Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Phase II Trial of Concurrent Nivolumab and Radiation Therapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer of Older or Chemotherapy-Ineligible Patients.

PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is predominantly a disease of older individuals. Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation is a bladder-sparing strategy for management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer; however, many patients are not candidates for chemotherapy due to comorbidities or impaired performance status. We conducted a study in a chemotherapy-ineligible patient population with the objectives of evaluating the safety, efficacy, and quality-of-life effect of the combination of nivolumab and radiation therapy in patients with localized/locally advanced urothelial cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had muscle-invasive bladder cancer and were not candidates for standard chemoradiation strategy due to at least one of the following: performance status of 2, creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min, cardiac disease, neuropathy, and intolerance to previous treatment. Creatinine clearance ≥40 mL/min, normal marrow, and liver function were required. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 12 months. Nivolumab was started within 3 days of radiation therapy and administered at a dose of 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 6 months. Radiation therapy was per standard of care for bladder cancer. Imaging and cystoscopy and biopsy evaluation were required at months 3, 6, and 12 and then annually until progression. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled, with a median age of 78.5 years (range, 58-95 years); 80% of patients were >70 years of age, and 8 (40%) were >80 years of age. Median creatinine clearance was 52 mL/min. Nine patients (48%) were progression free at 12 months. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months (90% CI, 7.5-23.7 months), and median overall survival was 15.6 months (90% CI, 9.1-26.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent nivolumab and radiation therapy is tolerable but demonstrated limited efficacy in an older population with multiple comorbidities. Immune correlates demonstrated that patients with baseline programmed cell death ligand 1 combined prognostic score ≥5% had numerically longer progression-free survival.

The impact of NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance among eligible patients with localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to investigate the impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance (AS) among eligible patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Retrospective review of our AS database was performed. Patients who are eligible for AS who sought a second opinion at a comprehensive cancer center (2010-2021) were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates. Cochrane Armitage test was used to examine trends over time. Multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate variables associated with the receipt of AS. RESULTS: Seven hundred twelve patients were identified (19% NCCN very low risk, 32% low risk, and 49% intermediate favorable risk). 43% were recommended AS as the preferred option by the community compared to 68% by LPCC, and 65% elected AS. Recommending AS significantly increased between 2010 and 2021 by the community (from 26% to 57%) and by LPCC (from 52% to 82%), while the proportion of men who received AS increased from 47% to 80% during the same period (P < 0.0001 for all). More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021 (OR 12.31, 95% CI, 5.60-27.03, P < 0.0001), African American race (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.18-0.96, P = 0.04), positive cores at biopsy (OR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.97, P < 0.0001), age (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10-1.18, P < 0.0001), NCCN low risk (OR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.08-0.81, P = 0.02) and NCCN intermediate favorable risk (OR 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01-0.09, P < 0.0001) were associated with receipt of AS. CONCLUSION: AS recommendation increased significantly over time by community urologists and to a higher extent by NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference. The Uptake of AS significantly increased within the same period. More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021, African American race, the proportion of positive cores at biopsy, age, and NCCN risk were the main determinants of receipt of AS.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Impact of an NCCN-Compliant Multidisciplinary Conference on Treatment Decisions for Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate the impact of an NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference on treatment decisions of patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review of our quality assurance localized prostate cancer database was performed. All patients with localized prostate cancer who sought a second opinion at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2009 and 2019 were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates. Multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate variables associated with concordance between community recommendations, LPCC recommendations, and treatment received by patients. RESULTS: A total of 1,164 patients were identified, of whom 26% had NCCN very low-/low-risk, 27% had favorable intermediate-risk, 25% had unfavorable intermediate-risk, and 22% had high-/very high-risk prostate cancer. Pathology changed in 11% of patients after genitourinary pathologist review, which caused disease reclassification in 9%. Concordance between community and LPCC recommendations occurred in 78%, with lowest concordance for androgen deprivation therapy (21%) and radiotherapy (53%). Concordance between community recommendations and treatment received occurred in 65%, with lowest concordance for androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy; among those who were recommended radiotherapy as the only option by their community urologist, only 26% received it. Concordance between LPCC recommendations and treatment received occurred in 92%. CONCLUSIONS: Community recommendations differed from the multidisciplinary NCCN-compliant recommendations in 22% of patients, primarily for radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary recommendations matched the treatment received in 92% of patients compared with 65% for community recommendations.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy as primary treatment for high and very high risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) ± androgen deprivation therapy for primary treatment of high risk localized prostate cancer (CaP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-populated database for cases who underwent primary treatment for high risk localized CaP, had more than 2 years follow-up, and were treated since 2006. A total of 335 cases were studied of whom 291 underwent RP and 44 underwent EBRT. Clinical characteristics, biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared. RESULTS: EBRT cases were older (p < .01; mean 71 years vs. 61 years) and had longer PSA doubling time (PSADT) (p = .03; median 4.8 years vs. 3.5 years) than RP. Race, pretreatment PSA and biopsy Gleason score were similar. Median follow-up was 5.1 (range: 2.3-12.8) years for RP versus 3.3 (range: 2-12.4) years for EBRT. Three- and 5-year BPFS were 42% and 36% after RP versus 86% and 75% after EBRT (p < .01). The rate of adjuvant/salvage therapy was 58% after RP versus 20% after EBRT (p < .01). Three- and 5-year MFS were 80% and 77% after RP versus 91% and 91% after EBRT (p = .11). Three-year CSS was 98% in both groups and OS was 97% after RP versus 94% after EBRT (p = .73). CONCLUSIONS: RP had higher rates of biochemical failure and adjuvant or salvage treatment versus EBRT in high risk localized CaP. MFS trended toward benefit after EBRT, but CSS and OS remained high in both groups.

Long-Term Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0321: A Phase II Trial of Combined High Dose Rate Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: To report the long-term outcome of patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy from a prospective multi-institutional trial conducted by NRG Oncology/RTOG. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with clinically localized (T1c-T3b) prostate cancer without prior history of transurethral resection of prostate or hip prosthesis were eligible for this study. All patients were treated with a combination of 45 Gy in 25 fractions from external beam radiation therapy and one HDR implant delivering 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Adverse events (AE) were collected using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. Cumulative incidence was used to estimate time to severe late gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicity, biochemical failure, disease-specific mortality, local failure, and distant failure. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were enrolled from July 2004 to May 2006. AE data was available for 115 patients. Patients were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate to very high risk. The median age was 68, T1c-T2c 91%, T3a-T3b 9%, PSA ≤10 70%, PSA >10 to ≤20 30%, GS 6 10%, GS 7 72%, and GS 8 to 10 18%. Forty-three percent of patients received hormonal therapy. At a median follow-up time of 10 years, there were 6 (5%) patients with grade 3 GI and GU treatment-related AEs, and no late grade 4 to 5 GI and GU AEs. At 5 and 10 years, the rate of late grade 3 gastrointestinal and genitourinary AEs was 4% and 5%, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival rates were 95% and 76%. Biochemical failure rates per Phoenix definition at 5 and 10 years were 14% and 23%. The 10-year rate of disease-specific mortality was 6%. At 5 and 10 years, the rates of distant failure were 4% and 8%, respectively. The rates of local failure at 5 and 10 years were 2% at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: Combined modality treatment using HDR prostate brachytherapy leads to excellent long-term clinical outcomes in this prospective multi-institutional trial.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Comparison of Onsite Versus Online Chart Reviews as Part of the American College of Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program.

PURPOSE: Accreditation based on peer review of professional standards of care is essential in ensuring quality and safety in administration of radiation therapy. Traditionally, medical chart reviews have been performed by a physical onsite visit. The American College of Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program has remodeled its process whereby electronic charts are reviewed remotely. METHODS: Twenty-eight radiation oncology practices undergoing accreditation had three charts per practice undergo both onsite and online review. Onsite review was performed by a single reviewer for each practice. Online review consisted of one or more disease site-specific reviewers for each practice. Onsite and online reviews were blinded and scored on a 100-point scale on the basis of 20 categories. A score of less than 75 was failing, and a score of 75 to 79 was marginal. Any failed charts underwent rereview by a disease site team leader. RESULTS: Eighty-four charts underwent both onsite and online review. The mean scores were 86.0 and 86.9 points for charts reviewed onsite and online, respectively. Comparison of onsite and online reviews revealed no statistical difference in chart scores ( P = .43). Of charts reviewed, 21% had a marginal (n = 8) or failing (n = 10) score. There was no difference in failing charts ( P = .48) or combined marginal and failing charts ( P = .13) comparing onsite and online reviews. CONCLUSION: The American College of Radiation Oncology accreditation process of online chart review results in comparable review scores and rate of failing scores compared with traditional on-site review. However, the modern online process holds less potential for bias by using multiple reviewers per practice and allows for greater oversight via disease site team leader rereview.

Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer and management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring, treatment of recurrent disease, and systemic therapy for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer also are included. This article summarizes the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines, which include refinement of risk stratification methods and new options for the treatment of men with high-risk and very-high-risk disease and progressive castration-naïve disease.

NCCN Roundtable: What Are the Characteristics of an Optimal Clinical Practice Guideline?

Much has changed in the treatment of cancer since the first NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) were rolled out for 8 different tumor types in November 1996. NCCN Guidelines now include involved algorithms often containing multiple treatment alternatives and detailed pathways of care that depend on more-specific patient characteristics and molecular tumor diagnostics. With 47 different individual NCCN panels, all members of the cancer care team are now better informed than ever to guide patients through the often complex decision-making required to improve the odds of successful outcomes. At the NCCN 20th Annual Conference, a distinguished panel assembled to take a closer look at these invaluable clinical practice guidelines, first glancing backward to how it all started and then forward to explore the key ingredients of trustworthy guidelines.

Prostate cancer, version 2.2014.

Prostate cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most common cancer in men in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer based on clinical evidence and expert consensus. NCCN Panel guidance on treatment decisions for patients with localized disease is represented in this version. Significant updates for early disease include distinction between active surveillance and observation, a new section on principles of imaging, and revisions to radiation recommendations. The full version of these guidelines, including treatment of patients with advanced disease, can be found online at the NCCN website.

Prostate cancer, version 1.2014.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. This report highlights notable recent updates. Radium-223 dichloride is a first-in-class radiopharmaceutical that recently received approval for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral disease. It received a category 1 recommendation as both a first-line and second-line option. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also revised recommendations on the choice of intermittent or continuous androgen deprivation therapy based on recent phase III clinical data comparing the 2 strategies in the nonmetastatic and metastatic settings.

The role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer.

In 2010, NCCN incorporated active surveillance (AS) into the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Prostate Cancer, and the 2012 update serves as an excellent resource with the most current evidence regarding treatment options for men with all stages of disease. However, the lack of clinical trials that directly compare various treatment modalities or identify the best management, especially for men with low-risk prostate cancer, makes the decision-making process difficult for both patients and physicians. Although general agreement exists on definitions of candidates for AS-men with low-volume and low-grade disease thought to be at low risk for rapid progression-several key issues remain in establishing and supporting the role of AS in the management of prostate cancer, such as optimal timing and appropriate triggers for active treatment. The decision to initially pursue AS rather than active treatment after prostate cancer diagnosis is complex and involves myriad factors, including estimation of life expectancy, consideration of quality of life, and assessment of ultimate oncologic outcome.

Prostate cancer, Version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Abiraterone acetate is a first-in-class hormonal agent that represents a new standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer who have previously received docetaxel (category 1 recommendation). Abiraterone acetate also received category 2B recommendations in the prechemotherapy setting for asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who are not candidates for docetaxel. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also added new indications for existing agents, including the option of sipuleucel-T as second-line therapy. In addition, brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy is now an alternative for patients with high-risk localized tumors or locally advanced disease.

Long-term results of an RTOG Phase II trial (00-19) of external-beam radiation therapy combined with permanent source brachytherapy for intermediate-risk clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

PURPOSE: External-beam radiation therapy combined with low-doserate permanent brachytherapy are commonly used to treat men with localized prostate cancer. This Phase II trial was performed to document late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity as well as biochemical control for this treatment in a multi-institutional cooperative group setting. This report defines the long-term results of this trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All eligible patients received external-beam radiation (45 Gy in 25 fractions) followed 2-6 weeks later by a permanent iodine 125 implant of 108 Gy. Late toxicity was defined by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring scheme. Biochemical control was defined by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) Consensus definition and the ASTRO Phoenix definition. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were enrolled from 20 institutions, and 131 were eligible. Median follow-up (living patients) was 8.2 years (range, 2.7-9.3 years). The 8-year estimate of late grade >3 genitourinary and/or gastrointestinal toxicity was 15%. The most common grade >3 toxicities were urinary frequency, dysuria, and proctitis. There were two grade 4 toxicities, both bladder necrosis, and no grade 5 toxicities. In addition, 42% of patients complained of grade 3 impotence (no erections) at 8 years. The 8-year estimate of biochemical failure was 18% and 21% by the Phoenix and ASTRO consensus definitions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Biochemical control for this treatment seems durable with 8 years of follow-up and is similar to high-dose external beam radiation alone or brachytherapy alone. Late toxicity in this multi-institutional trial is higher than reports from similar cohorts of patients treated with high-dose external-beam radiation alone or permanent low-doserate brachytherapy alone, perhaps suggesting further attention to strategies that limit doses to normal structures or to unimodal radiotherapy techniques.

Combination external beam radiation and brachytherapy boost with androgen deprivation for treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of CALGB 99809.

BACKGROUND: Combined transperineal prostate brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is widely used for treatment of prostate cancer. Long-term efficacy and toxicity results of a multicenter phase 2 trial assessing combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for intermediate-risk prostate cancer are presented. METHODS: Intermediate-risk patients per Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center/National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria received 6 months of ADT, and 45 grays (Gy) EBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles, followed by transperineal prostate brachytherapy with I125 (100 Gy) or Pd103 (90 Gy). Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late radiation morbidity scoring systems. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as time from enrollment to progression (biochemical, local, distant, or prostate cancer death). In addition to the protocol definition of biochemical failure (3 consecutive prostate-specific antigen rises>1.0 ng/mL after 18 months from treatment start), the 1997 American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus and Phoenix definitions were also assessed in defining DFS. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate DFS and overall survival. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 63 enrolled patients were eligible. Median follow-up was 73 months. Late grade 2 and 3 toxicity, excluding sexual dysfunction, occurred in 20% and 3% of patients. Six-year DFS applying the protocol definition, 1997 ASTRO consensus, and Phoenix definitions was 87.1%, 75.1%, and 84.9%. Six deaths occurred; only 1 was attributed to prostate cancer. Six-year overall survival was 96.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In a cooperative setting, combination of EBRT and transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost plus ADT resulted in excellent DFS with acceptable late toxicity for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.