated with significantly improved overall sexual function or satisfaction; a significant difference was not observed in any domain subscale. Partners of men assigned tadalafil noted no significant effect on sexual satisfaction, and marital adjustment was not significantly improved in participants or partners. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, daily use of tadalafil compared with placebo did not result in improved erectile function. These findings do not support daily use of tadalafil to prevent erectile dysfunction in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00931528.

Dosimetric Features of Ultra-Hypofractionated Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: To report clinical and dosimetric characteristics of 5-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) using intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: All patients receiving IMPT SABR from 2017 to 2021 for localized prostate cancer at our institution were included. Five fractions were delivered every other day to the prostate +/- seminal vesicles [clinical target volume (CTV)] with 3 mm/3% robustness. A 4-field arrangement with 2 anterior oblique and 2 opposed lateral beams was used in most patients (97%), and most (99%) had a retroprostatic hydrogel spacer. Results: A total of 534 patients with low (14%), favorable intermediate (45%), unfavorable intermediate (36%), high (4.0%), or very high-risk (0.6%) disease are evaluated. Prescription dose was 36.25 Gy (31%), 38 Gy (38%), or 40 Gy (31%) was prescribed. Median volume percentage of CTV receiving at least 100% of prescription dose [V100% (%)] was 100% [interquartile range: 99.99-100]. Rectum V50% (%), V80% (%), and V90% (%) were significantly lower in patients who had spacer, with a mean difference of -9.70%, -6.59%, and -4.42%, respectively, compared to those who did not have spacer. Femoral head dose was lower with a 4-field arrangement. Mean differences in left and right femoral head V40% (%) were -6.99% and -10.74%, respectively. Conclusion: We provide a large, novel report of patients treated with IMPT SABR for localized prostate cancer. Four-field IMPT with hydrogel spacer provides significant sparing of rectum and femoral heads without compromising target coverage.

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted. INTERVENTION: Short-term ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175 (22.8%) had a low omega score. The overall discordance in risk classification was 26.1%. Both standard criteria and omega score identified significant interactions for the effect of ADT on cancer-related events and late mortality in low- versus high-risk subgroups. Within the low-risk/FIR subgroup, a higher omega score identified patients in whom ADT significantly reduced cancer events and improved event-free survival. Limitations are the need for external/prospective validation and lower RT doses than contemporary standards. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification based on competing event risk is useful for identifying prostate cancer patients who selectively benefit from ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed the effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localised prostate cancer among patients, defined by the relative risk (RR) for cancer versus noncancer events. Among patients with traditional low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk disease, those with a higher RR benefitted from short-term ADT.

Cardiovascular Mortality and Duration of Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-term Update of NRG/RTOG 9202.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM). OBJECTIVE: We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

Long-Term Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0415: A Randomized Phase III Noninferiority Study Comparing Two Fractionation Schedules in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI (P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773).

Neighborhood Deprivation and Rurality Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: Rurality and neighborhood deprivation can contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes, which have not been systematically evaluated in patients with specific cancers in national trials. Our objective was to examine the effect of rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic and environmental deprivation on patient-reported outcomes and survival in men with prostate cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from men with prostate cancer in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 were analyzed; 1,092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiation therapy or hypofractionated radiation therapy. Rurality was categorized as urban or rural. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed using the area deprivation index and air pollution indicators (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers) via patient ZIP codes. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured cancer-specific quality of life. The Hopkins symptom checklist measured anxiety and depression. EuroQoL-5 Dimension assessed general health. RESULTS: We analyzed 751 patients in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. At baseline, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods had worse bowel (P = .011), worse sexual (P = .042), and worse hormonal (P = .015) scores; patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P = .04) and more pain (P = .047); and patients from rural areas had worse urinary (P = .03) and sexual (P = .003) scores versus patients from urban areas. Longitudinal analyses showed that the 25% most deprived areas (P = .004) and rural areas (P = .002) were associated with worse EuroQoL-5 Dimension visual analog scale score. Patients from urban areas (hazard ratio, 1.81; P = .033) and the 75% less-deprived neighborhoods (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .053) showed relative decrease in risk of recurrence or death (disease-free survival). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low quality of life at baseline, poor general health longitudinally, and worse disease-free survival. Interventions should screen populations from deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services.

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.

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.

Evaluation of MDM2, p16, and p53 staining levels as biomarkers of biochemical recurrence following salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The selection of appropriate candidates for salvage radiation therapy (SRT) to address a rising PSA following radical prostatectomy remains challenging. Herein, we provide the first evaluation of the ability of staining levels of the tumor based biomarkers MDM2, p16, and p53 to aid in prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) among men undergoing SRT for recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified 152 patients who were treated with SRT between July 1987 and July 2003. Staining levels of MDM2, p16, and p53 in primary tumor samples removed during prostatectomy were detected using monoclonal antibodies and quantified by use of a computer-assisted method. Associations of staining levels with BCR were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models; relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. RESULTS: Compared to patients with low staining (≤median) as measured by percentage of cells with nuclear staining, there was no significant difference in risk of BCR for patients with high MDM2 staining (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.57-1.45, P = 0.67), high p16 staining (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.54-1.44, P = 0.62), or high p53 staining (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.84-2.11, P = 0.23) in multivariable analysis. These results were consistent when considering alternate percentile cutpoints and alternate quantifications of biomarker staining. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence that MDM2, p16, and p53 staining levels are not useful in the prediction of BCR after SRT. As such, these biomarkers are of little clinical use in the selection of appropriate candidates for SRT.

Salvage Low-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy: Clinical Outcomes of a Phase 2 Trial for Local Recurrence after External Beam Radiation Therapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0526).

PURPOSE: We report efficacy of a prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) of salvage low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT) for local failure (LF) after prior external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with minimum 5-years' follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had low/intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) before EBRT and biopsy-proven LF >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and no regional/distant disease. The primary endpoint, late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0) grade ≥3 were 14%. With minimum 5-year follow-up after salvage BT, secondary clinical outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS; includes death from any cause), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Local tumor progression (ie, LF), distant failure (DF), and biochemical failure (BF) were estimated using cumulative incidence. Time to LF, DF, and BF were modeled by cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: From May 2007 to January 2014, 20 centers registered 100 patients (92 analyzable). Median follow-up is 6.7 years (range, 0.3-11.2); median age 70 years (range, 55-82); median prior EBRT dose 74 Gy [interquartile range (IQR):70 - 76] at a median of 85 months prior (IQR 60-119 months). Androgen deprivation was combined with salvage BT in 16%. Ten-year OS is 70% [95% confidence interval (CI) 58% - 83%]. Nineteen patients died (5 PCa, 10 other, 4 unknown). Ten-year failure rates are local 5% (95% CI, 1-11), distant 19% (95% CI, 10-29), and biochemical 46% (95% CI, 34-57). DFS is 61% at 5 years and 33% at 10 years. No baseline characteristic was significantly associated with any clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective multicenter trial reporting outcomes of salvage LDR BT for LF after EBRT. Five-year freedom from BF is 68%, comparable to other salvage modalities. Although further LF is rare (5%), BF climbs to 46% by 10 years.

Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS: This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS: A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION: Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

Biochemical Failure Is Not a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Analysis of NRG Oncology/RTOG 9601.

PURPOSE: Metastasis-free survival (MFS), but not event-free survival, is a validated surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) in men treated for localized prostate cancer. It remains unknown if this holds true in biochemically recurrent disease after radical prostatectomy. Leveraging NRG/RTOG 9601, we aimed to determine the performance of intermediate clinical end points (ICEs) as surrogate end points for OS in recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NRG/RTOG 9601 randomly assigned 760 men with recurrence after prostatectomy to salvage radiation therapy with 2 years of placebo versus bicalutamide 150 mg daily. ICEs assessed were biochemical failure (BF) per NRG/RTOG 9601 (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 0.3-0.5 ng/mL or initiation of salvage hormone therapy; [BF1]) and NRG/RTOG 0534 (prostate-specific antigen nadir+2 ng/mL; [BF2]), distant metastasis (DM), and MFS (DM or death). Surrogacy was assessed by the Prentice criteria and a two-stage meta-analytic approach (condition one assessed at the patient level with Kendall's τ and condition two assessed by randomly dividing the entire trial cohort into 10 pseudo trial centers and calculating the average R2 between treatment hazard ratios for ICE and OS). RESULTS: BF1, BF2, DM, and MFS satisfied the four Prentice criteria. However, with the two-condition meta-analytic approach, there was strong correlation between MFS and OS (τ = 0.86), moderate correlation between DM and OS (τ = 0.66), and weaker correlation between BF1 (τ = 0.25) or BF2 (τ = 0.40) and OS. Similarly, for condition two, the treatment effect of antiandrogen therapy on MFS and OS were correlated (R2 = 0.67), but this was not true for BF1 (R2 = 0.09), BF2 (R2 = 0.12), or DM (R2 = 0.18) and OS. CONCLUSION: MFS is also a strong surrogate for OS in men receiving salvage radiation therapy for recurrence after prostatectomy. Caution should be used when inferring survival benefit from effects on BF in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Lack of comorbidity data did not allow us to assess whether BF in men with no/minimal comorbidity could serve as a surrogate for OS.

Prostate cancer therapy personalization via multi-modal deep learning on randomized phase III clinical trials.

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer in men and a leading cause of cancer death. Determining a patient's optimal therapy is a challenge, where oncologists must select a therapy with the highest likelihood of success and the lowest likelihood of toxicity. International standards for prognostication rely on non-specific and semi-quantitative tools, commonly leading to over- and under-treatment. Tissue-based molecular biomarkers have attempted to address this, but most have limited validation in prospective randomized trials and expensive processing costs, posing substantial barriers to widespread adoption. There remains a significant need for accurate and scalable tools to support therapy personalization. Here we demonstrate prostate cancer therapy personalization by predicting long-term, clinically relevant outcomes using a multimodal deep learning architecture and train models using clinical data and digital histopathology from prostate biopsies. We train and validate models using five phase III randomized trials conducted across hundreds of clinical centers. Histopathological data was available for 5654 of 7764 randomized patients (71%) with a median follow-up of 11.4 years. Compared to the most common risk-stratification tool-risk groups developed by the National Cancer Center Network (NCCN)-our models have superior discriminatory performance across all endpoints, ranging from 9.2% to 14.6% relative improvement in a held-out validation set. This artificial intelligence-based tool improves prognostication over standard tools and allows oncologists to computationally predict the likeliest outcomes of specific patients to determine optimal treatment. Outfitted with digital scanners and internet access, any clinic could offer such capabilities, enabling global access to therapy personalization.