The risk of second malignancies following prostate cancer radiotherapy in the era of conformal radiotherapy: a statement of the Prostate Cancer Working Group of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

A significant number of prostate cancer patients are long-term survivors after primary definitive therapy, and the occurrence of late side effects, such as second primary cancers, has gained interest. The aim of this editorial is to discuss the most current evidence on second primary cancers based on six retrospective studies published in 2021-2024 using large data repositories not accounting for all possible confounding factors, such as smoking or pre-existing comorbidities. Overall, prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiotherapy have an increased risk (0.7-1%) of the development of second primary cancers compared to patients treated with surgery up to 25 years after treatment. However, current evidence suggests that the implementation of intensity modulated radiation therapy is not increasing the risk of second primary cancers compared to conformal 3D-planned radiotherapy. Furthermore, increasing evidence indicates that highly conformal radiotherapy techniques may not increase the probability of second primary cancers compared to radical prostatectomy. Consequently, future studies should consider the radiotherapy technique and other confounding factors to provide a more accurate estimation of the occurrence of second primary cancers.

Prostate cancer and elective nodal radiation therapy for cN0 and pN0-a never ending story? : Recommendations from the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).

For prostate cancer, the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) for cN0 or pN0 patients has been under discussion for years. Considering the recent publications of randomized controlled trials, the prostate cancer expert panel of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) aimed to discuss and summarize the current literature. Modern trials have been recently published for both treatment-naïve patients (POP-RT trial) and patients after surgery (SPPORT trial). Although there are more reliable data to date, we identified several limitations currently complicating the definitions of general recommendations. For patients with cN0 (conventional or PSMA-PET staging) undergoing definitive radiotherapy, only men with high-risk factors for nodal involvement (e.g., cT3a, GS ≥ 8, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml) seem to benefit from ENI. For biochemical relapse in the postoperative situation (pN0) and no PSMA imaging, ENI may be added to patients with risk factors according to the SPPORT trial (e.g., GS ≥ 8; PSA > 0.7 ng/ml). If PSMA-PET/CT is negative, ENI may be offered for selected men with high-risk factors as an individual treatment approach.

Feasibility, pitfalls and results of a structured concept-development phase for a randomized controlled phase III trial on radiotherapy in primary prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Failure rate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is > 50%, includes safety-problems, underpowered statistics, lack of efficacy, lack of funding or insufficient patient recruitment and is even more pronounced in oncology trials. We present results of a structured concept-development phase (CDP) for a phase III RCT on personalized radiotherapy (RT) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients implementing prostate specific membrane antigen targeting positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 1 yr process of the CDP contained five main working packages: (i) literature search and scoping review, (ii) involvement of individual patients, patients' representatives and patients' self-help groups addressing the patients' willingness to participate in the preparation process and the conduct of RCTs as well as the patient informed consent (PIC), (iii) involvement of national and international experts and expert panels (iv) a phase II pilot study investigating the safety of implementation of PSMA-PET for focal dose escalation RT and (v) in-silico RT planning studies assessing feasibility of envisaged dose regimens and effects of urethral sparing in focal dose escalation. RESULTS: (i) Systematic literature searches confirmed the high clinical relevance for more evidence on advanced RT approaches, in particular stereotactic body RT, in high-risk PCa patients. (ii) Involvement of patients, patient representatives and randomly selected males relevantly changed the PIC and initiated a patient empowerment project for training of bladder preparation. (iii) Discussion with national and international experts led to adaptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria. (iv) Fifty patients were treated in the pilot trial and in- and exclusion criteria as well as enrollment calculations were adapted accordingly. Parallel conduction of the pilot trial revealed pitfalls on practicability and broadened the horizon for translational projects. (v) In-silico planning studies confirmed feasibility of envisaged dose prescription. Despite large prostate- and boost-volumes of up to 66% of the prostate, adherence to stringent anorectal dose constraints was feasible. Urethral sparing increased the therapeutic ratio. CONCLUSION: The dynamic framework of interdisciplinary working programs in CDPs enhances robustness of RCT protocols and may be associated with decreased failure rates. Structured recommendations are warranted to further define the process of such CDPs in radiation oncology trials.