Prostate Cancer: Management of Biochemical Recurrence after Surgery

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the primary treatment options for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Despite its curativeintent, 1/3 of patients will experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) during follow-up. Experts have devoted efforts to associatethe influence of each individual factor with the risk of BCR to select the optimal treatment for each patient. Optimal managementmust aim to find a balance between delaying the onset of metastatic disease and overtreating an indolent disease with treatmentsthat can affect quality of life of the patients. Thus far, effective treatment options for men with BCR remain controversial interms of ideal treatment timing (adjuvant vs. salvage), radiotherapy (RT) fields and doses, selection and duration of systemictherapy and potential synergies between treatments and their therapeutic sequencing. Next-generation imaging techniques, suchas Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography, are used for early detection of disease progression andexact site of recurrence or progression, thereby enhancing decision making for future disease management. In this review, weevaluate available evidence of controversial topics regarding BCR after RP and explore future directions, such as prognosticand/or predictive factors of response, genetic panels, second-generation hormone treatments, ultra-hypofractionated RT andongoing clinical trials in this clinical scenario. (AU)

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.

Prostate Cancer: Management of Biochemical Recurrence after Surgery.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one of the primary treatment options for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Despite its curative intent, 1/3 of patients will experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) during follow-up. Experts have devoted efforts to associate the influence of each individual factor with the risk of BCR to select the optimal treatment for each patient. Optimal management must aim to find a balance between delaying the onset of metastatic disease and overtreating an indolent disease with treatments that can affect quality of life of the patients. Thus far, effective treatment options for men with BCR remain controversial in terms of ideal treatment timing (adjuvant vs. salvage), radiotherapy (RT) fields and doses, selection and duration of systemic therapy and potential synergies between treatments and their therapeutic sequencing. Next-generation imaging techniques, such as Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography, are used for early detection of disease progression and exact site of recurrence or progression, thereby enhancing decision making for future disease management. In this review, we evaluate available evidence of controversial topics regarding BCR after RP and explore future directions, such as prognostic and/or predictive factors of response, genetic panels, second-generation hormone treatments, ultra-hypofractionated RT and ongoing clinical trials in this clinical scenario.

Irradiación pulmonar total en los tumores sólidos pediátricos: ¿una indicación que ha de revisarse? / Whole lung irradiation in solid paediatric tumours: an indication to review?

No disponible

Prognostic value of testosterone castration levels following androgen deprivation and high-dose radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: Results from a phase III trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The optimal prognostic value of testosterone following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is controversial. We studied the effect of serum testosterone levels on clinical outcome in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with ADT and high-dose radiotherapy (HRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The DART01/05 trial randomized 355 men with intermediate and high-risk PCa to 4 months of ADT plus HRT (STADT, N = 178) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of ADT (LTADT, N = 177). This study included patients treated with LTADT who had at least 3 determinations of testosterone during ADT (N = 154). Patients were stratified into 3 subgroups by testosterone level: minimum <20 ng/dL; median 20-49 ng/dL; and maximum ≥50 ng/dL. Kaplan-Meyer and Cox regression analysis were used for overall survival (OS) and Fine & Gray regression model for metastasis free survival (MFS), biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and time to TT recovery. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in 10-year bDFS, MFS, or OS between the <20 ng/mL and 20-49 ng/dL subgroups. Multivariate analysis showed that a median testosterone ≥50 ng/dL was significantly associated with a decrease in bDFS (HR: 6.58, 95%CI 1.28-33.76, p = 0.03). Time to testosterone recovery after ADT did not correlate with bDFS, MFS, or OS and was not significantly associated with any of the testosterone subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the concept that additional serum testosterone suppression below 20 ng/dL is associated with better outcomes than 20-49 ng/dL. Time to testosterone recovery after ADT and HRT did not impact clinical failure.

Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: How should it be treated?

The number of treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer has increased substantially in recent years. The classic treatment approach for these patients-androgen-deprivation therapy alone-is now considered suboptimal. Several randomized phase III clinical trials have demonstrated significant clinical benefits-including significantly better overall survival and quality of life-for treatments that combine androgen-deprivation therapy with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and/or radiotherapy to the primary tumour. As a result, these approaches are now included in treatment guidelines and considered standard of care. However, the different treatment strategies have not been directly compared, and thus treatment selection remains at the discretion of the individual physician or, ideally, a multidisciplinary team. Given the range of available treatment approaches with varying toxicity profiles, treatment selection should be individualized based on the patient's clinical characteristics and preferences, which implies active patient participation in the decision-making process. In the present document, we discuss the changing landscape of the management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the context of several recently-published landmark randomized trials. In addition, we discuss several unresolved issues, including the optimal sequencing of systemic treatments and the incorporation of local treatment of the primary tumour and metastases.

Long-term follow-up of patients with nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma: A report from the Spanish Lymphoma Oncology Group.

Nodular lymphocytic predominance Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a very uncommon subtype of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), representing approximately 5% of all HL cases, with an incidence of 0.3/100,000 cases per year and with unique characteristics which distinguish it from classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Given its low frequency, there is a lack of prospective randomized studies to inform practice, the accumulated experience of academic groups being the main source of relevant information for the management of these patients. Eighty-five patients recruited by the Spanish Lymphoma Group (GOTEL) from 12 different hospitals were retrospectively analyzed to describe their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The median follow-up was 16 years, with a 10-year overall survive of 92.9% and 81.2% at 20 years. Five patients developed a second malignancy. No transformation to a more aggressive lymphoma was detected. A total of 31% tumor relapses was found: 77% in a single location; most of them at a supra-diaphragmatic level. Patients received different first-line treatments, and progression was observed in 3/4 (75%) of the patients who did not receive any type of treatment, 6/23 (26%) who received both chemotherapy (CH) and radiotherapy (RT), 12/43 (27%) who received RT and 7/15 (47%) that received only CH treatment. The mean time to relapse was 3 years and 47% presented relapses beyond 5 years (higher probability in stage IV p < 0.001). This is one of the longest follow-up series of NLPHL published, confirming its excellent prognosis, and that treatments may be adapted to reduce toxicity. Causes of death in these patients are varied, and the minority due to a primary malignancy relapses.

Are all prostate cancer patients "fit" for salvage radiotherapy?

The indication for salvage radiotherapy (RT) (SRT) in patients with biochemically-recurrent prostate cancer after surgery is based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at the time of biochemical recurrence. Although there are clear criteria (pT3-pT4 disease and/or positive margins) for the use of adjuvant radiotherapy, no specific clinical or tumour-related criteria have yet been defined for SRT. In retrospective series, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival (PFS) ranges from 35%-85%, depending on the PSA level at the start of RT. Two phase 3 trials have compared SRT with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), finding that combined treatment (SRT+ADT) improves both PFS and overall survival. Similar to adjuvant RT, the indication for ADT is based on tumour-related factors such as PSA levels, tumour stage, and surgical margins. The number of patients referred to radiation oncology departments for SRT continues to rise. In the present article, we define the clinical, therapeutic, and tumour-related factors that we believe should be evaluated before prescribing SRT. In addition, we propose a decision algorithm to determine whether the patient is fit for SRT. This algorithm will help to identify patients in whom radiotherapy is likely to improve survival without significantly worsening quality of life.

Can elderly patients with low-risk breast cancer benefit from radiotherapy?

There are few trials published on treatment in elderly women with low-risk breast cancer. Although the clinical behavior is like younger patients, there is a tendency to undertreat them, which may lead to an increase in the risk of local relapses and decrease their survival. The local recurrences omitting adjuvant treatment (tamoxifen or radiotherapy) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) even in low-risk patients is high, reaching up 20%, which is unacceptable. Although tamoxifen and radiotherapy seem to have a similar effect in reducing local recurrence with equal overall survival, the combination of both achieves the maximum benefit with local relapses of less than 2%. In recent years two studies have been published and were designed specifically for elderly patients. The CALGB 9343 and the PRIME II trials recommend omitting radiotherapy in patients with low-risk tumors treated with BCS and tamoxifen based on a similar survival, but with an increase in local relapses when radiotherapy is omitted, 10% at 10 years vs. 2%. There is no basis to ensure that a treatment with tamoxifen has less toxicity in this group of patients who are usually poly-treated, and it seems that treatment compliance is much lower than expected. The decrease in the number of sessions in external radiotherapy with hypofractionation and accelerate partial breast irradiation, especially intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with a single session, makes this recommendation very controversial. Elderly patients may benefit from radiation therapy after BCS.

Salvage brachytherapy for locally-recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: A comparison of efficacy and toxicity outcomes with high-dose rate and low-dose rate brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: Brachytherapy (BT) is widely used for salvage therapy in patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa). Although low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) BT are both used for salvage therapy, it is not clear whether there are any differences between these two approaches in terms of efficacy or toxicity in this setting. Therefore, we review the institutional experience of the members of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) to compare these two techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2001 and 2016, 119 patients with biopsy-proven, locally-recurrent PCa underwent salvage BT (LDR, n = 44; HDR, n = 75) after primary radiotherapy. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and cause-specific survival (CSS) after salvage therapy were analyzed. Toxicity was assessed according to the RTOG scale. RESULTS: Median follow-up after salvage BT was 52 months. Overall, the 5-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) RFS rate was 71% (95% CI, 65.9%-75.9%). No significant between-group differences in RFS were observed (p = 0.063). Five-year CSS for the LDR- and HDR-BT groups were 96.5% and 93%, respectively. Overall, 38 patients (32%) developed biochemical progression (Phoenix definition) after salvage BT: 14 patients (32%) in the LDR group and 24 (32.5%) in the HDR group. On the multivariate analysis, the following variables were significantly associated with progression, time to BF from primary radiotherapy <30 months (p = 0.014); and post-salvage nadir PSA (p = 0.000). There were no significant between-group differences in toxicity. Overall, there were 13 cases of urethral stricture, 22 cases of urinary incontinence, and 13 cases of haematuria. Toxicity ≥grade 3 was observed in 23.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that both HDR-BT and LDR-BT yield comparable efficacy and toxicity outcomes in patients undergoing salvage treatment for locally-recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy. Predictors of worse outcomes after salvage BT were post-salvage nadir PSA and time to BF from initial radiotherapy.

Late Radiation and Cardiovascular Adverse Effects After Androgen Deprivation and High-Dose Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Results From the DART 01/05 Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: To present data on the late toxicity endpoints of a randomized trial (DART 01/05) conducted to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD) was superior to short-term AD (STAD) when combined with high-dose radiation therapy (HDRT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and December 2010, 355 eligible men with cT1c-T3aN0M0 PCa and intermediate-risk and high-risk factors (2005 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria) were randomized to 4 months of AD combined with HDRT (median dose, 78 Gy) (STAD) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of AD (LTAD). Treatment-related complications were assessed using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 scoring schemes. Multivariate analyses for late toxicity were done using the Fine-Gray method. RESULTS: The 5-year incidence of grade ≥2 rectal and urinary toxicity was 11.1% and 8.2% for LTAD and 7.6% and 7.3% for STAD, respectively. Compared with STAD, LTAD was not significantly associated with a higher risk of late grade ≥2 rectal toxicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.360, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.660-2.790, P=.410) or urinary toxicity (HR 1.028, 95% CI 0.495-2.130, P=.940). The multivariate analysis showed that a baseline history of intestinal comorbidity (HR 3.510, 95% CI 1.560-7.930, P=.025) and the rectal volume receiving >60 Gy (Vr60) (HR 1.030, 95% CI 1.001-1.060, P=.043) were the only factors significantly correlated with the risk of late grade ≥2 rectal complications. A history of previous surgical prostate manipulations was significantly associated with a higher risk of grade ≥2 urinary complications (HR 2.427, 95% CI 1.051-5.600, P=.038). Long-term AD (HR 2.090; 95% CI 1.170-3.720, P=.012) and a history of myocardial infarction (HR 2.080; 95% CI 1.130-3.810, P=.018) were significantly correlated with a higher probability of cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Long-term AD did not significantly impact urinary or rectal radiation-induced toxicity, although it was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events. Longer follow-up is needed to measure the impact of AD on late morbidity and non-PCa mortality.

Corrigendum to "Uroncor consensus statement: Management of biochemical recurrence after radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: From biochemical failure to castration resistance". [Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 20 (2015) 259-272].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2015.04.003.].

Three linked nomograms for predicting biochemical failure in prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Nomograms were established to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radiotherapy (RT) with a low weight of the characteristic variables of RT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Our aim is to provide a new stratified tool for predicting BCR at 4 and 7 years in patients treated using RT with radical intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, nonrandomized analysis was performed on 5044 prostate cancer (PCa) patients with median age 70 years, who received RT-with or without ADT-between November 1992 and May 2007. Median follow-up was 5.5 years. BCR was defined as a rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 2 ng/ml over the post-treatment PSA nadir. Univariate association between predictor variables and BCR was assessed by the log-rank test, and three linked nomograms were created for multivariate prognosis of BCR-free survival. Each nomogram corresponds to a category of the Gleason score-either 6,7, or 8-10-and all of them were created from a single proportional hazards regression model stratified also by months of ADT (0, 1-6, 7-12, 13-24, 25-36, 36-60). The performance of this model was analyzed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility. RESULTS: Initial PSA, clinical stage, and RT dose were significant variables (p < 0.01). The model showed a good calibration. The concordance probability was 0.779, improving those obtained with other nomograms (0.587, 0.571, 0.554) in the database. Survival curves showed best clinical utility in a comparison with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. CONCLUSION: For each Gleason score category, the nomogram provides information on the benefit of adding ADT to a specific RT dose.

Uroncor consensus statement: Management of biochemical recurrence after radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer: From biochemical failure to castration resistance.

Management of patients who experience biochemical failure after radical radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy is highly challenging. The clinician must not only choose the type of treatment, but also the timing and optimal sequence of treatment administration. When biochemical failure occurs, numerous treatment scenarios are possible, thus making it more difficult to select the optimal approach. Moreover, rapid and ongoing advances in treatment options require that physicians make decisions that could impact both survival and quality of life. The aim of the present consensus statement, developed by the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), is to provide cancer specialists with the latest, evidence-based information needed to make the best decisions for the patient under all possible treatment scenarios. The structure of this consensus statement follows the typical development of disease progression after biochemical failure, with the most appropriate treatment recommendations given for each stage. The consensus statement is organized into three separate chapters, as follows: biochemical failure with or without local recurrence and/or metastasis; progression after salvage therapy; and treatment of castration-resistant patients.

High-dose radiotherapy with short-term or long-term androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer (DART01/05 GICOR): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum duration of androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy in prostate cancer remains undefined. We aimed to determine whether long-term androgen deprivation was superior to short-term androgen deprivation when combined with high-dose radiotherapy. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from ten university hospitals throughout Spain. Eligible patients had clinical stage T1c-T3b N0M0 prostate adenocarcinoma with intermediate-risk and high-risk factors according to 2005 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive either 4 months of androgen deprivation combined with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy at a minimum dose of 76 Gy (range 76-82 Gy; short-term androgen deprivation group) or the same treatment followed by 24 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation (long-term androgen deprivation group), stratified by prostate cancer risk group (intermediate risk vs high risk) and participating centre. Patients assigned to the short-term androgen deprivation group received 4 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant androgen deprivation with subcutaneous goserelin (2 months before and 2 months combined with high-dose radiotherapy). Anti-androgen therapy (flutamide 750 mg per day or bicalutamide 50 mg per day) was added during the first 2 months of treatment. Patients assigned to long-term suppression continued with the same luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue every 3 months for another 24 months. The primary endpoint was biochemical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175212. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2005, and Dec 20, 2010, 178 patients were randomly assigned to receive short-term androgen deprivation and 177 to receive long-term androgen deprivation. After a median follow-up of 63 months (IQR 50-82), 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was significantly better among patients receiving long-term androgen deprivation than among those receiving short-term treatment (90% [95% CI 87-92] vs 81% [78-85]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·88 [95% CI 1·12-3·15]; p=0·01). 5-year overall survival (95% [95% CI 93-97] vs 86% [83-89]; HR 2·48 [95% CI 1·31-4·68]; p=0·009) and 5-year metastasis-free survival (94% [95% CI 92-96] vs 83% [80-86]; HR 2·31 [95% CI 1·23-3·85]; p=0·01) were also significantly better in the long-term androgen deprivation group than in the short-term androgen deprivation group. The effect of long-term androgen deprivation on biochemical disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival was more evident in patients with high-risk disease than in those with low-risk disease. Grade 3 late rectal toxicity was noted in three (2%) of 177 patients in the long-term androgen deprivation group and two (1%) of 178 in the short-term androgen deprivation group; grade 3-4 late urinary toxicity was noted in five (3%) patients in each group. No deaths related to treatment were reported. INTERPRETATION: Compared with short-term androgen deprivation, 2 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation combined with high-dose radiotherapy improved biochemical control and overall survival in patients with prostate cancer, particularly those with high-risk disease, with no increase in late radiation toxicity. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether men with intermediate-risk disease benefit from more than 4 months of androgen deprivation. FUNDING: Spanish National Health Investigation Fund, AstraZeneca.

An innovative tool for intraoperative electron beam radiotherapy simulation and planning: description and initial evaluation by radiation oncologists.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) involves a modified strategy of conventional radiation therapy and surgery. The lack of specific planning tools limits the spread of this technique. The purpose of the present study is to describe a new simulation and planning tool and its initial evaluation by clinical users. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The tool works on a preoperative computed tomography scan. A physician contours regions to be treated and protected and simulates applicator positioning, calculating isodoses and the corresponding dose--volume histograms depending on the selected electron energy. Three radiation oncologists evaluated data from 15 IOERT patients, including different tumor locations. Segmentation masks, applicator positions, and treatment parameters were compared. RESULTS: High parameter agreement was found in the following cases: three breast and three rectal cancer, retroperitoneal sarcoma, and rectal and ovary monotopic recurrences. All radiation oncologists performed similar segmentations of tumors and high-risk areas. The average applicator position difference was 1.2 ± 0.95 cm. The remaining cancer sites showed higher deviations because of differences in the criteria for segmenting high-risk areas (one rectal, one pancreas) and different surgical access simulated (two rectal, one Ewing sarcoma). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that this new tool can be used to simulate IOERT cases involving different anatomic locations, and that preplanning has to be carried out with specialized surgical input.