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

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

Efficacy and toxicity outcomes for patients treated with focal salvage high dose rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer following primary radiotherapy or brachytherapy may be treated with focal salvage high dose rate brachytherapy, although there remains an absence of high quality evidence to support this approach. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer treated consecutively between 2015 and 2018 using 19 Gy in a single fraction high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR) for locally recurrent prostate cancer were identified from an institutional database. Univariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between patient, disease and treatment factors with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS). RESULTS: 43 patients were eligible for evaluation. Median follow up duration was 26 months (range 1-60). Median bPFS was 35 months (95% confidence interval 25.6-44.4). Kaplan-Meier estimates for bPFS at 1, 2 and 3 years post salvage were 95.2%, 70.6% and 41.8% respectively. On univariable Cox regression analysis, only nadir PSA was significantly associated with bPFS although the majority of patients were also treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Only one late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Focal salvage HDR brachytherapy may provide good biochemical control with a low risk of severe toxicity. Further evaluation within clinical trials are needed to establish its role in the management of locally recurrent prostate cancer.

A comparison of outcomes for patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: There is evidence to support use of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in combination with both low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-EBRT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-EBRT) to treat intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated using LDR-EBRT (treated between 1996 and 2007) and HDR-EBRT (treated between 2007 and 2012) were identified from an institutional database. Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between patient, disease and treatment factors with biochemical progression free survival (bPFS). RESULTS: 116 men were treated with LDR-EBRT and 171 were treated with HDR-EBRT. At 5 years, bPFS was estimated to be 90.5% for the LDR-EBRT cohort and 77.6% for the HDR-EBRT cohort. On multivariable analysis, patients treated with HDR-EBRT were more than twice as likely to experience biochemical progression compared with LDR-EBRT (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.12-4.07). Patients with Gleason ≥8 disease were more than five times more likely to experience biochemical progression compared with Gleason 6 disease (HR 5.47, 95% CI 1.26-23.64). Cumulative incidence of ≥grade 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities for the LDR-EBRT and HDR-EBRT cohorts were 8% versus 4% and 5% versus 1% respectively, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: LDR-EBRT may provide more effective PSA control at 5 years compared with HDR-EBRT. Direct comparison of these treatments through randomised trials are recommended to investigate this hypothesis further.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life for a Randomized Trial Comparing Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost With Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the patient-reported health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes for a multicenter randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of 2 different techniques for dose escalation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 357 men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were stratified by risk group and randomized (1:1) to either a dose-escalated external beam (DE-EBRT) boost (n=177) or a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost (n=180) as part of combined modality therapy. The HR-QoL was assessed using the SF36v2 questionnaire, with additional scales for urinary, bowel, and sexual function. Date of starting androgen deprivation therapy was considered time zero, the median follow-up of 6 years. Scales were scored from 0 to 100; a decline in a mean score ≥10 compared with baseline was considered a clinically significant decline. This was an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Mean domain scores at baseline were well balanced between the 2 treatment arms. A clinically significant decline in mean scores in both the arms compared with baseline was noted for role physical (DE-EBRT [-11.4] and LDR-PB [-15.3]) and sexual function scale (DE-EBRT [-15.1] and LDR-PB [-19.2]). There was a significantly larger drop in mean scores in the LDR-PB group compared with the DE-EBRT group for physical function (-15.3 vs -6.9; P=.03), urinary function (-3.6 vs -0.5; P=.04). CONCLUSION: At 6 years' follow up, there were no significant differences in mean scores in 9 of 11 scales compared with baseline in both arms. A clinically significant decline in mean scores was noted in both arms for role physical and sexual function scales. There was a statistically significant decline in physical function and urinary function scales in the LDR-PB arm compared with the DE-EBRT arm.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Treatment-Related Morbidity for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost with a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity and erectile dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT (Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy) enrolled 398 men, median age 68 years, who were then randomized to either a standard arm that included 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. At clinic visits, investigators recorded GU and GI morbidity and information on urinary continence, catheter use, and erectile function. Exclusion of 15 who received nonprotocol treatment and correction of 14 crossover events left 195 men who actually received a DE-EBRT boost and 188, an LDR-PB boost. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: The LDR-PB boost increased the risk of needing temporary catheterization and/or requiring incontinence pads. At 5 years the cumulative incidence of grade 3 GU events was 18.4% for LDR-PB, versus 5.2% for DE-EBRT (P<.001). Compared with the cumulative incidence, the 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GU morbidity was substantially lower for both arms (8.6% vs 2.2%, P=.058). The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 GI events was 8.1% for LDR-PB, versus 3.2% for DE-EBRT (P=.124). The 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GI toxicity was lower than the cumulative incidence for both arms (1.0% vs 2.2%, respectively). Among men reporting adequate baseline erections, 45% of LDR-PB patients reported similar erectile function at 5 years, versus 37% after DE-EBRT (P=.30). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute and late GU morbidity was higher after LDR-PB boost, and there was a nonsignificant trend for worse GI morbidity. No differences in the frequency of erectile dysfunction were observed.

Hybrid (CT/MRI based) vs. MRI only based image-guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Dosimetry comparisons and clinical outcome.

PURPOSE: Limited access to MRI has restricted implementation of MRI-based image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT) in line with GEC-ESTRO guidelines in many centers. This work reports our experience using an alternative CT/MRI based (hybrid) approach for IGBT, dosimetry comparisons, and its impact on long-term clinical outcome and major toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-six patients diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer between May 2008 and May 2012 treated with IGBT were analyzed. The hybrid approach is the default IGBT approach during this study period. Forty-nine had hybrid approach and 27 patients had "3-fraction conformal MRI" approach (17 within EMBRACE study). Treatment consisted of 48 Gy in 24 fractions of conformally planned external beam radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin followed by three weekly fractions of brachytherapy to high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV). All patients have a prebrachytherapy MRI 4 days before treatment and with the applicators in place on Fraction 1. MRI only or CT is used for subsequent fractions. Using image registration techniques and the assumption that the HR-CTV is fixed with respect to the applicator, the HR-CTV from MRI at Fraction 1 is transferred onto subsequent fraction CT image sets for the hybrid approach. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 41 months (range, 23-71 months). Excellent 3-year local control, overall progression-free survival, and overall survival of 92.6%, 78.8%, and 77.7% were seen with the hybrid approach and 92.2%, 66.3%, and 69.6% with a 3-fraction conformal MRI approach, respectively. Dosimetry achieved and late toxicity rates were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid IGBT in locally advanced cervical cancer offers an alternative approach when access to MRI restricts implementation of IGBT.