Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

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.

The Clinical Significance of Bone Mineral Density Changes Following Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Long-term androgen deprivation therapy has been associated with decreased bone mineral density in men with prostate cancer. Some evidence suggests that there is no impact on fracture risk despite this bone mineral density loss. Our study aimed to quantify changes in bone mineral density in men with high risk prostate cancer on long-term androgen deprivation therapy and calcium and vitamin D supplementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bone mineral density analysis was conducted for localized high risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in the phase III randomized trial PCS-V (Prostate Cancer Study 5), comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy. Patients received 28 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and calcium and vitamin D supplementation (500 mg calcium BID+400 IU vitamin D3 BID). The areal density and T-scores (spine, femoral neck and total femur) at baseline and 30 months of followup were extracted, and the absolute change was calculated. Clinical bone density status (normal, osteopenia, osteoporosis) was monitored. RESULTS: The lumbar spine, femoral neck and total femoral bone mineral density were measured for 226, 231, and 173 patients, respectively. The mean percent change in bone mineral density was -2.65%, -2.76% and -4.27% for these respective sites (p <0.001 for all). The average decrease in bone mineral density across all sites was -3.2%, with no decline in bone mineral density category in most patients (83%). Eight patients (4%) became osteoporotic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a mild decline in bone mineral density, the change in clinical bone mineral density category remained low with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Consequently, calcium and vitamin D supplementation alone may suffice for most localized prostate cancer patients on long-term androgen deprivation therapy.

Regional Nodal Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most women with breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving surgery receive whole-breast irradiation. We examined whether the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation improved outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy to undergo either whole-breast irradiation plus regional nodal irradiation (including internal mammary, supraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes) (nodal-irradiation group) or whole-breast irradiation alone (control group). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-free survival. RESULTS: Between March 2000 and February 2007, a total of 1832 women were assigned to the nodal-irradiation group or the control group (916 women in each group). The median follow-up was 9.5 years. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in survival, with a rate of 82.8% in the nodal-irradiation group and 81.8% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13; P=0.38). The rates of disease-free survival were 82.0% in the nodal-irradiation group and 77.0% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients in the nodal-irradiation group had higher rates of grade 2 or greater acute pneumonitis (1.2% vs. 0.2%, P=0.01) and lymphedema (8.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer, the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation did not improve overall survival but reduced the rate of breast-cancer recurrence. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; MA.20 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00005957.).

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients' lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOL questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: We present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

Classification of painful bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe using both EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and EORTC QLQ-BM22.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have determined optimal cut points (CPs) for the classification of pain severity as mild, moderate, or severe using only the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or the BPI in conjunction with a quality of life (QOL) tool. The purpose of our study was to determine the optimal CPs based on correlation with only QOL outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 298 patients treated with radiation therapy for painful bone metastases on a phase III randomized trial. Prior to treatment, patients provided their worst pain score on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), as well as completed the European Organization of Cancer Research and Treatment (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and the EORTC QOL Questionnaire Core-15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL). Optimal CPs were determined to be those that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on each subscale of the QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace were for CPs 5,6 and 5,7. Combining both, the optimal CPs to differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe pain were 5 and 7. Pain scores of 1-5, 6, and 7-10 were classified as mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. Patients with severe pain experienced greater functional interference and poorer QOL when compared to those with mild pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, based on the impact of pain on QOL measures, pain scores should be classified as follows: 1-5 as mild pain, 6 as moderate pain, and 7-10 as severe pain. Optimal CPs vary depending on the type of outcome measurement used.

Revisiting classification of pain from bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe based on correlation with function and quality of life.

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to determine the optimal cut points for classification of pain scores as mild, moderate, and severe based on interference with function and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We evaluated 822 patients who completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and/or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) prior to receiving repeat radiation therapy for previously irradiated painful bone metastases. Optimal cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain were determined by the MANOVA that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on the seven interference items of BPI and the six functional domains of QOL (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and global QOL) as indicated by Pillai's Trace, Wilk's λ, and Hostelling's Trace F statistics. RESULTS: For BPI and for QOL domains separately, the two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace F statistics were from the cut points 4, 8 and 6, 8. When combining both, the optimal cut points were 4, 8 with 1-4 (mild), 5-8 (moderate), and 9-10 (severe). With this classification, the mean scores of all the seven interference items in BPI and the six functional domains were all highly statistically different. Patients with severe pain survived significantly shorter than those with mild and moderate pain (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports the classification of pain scores as follows: 1-4 as mild pain, 5-8 as moderate pain, and 9-10 as severe pain. This may facilitate conduct of future clinical trials.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL modules in patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.

Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. FUNDING: The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Intermittent androgen suppression for rising PSA level after radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent androgen deprivation for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) elevation after radiotherapy may improve quality of life and delay hormone resistance. We assessed overall survival with intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in a noninferiority randomized trial. METHODS: We enrolled patients with a PSA level greater than 3 ng per milliliter more than 1 year after primary or salvage radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment was provided in 8-month cycles, with nontreatment periods determined according to the PSA level. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included quality of life, time to castration-resistant disease, and duration of nontreatment intervals. RESULTS: Of 1386 enrolled patients, 690 were randomly assigned to intermittent therapy and 696 to continuous therapy. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events. In the intermittent-therapy group, full testosterone recovery occurred in 35% of patients, and testosterone recovery to the trial-entry threshold occurred in 79%. Intermittent therapy provided potential benefits with respect to physical function, fatigue, urinary problems, hot flashes, libido, and erectile function. There were 268 deaths in the intermittent-therapy group and 256 in the continuous-therapy group. Median overall survival was 8.8 years in the intermittent-therapy group versus 9.1 years in the continuous-therapy group (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.21). The estimated 7-year cumulative rates of disease-related death were 18% and 15% in the two groups, respectively (P=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent androgen deprivation was noninferior to continuous therapy with respect to overall survival. Some quality-of-life factors improved with intermittent therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003653.).

Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85-2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73-17·15; p=0·094). INTERPRETATION: In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Hypofractionated Dose Escalation Radiotherapy for High-risk Prostate Cancer: The Survival Analysis of the Prostate Cancer Study 5, a Groupe de Radio-oncologie Génito-urinaire du Quebec-led Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prostate Cancer Study 5 (PCS5) compared conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, hypothesizing similar toxicity and survival outcomes. This report presents the efficacy analysis. METHODS: PCS5 is a Canadian multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized control trial. Men with histologically proven, clinically localized PCa with one or more high-risk features (T3/T4, Gleason score ≥8, and prostate-specific antigen >20) were eligible. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CFRT (76 Gy/38 fractions [Fx] to the prostate and 46 Gy/23 Fx to the pelvic lymph nodes [PLNs]) or HFRT (68 Gy/25 Fx to the prostate and 45 Gy/25 Fx to the PLNs) and 28 mo of androgen suppression. The primary endpoint was toxicity; secondary endpoints included survival outcomes. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 329 patients, 164 were randomized to HFRT and 165 to CFRT, with 159 in the HFRT arm and 160 in the CFRT arm included in survival analyses. At the 5-yr median follow-up, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS; 90.3% vs 89.7%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.09), PCa-specific survival (PCSS; 97.4% vs 97.5%; RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93-1.07), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS; 85.2% vs 85.2%; RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91-1.10), or distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; 87.1% vs 87.1%; RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.92-1.09). Hazard ratios were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.56-1.53) for OS, 1.31 (95% CI: 0.46-3.78) for PCSS, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.56-1.30) for BCRFS, and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.56-1.43) for DMFS. Sample size was a limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There were no differences in survival outcomes between HFRT (68 Gy/25 Fx) and CFRT (76 Gy/38 Fx). HFRT, including PLN radiotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, should be considered a new standard of care for high-risk PCa patients undergoing external beam radiotherapy.

Testosterone recovery after androgen deprivation therapy in localised prostate cancer: Long-term data from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the rate and time of testosterone (T) recovery in patients (pts) with localised prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1230 pts with prostate cancer randomised into two phase III trials, serum T was measured at baseline, then regularly. T recovery rate was compared between normal vs. abnormal baseline T and with ADT duration with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. A multivariable logistic regression model to predict the probability of recovering normal T was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 87.4 % (167/191), 75.9 % (293/386), 54.8 % (181/330) and 43.2 % (80/185) of pts, recovered normal T on the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedule, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients recovering normal T, the median time to T recovery increased with ADT duration ranging from 0.31, 1.64, 3.06 to 5.0 years for the 0-, 6-, 18- or 36-month schedules, respectively (p < 0.001) and was significantly faster for those with a normal T at baseline (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, older age and longer ADT duration are associated with a lower T recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Testosterone recovery rate after ADT depends on several factors including hormonal duration, normal baseline T, age and medical comorbidities. A longer ADT duration is the most important variable affecting T recovery. The data from this report might be a valuable tool to help physicians and patients in evaluating risks and benefits of ADT.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the Neoadjuvant Setting for High-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma (PIRANHA): Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: A suboptimal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) among men who go on to receive definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer might suggest the existence of castration-resistant disease or altered androgen receptor signaling. This in turn may portend worse long-term clinical outcomes, especially in men with high-risk disease. We set out to evaluate the prognostic impact of poor PSA response to neoadjuvant ADT in men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter TROG 03.04 RADAR and PCS IV randomized clinical trials. Inclusion criteria for this analysis were patients with high-risk prostate cancer (defined as Gleason score ≥8, initial PSA ≥20 ng/mL, or cT3a disease or higher) who received definitive radiation therapy, at least 18 months of ADT, and had a preradiation therapy PSA level drawn after at least 3 months of neoadjuvant ADT. Poor PSA response was defined as PSA >0.5 ng/mL. Cox regression and Fine-Gray models were used to test whether poor PSA response was associated with metastasis-free survival, biochemical recurrence, prostate-cancer specific mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty men met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Median follow-up was 130 months (interquartile range [IQR], 89-154 months). After a median of 3 months (IQR, 3-4.2 months) of neoadjuvant ADT, the median PSA was 0.60 ng/mL (IQR, 0.29-1.59). Overall, 535 men (57%) had a PSA >0.5 ng/mL. Poor PSA response was associated with significantly worse metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 3.93; P = .02), worse biochemical recurrence (subdistribution HR, 2.39; P = .003), worse prostate-cancer specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 1.50; P = .005), and worse overall survival (HR, 4.51; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PSA >0.5 mg/mL after at least 3 months of neoadjuvant ADT had worse long-term clinical outcomes and should be considered for treatment intensification.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

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.

Factors associated with weight loss during radiotherapy in patients with stage I or II head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify factors associated with weight loss during radiotherapy (RT) in patients with stage I or II head and neck (HN) cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a phase III chemoprevention trial. A total of 540 patients were randomized. The patients were weighed before and after RT. Patients' characteristics, dietary intake, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), tumor characteristic, treatment characteristics, and acute adverse effects of RT were evaluated at baseline and during RT. Factors independently associated with weight loss during RT were identified using the multiple linear regression (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: The mean weight loss during RT was 2.2 kg (standard deviation, 3.4). In bivariate analyses, the occurrence of adverse effects of RT and most of the HRQOL dimensions evaluated during RT were correlated with weight loss. In the multivariate analysis, eight factors were associated with a greater weight loss: all HN cancer sites other than the glottic larynx (P < 0.001), TNM stage II disease (P = 0.01), higher pre-RT body weight (P < 0.001), dysphagia before RT (P < 0.005), higher mucosa adverse effect of RT (P = 0.03), lower dietary energy intake during RT (P < 0.001), lower score of the digestive dimension on the Head and Neck Radiotherapy Questionnaire (P < 0.001) and a higher score of the constipation symptom on the EORTC QLQ-C30 during RT (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results underline the importance of maintaining energy intake in early stage HN cancer patients during RT and the importance of preventing and treating adverse effects.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN).

CONTEXT: The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.