Testosterone Breakthrough Rates during Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Castration Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy is an established therapy for castration sensitive prostate cancer and recent studies have observed that patients whose testosterone levels are suppressed below 0.7 nmol/l have improved outcomes. Testosterone breakthrough, or a rise in testosterone above a target threshold after the first month of androgen deprivation therapy, is generally associated with treatment deficiency. The purpose of this review is to summarize breakthrough rate data and explore the relationship to clinical outcomes in patients with castration sensitive prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our systematic search identified 45 studies with a total of 52 cohorts representing 6,047 total patients reporting testosterone breakthrough rates or derivative measures above the thresholds of 1.7 nmol/l (51 cohorts, 6,015 patients) or 0.7 nmol/l (15 cohorts, 2,495 patients). RESULTS: Significantly higher weighted mean breakthrough rates were seen for the 0.7 nmol/l threshold compared to 1.7 nmol/l (41.3% vs 6.9%, p <0.0001). A significant association between breakthrough rates and worse clinical outcomes overall was not found, although when larger trials (sample size greater than 100) and higher event rates (greater than 50%) were considered for the lowest threshold, significant associations between breakthrough rates and clinical outcomes were observed. Clinical factors such as administration and monitoring frequency, type of testosterone assay and type of androgen deprivation therapy did not significantly affect breakthrough rates, although nonvalidated assays were associated with a large degree of variability. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our analysis indicate that testosterone breakthroughs likely result in worse clinical outcomes and should be avoided. Moreover, there is a need to standardize assessment of testosterone levels both clinically and in the research context to better inform treatment decisions and improve the reliability and comparability of results across studies.

Cardiovascular Risk in Men with Prostate Cancer: Insights from the RADICAL PC Study.

PURPOSE: We describe the cardiovascular risk profile in a representative cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively characterized in detail 2,492 consecutive men (mean age 68 years) with prostate cancer (newly diagnosed or with a plan to prescribe androgen deprivation therapy for the first time) from 16 Canadian sites. Cardiovascular risk was estimated by calculating Framingham risk scores. RESULTS: Most men (92%) had new prostate cancer (intermediate risk 41%, high risk 50%). The highest level of education achieved was primary school in 12%. Most (58%) were current or former smokers, 22% had known cardiovascular disease, 16% diabetes, 45% hypertension, 31% body mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater, 24% low levels of physical activity, mean handgrip strength was 37.3 kg and 69% had a Framingham risk score consistent with high cardiovascular risk. Participants in whom androgen deprivation therapy was planned had higher Framingham risk scores than those not intending to receive androgen deprivation therapy, and this risk was abolished after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of men with prostate cancer are at high cardiovascular risk. There is a positive association between a plan to use androgen deprivation therapy and baseline cardiovascular risk factors. However, this association is explained by confounding factors.

Protocol for a phase III RCT and economic analysis of two exercise delivery methods in men with PC on ADT.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat prostate cancer. However, side effects of ADT often lead to reduced quality of life and physical function. Existing evidence demonstrates that exercise can ameliorate multiple treatment-related side effects for men on ADT, yet adherence rates are often low. The method of exercise delivery (e.g., supervised group in-centre vs. individual home-based) may be important from clinical and economic perspectives; however, few studies have compared different delivery models. Additionally, long-term exercise adherence and an understanding of predictors of adherence are critical to achieving sustained benefits, but such data are lacking. The primary aim of this multi-centre phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial is to determine whether a home-based delivery model is non-inferior to a group-based delivery model in terms of benefits in fatigue and fitness in this population. Two other key aims include examining cost-effectiveness and long-term adherence. METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer of any stage, starting or continuing on ADT for at least 6 months, fluent in English, and living close to a study centre are eligible. Participants complete five assessments over 12 months (baseline and every 3 months during the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up phases), including a fitness assessment and self-report questionnaires. Biological outcomes are collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A total of 200 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to supervised group training or home-based training supported by smartphones, health coaches, and Fitbit technology. Participants are asked to complete 4 to 5 exercise sessions per week, incorporating aerobic, resistance and flexibility training. Outcomes include fatigue, quality of life, fitness measures, body composition, biological outcomes, and program adherence. Cost information will be obtained using patient diary-based self-report and utilities via the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: To disseminate publicly funded exercise programs widely, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness have to be demonstrated. The goals of this trial are to provide these data along with an increased understanding of adherence to exercise among men with prostate cancer receiving ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Registration # NCT02834416 ). Registration date was June 2, 2016.

The prostate cancer risk stratification project: database construction and risk stratification outcome analysis.

This investigation reports on the biochemical and clinical outcomes of a newly created pan-Canadian Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification (ProCaRS) database developed by the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC). GUROC ProCaRS template-compliant data on 7974 patients who underwent radiotherapy were received from 7 unique databases. Descriptive analysis, Cox proportional hazards, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed using American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. Multivariable modeling for the primary ASTRO BFFS end point showed that age, prostate-specific antigen, T stage, and Gleason score and components such as hormonal therapy, and radiation treatment (brachytherapy with better outcome than external-beam) were predictive of outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the existing GUROC and new NCCN classification system both showed good separation of all clinical outcome curves. The construction of a pan-Canadian database has informed important prostate cancer radiotherapy outcomes and risk stratification.

Patterns of failure with 18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET/CT in the post-prostatectomy setting: A regional cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess the detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence by prostate-specific member antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) with 18F-DCFPyL in patients with residual disease or biochemical recurrence (BCR), and its association with surgical pathology and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics. METHODS: Men from South Central Ontario enrolled in the PSMA Registry for Recurrent Prostate cancer (PREP) between April 2019 and December 2021 after radical prostatectomy (RP) and who had 1) pathologic stage N1 or persistent elevated PSA; or 2) BCR (PSA >0.10 ng/mL) where initial postoperative PSA was undetectable were included. RESULTS: A total of 169 men (median age 68 years; interquartile range [IQR] 62-71) with complete data met the above criteria. The median PSA was 0.27 ng/mL (IQR 0.16-0.85) prior to PSMA-PET. Overall positivity rate 59%; when PSA was <0.40 ng/mL, overall positivity rate 42% vs. 85% with PSA ≥0.40 ng/mL (p<0.001). Higher pathologic tumor stage increased detection of regional lymph nodes (LN) (pT2-3a: 32% vs. pT3b: 69%, p<0.001) but not distant metastases (pT2-3a: 12% vs. pT3b: 24%, p=0.15). PSMA-PET detected 18% with prostate bed, 42% with regional LN disease, and 44% with pelvic-only disease. The three most involved LN chains were the internal (21%) and external (20%) iliac, and obturator chains (16%). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of patients with residual disease or BCR after RP illustrates patterns of failure that could impact diagnosis and postoperative management. Such patients have significant risk of regional LN positivity on PSMA-PET highlighting a need to include pelvic LN within salvage radiotherapy volumes.

Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal fractionation schedule for whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a study to determine whether a hypofractionated 3-week schedule of whole-breast irradiation is as effective as a 5-week schedule. Women with invasive breast cancer who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and in whom resection margins were clear and axillary lymph nodes were negative were randomly assigned to receive whole-breast irradiation either at a standard dose of 50.0 Gy in 25 fractions over a period of 35 days (the control group) or at a dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over a period of 22 days (the hypofractionated-radiation group). RESULTS: The risk of local recurrence at 10 years was 6.7% among the 612 women assigned to standard irradiation as compared with 6.2% among the 622 women assigned to the hypofractionated regimen (absolute difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 3.5). At 10 years, 71.3% of women in the control group as compared with 69.8% of the women in the hypofractionated-radiation group had a good or excellent cosmetic outcome (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to 9.8). CONCLUSIONS: Ten years after treatment, accelerated, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation was not inferior to standard radiation treatment in women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer with clear surgical margins and negative axillary nodes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156052.)

Adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Background: Orally administrated agents play a key role in the management of prostate cancer, providing a convenient and cost-effective treatment option for patients. However, they are also associated with adherence issues which can compromise therapeutic outcomes. This scoping review identifies and summarizes data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer and discusses associated factors and strategies for improving adherence. Methods: PubMed (inception to 27 January 2022) and conference databases (2020-2021) were searched to identify English language reports of real-world and clinical trial data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in prostate cancer using the key search terms 'prostate cancer' AND 'adherence' AND 'oral therapy' OR respective aliases. Results: Most adherence outcome data were based on the use of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Self-reported and observer-reported adherence data were used. The most common observer-reported measure, medication possession ratio, showed that the vast majority of patients were in possession of their medication, although proportion of days covered and persistence rates were considerably lower, raising the question whether patients were consistently receiving their treatment. Study follow-up for adherence was generally around 6 months up to 1 year. Studies also indicate that persistence may drop further with longer follow-up, especially in the non-mCRPC setting, which may be a concern when years of therapy are required. Conclusions: Oral hormonal therapy plays an important role in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Data on adherence to oral hormonal therapies in prostate cancer were generally of low quality, with high heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting across studies. Short study follow-up for adherence and focus on medication possession rates may further limit relevance of available data, especially in settings that require long-term treatment. Additional research is required to comprehensively assess adherence.

The Journey of Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Prostate Cancer; Conventional Dose Escalation to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Boost Treatments.

High risk prostate cancer (HR-PrCa) is a subset of localized PrCa with significant potential for morbidity and mortality associated with disease recurrence and metastasis. Radiotherapy combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy has been the standard of care for many years in HR-PrCa. In recent years, dose escalation, hypo-fractionation and high precision delivery with immobilization and image-guidance have substantially changed the face of modern PrCa radiotherapy, improving treatment convenience and outcomes. Ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy delivered with high precision in the form of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combines delivery of high biologically equivalent dose radiotherapy with the convenience of a shorter treatment schedule, as well as the promise of similar efficacy and reduced toxicity compared to conventional radiotherapy. However, rigorous investigation of SBRT in HR-PrCa remains limited. Here, we review the changes in HR-PrCa radiotherapy through dose escalation, hypo- and ultra-hypo-fractionated radiotherapy boost treatments, and the radiobiological basis of these treatments. We focus on completed and on-going trials in this disease utilizing SBRT as a sole radiation modality or as boost therapy following pelvic radiation.

Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the acute toxicity and quality of life (QOL) of hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation for whole breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women with node-negative breast cancer who had undergone breast-conserving surgery with clear margins were randomly assigned to conventional WBI of 5000 cGy in 25 fractions over 35 days or hypofractionated WBI of 4256 cGy in 16 fractions over 22 days. Acute skin toxicity and QOL were assessed at baseline and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks from the start of treatment for a subgroup of patients. QOL was assessed at baseline and 4 weeks posttreatment for all patients. In the acute toxicity substudy, repeated measures modeling was used to investigate treatment by time interactions over the 8-week period for acute toxicity and QOL mean change score. QOL mean change score from baseline to 4 weeks posttreatment was compared for all patients. RESULTS: In the acute toxicity substudy, 161 patients participated. In the main trial, 1152 patients participated. Acute skin toxicity was initially similar between groups but was less with hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation toward the end of the 8-week period (P < .001). QOL at 6 weeks from the start of treatment was improved with hypofractionation for the skin side effects, breast side effects, fatigue, attractiveness, and convenience domains (all P < .05). In the main trial, hypofractionation resulted in improved overall QOL and QOL attributed to skin side effects, breast side effects, and attractiveness (all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated WBI compared with conventional WBI resulted in less acute toxicity and improved QOL. This further supports the benefits of hypofractionation.

Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for pathologic T3 or margin-positive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Results following radical prostatectomy (RP) are suboptimal in patients found to have cancer extending beyond the prostatic capsule (pT3) or present at the resection margins (R1). The optimal postoperative management of such patients is undefined. Therapeutic alternatives include adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or active surveillance. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review if they compared adjuvant RT in the immediate period after RP to active surveillance - with therapies held in reserve for salvage - in prostate cancer patients with pT3 or R1 disease or both. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. RESULTS: Three RCTs representing 1,743 patients satisfied the eligibility criteria. Two trials reported data on overall survival; a meta-analysis of the data showed no significant improvement associated with adjuvant RT (hazard ratio=0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.22, p=0.52). All trials reported data on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). On meta-analysis, adjuvant RT significantly improved bPFS (hazard ratio=0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.56, p<0.00001). One trial provided comparative graded toxicity data; there were no significant differences between arms in severe (grade 3) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity at five years. CONCLUSIONS: To date, adjuvant RT has not been shown to improve overall survival compared with active surveillance. Longer follow-up from completed RCTs is required to accurately assess this outcome. Adjuvant RT does, however, significantly improve bPFS and is not associated with excess severe late toxicity.

Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: An Evolving Paradigm.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. A urologist referred a 69-year-old man for a radiotherapy opinion regarding a recently diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Annual serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing over 7 years demonstrated a rise in PSA from 1.36 ng/mL to 5.8 ng/mL, prompting a transrectal ultrasound that revealed a heterogeneous 37-mL gland containing no visualized hypoechoic nodules. Biopsy disclosed a Gleason score 3+4 (grade group 2) adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The synoptic report stated that six of 14 cores and 17% of the tissue were involved, with the greatest core involvement being 80% at the right apex. Perineural invasion was present without lymphovascular invasion. Disease was present bilaterally at the base, midgland, and apex.His medical history was significant only for treated peptic ulcer disease and he was taking no medication. His International Prostate Symptom Score was six of 35, and he reported being sexually active with good erectile function. There was no family history of prostate cancer. He is retired. Digital rectal examination revealed moderate benign prostatic hypertrophy with no suspicious nodules. A staging computerized tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis and a whole-body bone scan ordered by his referring urologist reported no evidence of metastatic disease. The patient had discussed surgical options with his urologist and now wished to consider radiotherapy approaches.

External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of several existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer in terms of their ability to predict for biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Two large databases were used and an external validation of two recently developed nomograms on an independent cohort was also performed in this analysis. METHODS: Patients who were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer were selected from the multi-institutional Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification (ProCaRS) database (n=7974) and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) validation database (n=2266). The primary outcome was BFFS using the Phoenix definition. Concordance index (C-index) reported from Cox proportional hazards regression using 10-fold cross validation and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to predict BFFS. RESULTS: C-index identified Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and ProCaRS as superior to the historical GUROC and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk-stratification systems. CAPRA modeled as five and three categories were superior to GUROC and NCCN only for the CHUM database. C-indices for CAPRA score, ProCaRS, GUROC, and NCCN were 0.72, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively, for the ProCaRS database, and 0.66, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.60, respectively, for the CHUM database. However, many of these comparisons did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful difference. DCA identified minimal differences across the different risk-stratification systems, with no system emerging with optimal net benefit. External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms yielded favourable calibrations of R2=0.778 (low-dose rate [LDR]-brachytherapy) and R2=0.868 (EBRT). CONCLUSIONS: This study externally validated two ProCaRS nomograms for BFFS that may help clinicians in treatment selection and outcome prediction. A direct comparison between existing risk-stratification tools demonstrated minimal clinically significant differences in discriminative ability between the systems, favouring the CAPRA and ProCaRS systems. The incorporation of novel prognostic variables, such as genomic markers, is needed.

Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Randomized trial comparing iridium implant plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine if iridium implant (IM) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is better than standard EBRT in locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with T2 and T3 prostate cancer with no evidence of metastatic disease were randomly assigned to EBRT of 66 Gy in 33 fractions during 6.5 weeks or to IM of 35 Gy delivered to the prostate during 48 hours plus EBRT of 40 Gy in 20 fractions during 4 weeks. The primary outcome consisted of biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). BCF was defined by biochemical failure, clinical failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included 2-year postradiation biopsy positivity, toxicity, and survival. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1997, 51 patients were randomly assigned to receive IM plus EBRT, and 53 patients were randomly assigned to receive EBRT alone. The median follow-up was 8.2 years. In the IM plus EBRT arm, 17 patients (29%) experienced BCF compared with 33 patients (61%) in the EBRT arm (hazard ratio, 0.42; P = .0024). Eighty-seven patients (84%) had a postradiation biopsy; 10 (24%) of 42 in the IM plus EBRT arm had biopsy positivity compared with 23 (51%) of 45 in the EBRT arm (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .015). Overall survival was 94% in the IM plus EBRT arm versus 92% in the EBRT arm. CONCLUSION: The combination of IM plus EBRT was superior to EBRT alone for BCF and postradiation biopsy. This trial provides evidence that higher doses of radiation delivered in a shorter duration result in better local as well as biochemical control in locally advanced prostrate cancer.

Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal radiation dose fractionation schedule for localized prostate cancer is unclear. This study was designed to compare two dose fractionation schemes (a shorter 4-week radiation schedule v a longer 6.5-week schedule). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with early-stage (T1 or T2) prostate cancer were randomly assigned to 66 Gy in 33 fractions over 45 days (long arm) or 52.5 Gy in 20 fractions over 28 days (short arm). The study was designed as a noninferiority investigation with a predefined tolerance of -7.5%. The primary outcome was a composite of biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). Secondary outcomes included presence of tumor on prostate biopsy at 2 years, survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: From March 1995 to December 1998, 936 men were randomly assigned to treatment; 470 were assigned to the long arm, and 466 were assigned to the short arm. The median follow-up time was 5.7 years. At 5 years, the BCF probability was 52.95% in the long arm and 59.95% in the short arm (difference = -7.0%; 90% CI, -12.6% to -1.4%), favoring the long arm. No difference in 2-year postradiotherapy biopsy or in overall survival was detected between the arms. Acute toxicity was found to be slightly higher in the short arm (11.4%) compared with the long arm (7%; difference = -4.4%; 95% CI, -8.1% to -0.6%); however, late toxicity was similarly low in both arms (3.2%). CONCLUSION: Given the results, we cannot exclude the possibility that the chosen hypofractionated radiation regimen may be inferior to the standard regimen. Further evaluation involving higher dose hypofractionated radiation regimens in contemporary radiation settings is necessary.

Non-hormonal systemic therapy in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and metastases: a systematic review from the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-based Care's Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer that has recurred after local therapy or disseminated distantly is usually treated with androgen deprivation therapy; however, most men will eventually experience disease progression within 12 to 20 months. New data emerging from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chemotherapy provided the impetus for a systematic review addressing the following question: which non-hormonal systemic therapies are most beneficial for the treatment of men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) and clinical evidence of metastases? METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs or meta-analyses examining first-line non-hormonal systemic (cytotoxic and non-cytotoxic) therapy in patients with HRPC and metastases that reported at least one of the following endpoints: overall survival, disease control, palliative response, quality of life, and toxicity. Excluded were RCTs of second-line hormonal therapies, bisphosphonates or radiopharmaceuticals, or randomized fewer than 50 patients per trial arm. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were searched for relevant trials. Citations were screened for eligibility by four reviewers and discrepancies were handled by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 80 RCTs identified, 27 met the eligibility criteria. Two recent, large trials reported improved overall survival with docetaxel-based chemotherapy compared to mitoxantrone-prednisone. Improved progression-free survival and rates of palliative and objective response were also observed. Compared with mitoxantrone, docetaxel treatment was associated with more frequent mild toxicities, similar rates of serious toxicities, and better quality of life. More frequent serious toxicities were observed when docetaxel was combined with estramustine. Three trials reported improved time-to-disease progression, palliative response, and/or quality of life with mitoxatrone plus corticosteroid compared with corticosteroid alone. Single trials reported improved disease control with estramustine-vinblastine, vinorelbine-hydrocortisone, and suramin-hydrocortisone compared to controls. Trials of non-cytotoxic agents have reported equivocal results. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy modestly improves survival and provides palliation for men with HRPC and metastases. Other than androgen deprivation therapy, this is the only other therapy to have demonstrated improved overall survival in prostate cancer in RCTs. Further investigations to identify more effective therapies for HRPC including the use of systemic therapies earlier in the natural history of prostate cancer are warranted.

The use of bisphosphonates in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a systematic review of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to assess the benefits of bisphosphonate therapy in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). METHODS: The literature was searched to identify RCTs or meta-analyses comparing treatment with bisphosphonates to placebo or no treatment. RESULTS: Ten trials that studied clodronate (five trials, 404 patients), pamidronate (two trials, 350 patients), alendronate (one trial, 49 patients), etidronate (one trial, 51 patients), and zoledronic acid (one trial, 643 patients) in men with HRPC and bone metastases met the eligibility criteria. Pain response was the most frequently reported primary outcome (eight trials). Only the smallest trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in pain, but other non-statistically significant trends and subgroup analyses showing improvement in pain were observed in six clodronate and pamidronate trials. Three trials reported skeletal-related events (SREs). A trial studying zoledronic acid reported a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the number of patients having at least one SRE; however, there were higher rates of some adverse effects, and quality of life was not improved. CONCLUSION: Zoledronic acid appears to reduce the number of patients having at least one SRE in men with bone metastases from HRPC that are causing minimal or no pain. This benefit should be weighed against the associated toxicities, and the neutral effect on quality of life. Bisphosphonates may reduce bone pain in men with HRPC, but the evidence is less robust. Further investigations to identify the role of bisphosphonates alone and in combination with other therapies proven effective for men with HRPC are warranted.

GU radiation oncologists consensus on bone loss from androgen deprivation.

The majority of GU radiation oncologists in Canada attended a consensus meeting in November 2004. The topic of osteoporosis in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer was identified as a key theme. A chaired session with keynote speakers and review of the evidence took place followed by open debate. Participants were provided with background information. Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score < or = -2.5, but the importance of risk factors and clinical findings is noted. Dual DEXA is the current standard for assessment of bone density and relates well to fracture risk. The lifetime risk of fracture is 13% for men over the age of 50 years even without the influence of ADT. Lifestyle, dietary and supplementation advice are provided both to prevent and to manage osteoporosis. The role for prophylactic bisphosphonate therapy in men on ADT without osteoporosis has not been established. Follow-up DEXA scans are required to monitor density, risk and response to interventions. Fracture incidence and BMD should be considered in the trial design of studies involving prolonged ADT. Osteoporosis is a treatable condition and the oncologist should employ ADT with this knowledge. A follow-up e-mail survey was carried out regarding the consensus statement. Responses were received from 49 of the 69 attendees (71%), and overall there was an 89% agreement with the consensus statement. This is now adopted as national practice guidelines for radiation oncologists employed prolonged ADT in prostate cancer patients.

Randomized trial of breast irradiation schedules after lumpectomy for women with lymph node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast irradiation after lumpectomy is an integral component of breast-conserving therapy that reduces the local recurrence of breast cancer. Because an optimal fractionation schedule (radiation dose given in a specified number of fractions or treatment sessions over a defined time) for breast irradiation has not been uniformly accepted, we examined whether a 22-day fractionation schedule was as effective as the more traditional 35-day schedule in reducing recurrence. METHODS: Women with invasive breast cancer who were treated by lumpectomy and had pathologically clear resection margins and negative axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive whole breast irradiation of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over 22 days (short arm) or whole breast irradiation of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 35 days (long arm). The primary outcome was local recurrence of invasive breast cancer in the treated breast. Secondary outcomes included cosmetic outcome, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Cosmetic Rating System. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: From April 1993 through September 1996, 1234 women were randomly assigned to treatment, 622 to the short arm and 612 to the long arm. Median follow-up was 69 months. Five-year local recurrence-free survival was 97.2% in the short arm and 96.8% in the long arm (absolute difference = 0.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.5% to 2.4%). No difference in disease-free or overall survival rates was detected between study arms. The percentage of patients with an excellent or good global cosmetic outcome at 3 years was 76.8% in the short arm and 77.0% in the long arm; the corresponding data at 5 years were 76.8% and 77.4%, respectively (absolute difference = -0.6%, 95% CI = -6.5% to 5.5%). CONCLUSION: The more convenient 22-day fractionation schedule appears to be an acceptable alternative to the 35-day schedule.