Enhancing Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) integration in prostate cancer: Insights for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and brachytherapy modalities.

The utilization of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) in conjunction with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Brachytherapy (BT) boost in prostate cancer treatment is a subject of ongoing debate and evolving clinical practice. While contemporary trends lean towards underutilizing ADT with these modalities, existing evidence suggests that its omission may lead to potentially inferior oncologic outcomes. Recommendations for ADT use should be patient-centric, considering individual risk profiles and comorbidities, with a focus on achieving optimal oncologic outcomes while minimizing potential side effects. Ongoing clinical trials, such as PACE-C, SPA, SHIP 0804, and SHIP 36B, are anticipated to provide valuable insights into the optimal use and duration of ADT in both SBRT and BT settings. Until new evidence emerges, it is recommended to initiate ADT for unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, with a minimum duration of 6 months for unfavorable intermediate-risk patients and at least 12 months for those with high-risk characteristics. The decision to incorporate ADT into these radiation therapy modalities should be individualized, acknowledging the unique needs of each patient and emphasizing a tailored approach to achieve the best possible oncologic outcomes.

Consensus on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer on behalf of the Urological Tumours Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge in the field of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is developing rapidly, with emerging new therapies and advances in imaging. Nonetheless, in multiple areas there is still a lack of or very limited evidence, and clear guidance from clinicians regarding optimal strategy is required. METHODS: A modified Delphi method, with 116 relevant questions divided into 7 different CRPC management topics, was used to develop a consensus statement by the URONCOR group. RESULTS: A strong consensus or unanimity was reached on 93% of the proposed questions. The seven topics addressed were: CRPC definition, symptomatic patients, diagnosis of metastasis, CRPC progression, M0 management, M1 management and sequencing therapy, and treatment monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations based on the radiation oncology experts' opinions are intended to provide cancer specialists with expert guidance and to standardise CRPC patient management in Spain, facilitating decision-making in different clinically relevant issues regarding CRPC patients.

SEOM clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of glioblastoma (2017)

Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common brain malignancy and accounts for over 50% of all high-grade gliomas. Radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy is the current standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed GB up to age 70. Recently, a new standard of care has been adopted for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) based on short course of RT and TMZ. Several clinically relevant molecular markers that assist in diagnosis and prognosis have recently been identified. The treatment for recurrent GB is not well defined, and decision-making is usually based on prior strategies as well as several clinical and radiological factors. The presence of neurologic deficits and seizures can significantly impact quality of life (AU9

No disponible

SEOM clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of glioblastoma (2017).

Glioblastoma (GB) is the most common brain malignancy and accounts for over 50% of all high-grade gliomas. Radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy is the current standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed GB up to age 70. Recently, a new standard of care has been adopted for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) based on short course of RT and TMZ. Several clinically relevant molecular markers that assist in diagnosis and prognosis have recently been identified. The treatment for recurrent GB is not well defined, and decision-making is usually based on prior strategies as well as several clinical and radiological factors. The presence of neurologic deficits and seizures can significantly impact quality of life.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy to biochemical recurrence after external beam radiotherapy: a phase 3 GICOR study

Purpose. We compared biochemical control and quality of life with intermittent (6 months) versus continuous (36 months) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a non-inferiority randomized phase 3 trial in patients with biochemical failure (BF) after external beam radical radiotherapy (EBRT). Materials and methods. Patients were stratified according to the Gleason score (GS) and were classified as low risk with a GS < 6 and 7 (3 + 4) and high risk with a GS of 7 (4 + 3) and >7. Patients were followed with PSA determinations and quality-of-life assessments (QLQ C-30 and QLQ PR-25) every 6 months for a period of 3 years. BF after radiation was defined as a PSA level of nadir +2 ng/ml. Disease progression (DP) after ADT was defined as PSA ≥4 ng/ml (BF) and/or metastases. Results. Seventy-seven patients were included in this multicenter phase 3 trial from 2005 to 2009. Thirty-eight and 39 patients were included in the intermittent and continuous groups, respectively. The median follow-up for both groups was 48 months (40-68). DP after ADT in the intermittent group was seen in three patients (distant metastases in one patient) versus 0 in the continuous group. The QLQ-C30 and QLQ PR-25 scores did not show any statistically difference between the two ADT groups. Conclusions. No significant differences were seen in DP and QLQ between intermittent (6 months) and continuous (36 months) ADT in patients with BF after EBRT (AU)

No disponible

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy to biochemical recurrence after external beam radiotherapy: a phase 3 GICOR study.

PURPOSE: We compared biochemical control and quality of life with intermittent (6 months) versus continuous (36 months) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a non-inferiority randomized phase 3 trial in patients with biochemical failure (BF) after external beam radical radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified according to the Gleason score (GS) and were classified as low risk with a GS < 6 and 7 (3 + 4) and high risk with a GS of 7 (4 + 3) and >7. Patients were followed with PSA determinations and quality-of-life assessments (QLQ C-30 and QLQ PR-25) every 6 months for a period of 3 years. BF after radiation was defined as a PSA level of nadir +2 ng/ml. Disease progression (DP) after ADT was defined as PSA ≥4 ng/ml (BF) and/or metastases. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included in this multicenter phase 3 trial from 2005 to 2009. Thirty-eight and 39 patients were included in the intermittent and continuous groups, respectively. The median follow-up for both groups was 48 months (40-68). DP after ADT in the intermittent group was seen in three patients (distant metastases in one patient) versus 0 in the continuous group. The QLQ-C30 and QLQ PR-25 scores did not show any statistically difference between the two ADT groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in DP and QLQ between intermittent (6 months) and continuous (36 months) ADT in patients with BF after EBRT.

Cambios hormonales después del tratamiento de cáncer de próstata localizado. Comparación entre radioterapia de haz externo y prostatectomía radical / Hormonal changes after localized prostate cancer treatment. Comparison between external beam radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy

Objetivos: Determinar la influencia de la prostatectomía radical (PR) y de la radioterapia externa (RT) sobre el eje hipotálamo-hipofisario de 120 pacientes con cáncer de próstata clínicamente localizado tratados con PR o RT exclusiva. Material y métodos: Estudiamos 120 pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado. Noventa y dos pacientes recibieron PR y 28 RT exclusiva. Medimos los niveles séricos de hormona luteinizante, hormona folículo estimulante (FSH), testosterona total (T), testosterona libre y estradiol basalmente y a los 3 y 12 meses tras completar el tratamiento. Resultados: Los pacientes sometidos a PR eran más jóvenes y presentaban mayor volumen prostático (64,3 vs. 71,1 años, p < 0,0001 y 55,1 vs. 36,5 g, p < 0,0001; respectivamente). No encontramos diferencias en los niveles hormonales basales. Los niveles de hormona luteinizante y FSH eran significativamente superiores en los pacientes tratados con RT a los 3 meses (hormona luteinizante 8,54 vs. 4,76 U/l, FSH 22,96 vs. 8,18 U/l, p < 0,0001) y los niveles de T y testosterona libre significativamente inferiores (T 360,3 vs. 414,83 ng/dl, p 0,039; FT 5,94 vs. 7,5 pg/ml, p 0,018). A los 12 meses los niveles de FSH permanecían significativamente superiores en los pacientes tratados con RT comparado con pacientes tratados con PR (21,01 vs. 8,51 U/l, p < 0,001) y los niveles de T permanecían significativamente inferiores (339,89 vs. 402,39 ng/dl, p 0,03). Conclusiones: El tratamiento del cáncer de próstata influye en el eje hipotálamo-hipofisario. La influencia parece más importante en los pacientes tratados con RT. Necesitamos más estudios que eluciden el papel que la próstata puede jugar como órgano endocrino

Objective: To determine the influence of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on the hypothalamic pituitary axis of 120 men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT exclusively. Materials and methods: 120 patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled. Ninety two patients underwent RP and 28 patients EBRT exclusively. We measured serum levels of luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (T), free testosterone, and estradiol at baseline and at 3 and 12 months after treatment completion. Results: Patients undergoing RP were younger and presented a higher prostate volume (64.3 vs. 71.1 years, p < 0.0001 and 55.1 vs. 36.5 g, p < 0.0001; respectively). No differences regarding serum hormonal levels were found at baseline. Luteinizing hormone and FSH levels were significantly higher in those patients treated with EBRT at three months (luteinizing hormone 8,54 vs. 4,76 U/l, FSH 22,96 vs. 8,18 U/l, p < 0,0001) while T and free testosterone levels were significantly lower (T 360,3 vs. 414,83 ng/dl, p 0,039; free testosterone 5,94 vs. 7,5 pg/ml, p 0,018). At 12 months FSH levels remained significantly higher in patients treated with EBRT compared to patients treated with RP (21,01 vs. 8,51 U/l, p < 0,001) while T levels remained significantly lower (339,89 vs. 402,39 ng/dl, p 0,03). Conclusions: Prostate cancer treatment influences the hypothalamic pituitary axis. This influence seems to be more important when patients with prostate cancer are treated with EBRT rather than RP. More studies are needed to elucidate the role that prostate may play as an endocrine organ

Management of prostate cancer patients following radiation therapy after radical surgery referred from urology to radiation oncology departments in Spain

Purpose: To define usual clinical management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients following postoperative radiation therapy (RT) (adjuvant or salvage) and its evolution over time in radiation oncology (RO) departments in Spain. Methods: An epidemiological, cross-sectional, multicentre study was conducted. 567 PCa patients that had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) and received postoperative RT between February and December of both 2006 and 2011 participated in the study. In patients from 2006, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EPIC questionnaire. Investigators completed a specific survey on two clinical cases of adjuvant and salvage RT. Results: 70.6 % of patients received salvage RT versus 29.4 % who received adjuvant RT; no significant differences were found in terms of frequency for each procedure between both the years. Regarding the survey, a positive surgical margin was the main criteria used in adjuvant RT decision making. In terms of salvage RT scenario, 85.7 % of the investigators stated that adjuvant RT should have been offered instead, 81.4 % of the investigators agreed on a PSA score [0.2 ng/mL as the main criteria for identifying biochemical recurrence after RP, and 67.4 % of investigators did not consider any PSA score for ruling out salvage RT treatment. Conclusions: Most patients are referred to RO departments to receive salvage RT. Despite the publication of three IA evidence level randomized clinical trials, the patterns for using adjuvant and salvage RT did not change from 2006 to 2011, although patients’ profile did. A consensus regarding postoperative RT indications should be reached in order to correct this controversial situation (AU)

No disponible

Hormonal changes after localized prostate cancer treatment. Comparison between external beam radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. / Cambios hormonales después del tratamiento de cáncer de próstata localizado. Comparación entre radioterapia de haz externo y prostatectomía radical.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) on the hypothalamic pituitary axis of 120 men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with RP or EBRT exclusively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled. Ninety two patients underwent RP and 28 patients EBRT exclusively. We measured serum levels of luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (T), free testosterone, and estradiol at baseline and at 3 and 12 months after treatment completion. RESULTS: Patients undergoing RP were younger and presented a higher prostate volume (64.3 vs. 71.1 years, p<0.0001 and 55.1 vs. 36.5 g, p<0.0001; respectively). No differences regarding serum hormonal levels were found at baseline. Luteinizing hormone and FSH levels were significantly higher in those patients treated with EBRT at three months (luteinizing hormone 8,54 vs. 4,76 U/l, FSH 22,96 vs. 8,18 U/l, p<0,0001) while T and free testosterone levels were significantly lower (T 360,3 vs. 414,83ng/dl, p 0,039; free testosterone 5,94 vs. 7,5pg/ml, p 0,018). At 12 months FSH levels remained significantly higher in patients treated with EBRT compared to patients treated with RP (21,01 vs. 8,51 U/l, p<0,001) while T levels remained significantly lower (339,89 vs. 402,39ng/dl, p 0,03). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer treatment influences the hypothalamic pituitary axis. This influence seems to be more important when patients with prostate cancer are treated with EBRT rather than RP. More studies are needed to elucidate the role that prostate may play as an endocrine organ.

Management of prostate cancer patients following radiation therapy after radical surgery referred from urology to radiation oncology departments in Spain.

PURPOSE: To define usual clinical management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients following postoperative radiation therapy (RT) (adjuvant or salvage) and its evolution over time in radiation oncology (RO) departments in Spain. METHODS: An epidemiological, cross-sectional, multicentre study was conducted. 567 PCa patients that had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) and received postoperative RT between February and December of both 2006 and 2011 participated in the study. In patients from 2006, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EPIC questionnaire. Investigators completed a specific survey on two clinical cases of adjuvant and salvage RT. RESULTS: 70.6 % of patients received salvage RT versus 29.4 % who received adjuvant RT; no significant differences were found in terms of frequency for each procedure between both the years. Regarding the survey, a positive surgical margin was the main criteria used in adjuvant RT decision making. In terms of salvage RT scenario, 85.7 % of the investigators stated that adjuvant RT should have been offered instead, 81.4 % of the investigators agreed on a PSA score >0.2 ng/mL as the main criteria for identifying biochemical recurrence after RP, and 67.4 % of investigators did not consider any PSA score for ruling out salvage RT treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients are referred to RO departments to receive salvage RT. Despite the publication of three IA evidence level randomized clinical trials, the patterns for using adjuvant and salvage RT did not change from 2006 to 2011, although patients' profile did. A consensus regarding postoperative RT indications should be reached in order to correct this controversial situation.

Androgen deprivation and radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer and cardiovascular risk factors: clinical controversies

Introduction. Recent reports of an association between androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events have generated debate on the use of ADT in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and CV comorbidities. This study aims to describe the recommendations of radiation oncologists in the most controversial aspects of treating such patients. Materials and methods. The project involved 61 oncologists and comprised 4 phases: (1) selection of the most controversial aspects in the administration of ADT in patients with a history of CV disease and PCa, (2) selection of the most relevant published evidence, (3) preparation of case reports, (4) critical reading and discussion. Therapeutic procedures were classified as “highly recommendable”, “recommendable in some cases”, or “not recommendable/not applicable”. For each item assessed, the mode of the scores given, and the percentage of experts who selected each score were calculated. Results. The panel recommended that patients with high/very high-risk PCa and a history of CV disease should receive gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa). ADT with GnRHa for 24–36 months + radiotherapy (RT) was also considered highly recommendable. In intermediate-risk PCa and a history of CV, ADT with GnRHa for 6–8 months + RT, and not administering ADT were considered highly recommendable. Conclusions. Studies are necessary to investigate the impact of ADT on CV mortality in patients who benefit most from adjuvant ADT in terms of survival. In the meantime, the experts believe that clinical evidence on the proven therapeutic benefits of ADT should override concerns about potential cardiac toxicity (AU)

No disponible

Androgen deprivation and radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer and cardiovascular risk factors: clinical controversies.

INTRODUCTION: Recent reports of an association between androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events have generated debate on the use of ADT in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and CV comorbidities. This study aims to describe the recommendations of radiation oncologists in the most controversial aspects of treating such patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The project involved 61 oncologists and comprised 4 phases: (1) selection of the most controversial aspects in the administration of ADT in patients with a history of CV disease and PCa, (2) selection of the most relevant published evidence, (3) preparation of case reports, (4) critical reading and discussion. Therapeutic procedures were classified as "highly recommendable", "recommendable in some cases", or "not recommendable/not applicable". For each item assessed, the mode of the scores given, and the percentage of experts who selected each score were calculated. RESULTS: The panel recommended that patients with high/very high-risk PCa and a history of CV disease should receive gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa). ADT with GnRHa for 24-36 months + radiotherapy (RT) was also considered highly recommendable. In intermediate-risk PCa and a history of CV, ADT with GnRHa for 6-8 months + RT, and not administering ADT were considered highly recommendable. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are necessary to investigate the impact of ADT on CV mortality in patients who benefit most from adjuvant ADT in terms of survival. In the meantime, the experts believe that clinical evidence on the proven therapeutic benefits of ADT should override concerns about potential cardiac toxicity.

Cáncer de próstata resistente a castración no diseminado (CPRCM0), un viejo escenario con interés clínico renovado / Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CPRCM0), an old scenario with renewed clinical interest

No disponible

Infrastructures, treatment modalities, and workload of radiation oncology departments in Spain with special attention to prostate cancer.

AIM: The purpose of the study was to describe infrastructures, treatment modalities, and workload in radiation oncology (RO) in Spain, referred particularly to prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: An epidemiologic, cross-sectional study was performed during 2008-2009. A study-specific questionnaire was sent to the 108 RO-registered departments. RESULTS: One hundred and two departments answered the survey, and six were contacted by telephone. Centers operated 236 treatment units: 23 (9.7 %) cobalt machines, 37 (15.7 %) mono-energetic linear accelerators, and 176 (74.6 %) multi-energy linear accelerators. Sixty-one (56.4 %) and 33 (30.5 %) departments, respectively, reported intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and image-guided RT (IGRT) capabilities; three-dimensional-conformal RT was used in 75.8 % of patients. Virtual simulators were present in 95 departments (88.0 %), 35 use conventional simulators. Fifty-one departments (47.2 %) have brachytherapy units, 38 (35.2 %) perform prostatic implants. Departments saw a mean of 24.9 new patients/week; the number of patients treated annually was 102,054, corresponding to 88.4 % of patients with a RT indication. In 56.5 % of the hospitals, multidisciplinary teams were available to treat PC. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide an accurate picture of current situation of RO in Spain, showing a trend toward the progressive introduction of new technologies (IMRT, IGRT, brachytherapy).

Do patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma benefit from docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel regimen as second-line after failure of a platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Between May 2005 and June 2008, we retrospectively analyzed the data of 22 patients who had evidence of disease progression after one prior platinum-based regimen for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were treated with two different docetaxel dose schedules: (1) docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) every 21 days for unfit patients or (2) docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days for fit patients. RESULTS: Median number of docetaxel cycles was three. Overall disease control rate was 18 %. Of the 22 patients, no patient achieved complete or partial response and four patients had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 1.67 months and median overall survival was 3.12 months. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies that docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy has low activity and was associated with significant toxicity (AU)

No disponible

Do patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma benefit from docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel regimen as second-line after failure of a platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Between May 2005 and June 2008, we retrospectively analyzed the data of 22 patients who had evidence of disease progression after one prior platinum-based regimen for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were treated with two different docetaxel dose schedules: (1) docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) every 21 days for unfit patients or (2) docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days for fit patients. RESULTS: Median number of docetaxel cycles was three. Overall disease control rate was 18 %. Of the 22 patients, no patient achieved complete or partial response and four patients had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 1.67 months and median overall survival was 3.12 months. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies that docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy has low activity and was associated with significant toxicity.