Search

Purpose Data comparing moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are lacking. We aim to compare late toxicity profiles of patients with early-stage prostate cancer treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT. Methods and Materials This multi-institutional analysis included patients with low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma from 7 tertiary referral centers treated from 1998 to 2018. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation, defined as 250 to 300 cGy per daily fraction given for 4 to 6 weeks, and stratified by use of IMRT or PBT. Primary outcomes were late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Adjusted toxicity rates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment weighting, accounting for race, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, age, pretreatment International Prostate Symptom Score (GU only), and anticoagulant use (GI only). Results A total of 1850 patients were included: 1282 IMRT (median follow-up 80.0 months) and 568 PBT (median follow-up 43.9 months). Overall toxicity rates were low, with the majority of patients experiencing no late GU (56.6%, n = 1048) or late GI (74.4%, n = 1377) toxicity. No difference was seen in the rates of late toxicity between the groups, with late grade 3+ GU toxicity of 2.0% versus 3.9% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.28) and late grade 2+ GI toxicity of 14.6% versus 4.7% (OR 2.69; confidence interval 0.80-9.05) for the PBT and IMRT cohorts, respectively. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly predictive of GU toxicity, and only anticoagulant use was significantly predictive of GI toxicity (OR 1.90; P = .008). Conclusions In this large, multi-institutional analysis of 1850 patients with early-stage prostate cancer, treatment with moderately hypofractionated IMRT and PBT resulted in low rates of toxicity. No difference was seen in late GI and GU toxicity between the modalities during long-term follow-up. Both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

145 Background: Studies are conflicting regarding the association between statin use and biochemical recurrence after surgery or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. A handful of studies have observed favorable associations between statins and prostate cancer-specific (PCSM) and overall mortality (OS), however, this has not been studied in an advanced disease cohort nor has the combination of statins and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) been specifically studied. Methods: Patients with PSA >3 ng/mL after >1 year following primary or salvage radiotherapy (RT) were enrolled in a randomized trial of intermittent (IAD) vs. continuous (CAD) ADT (NCT00003653). Statin use at baseline and during the study was captured and modeled as a time-dependent covariate. The primary end-point was OS. Models were adjusted for age, time from RT to ADT and PSA at baseline. As results were nearly identical between the IAD and CAD arms they are reported as aggregates unless otherwise indicated. Results: Of 1,364 patients enrolled, 585 (43%) reported statin use during the study. Statin users were younger (72.7 vs. 73.8, p=0.001) and less likely to have PSA >15 (20 vs. 25%, p=0.04). Median follow-up was 6.9 years and 524 deaths occurred. Statin use was associated with a reduced risk of overall death (HR: 0.64; 95% C.I. 0.53 – 0.78, p

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.

Key Points Question What is the optimal minimum duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) when treating high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose radiotherapy? Findings This patient-level cohort study of 3 cohorts found a significant interaction between the type of high-dose radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy with or without a brachytherapy boost) and optimal duration. Prolonging ADT for 18 to 28 months was associated with a 63% reduction in death or metastasis with external beam radiotherapy; when a brachytherapy boost was added, the nonlinear association between ADT and distant metastasis-free survival was broad and spanned 12 months. Meaning The findings of this cohort study suggest that patients receiving external beam radiotherapy alone may benefit from ADT durations of 18 months or more; if a brachytherapy boost is added, a duration of 18 months or possibly less may be optimal., Importance Radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain. Objective To determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). Design, Settings, and Participants This was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021. Exposures High-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months). Results This cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to, This cohort study explores associations between the duration of androgen deprivation therapy and distant metastasis-free survival in men undergoing external beam radiotherapy with and without a brachytherapy boost for treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE Radiotherapy (RT) plus long-term androgen suppression (AS) are a standard treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) could improve overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS The multicenter randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 study enrolled patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease between 2005 and 2009. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard long-term AS plus RT with or without adjuvant CT. RESULTS A total of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable. Median prostate-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Four-year OS rate was 89% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for AS + RT and 93% (95% CI, 90% to 96%) for AS + RT + CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034). There were 59 deaths in the AS + RT arm and 43 in the AS + RT + CT arm, with fewer deaths resulting from prostate cancer in the AS + RT + CT arm versus AS + RT (23 v 16 deaths, respectively). Six-year rate of distant metastasis was 14% for AS + RT and 9.1% for AS + RT + CT, (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .044). Six-year disease-free survival rate was 55% for AS + RT and 65% for AS + RT + CT (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.00; two-sided P = .053). CONCLUSION For patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CT with docetaxel improved OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years, with improved disease-free survival and reduction in the rate of distant metastasis. The trial suggests that docetaxel CT may be an option to be discussed with selected men with high-risk prostate cancer.

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.

PurposeWe report efficacy of a prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) of salvage low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT) for local failure (LF) after prior external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with minimum 5-years' follow-up.Methods and materialsEligible patients had low/intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) before EBRT and biopsy-proven LF >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen

Key Points Question Are external beam radiotherapy, with or without brachytherapy boost, or radical prostatectomy associated with differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality or distant metastasis outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after accounting for delivery of guideline-concordant multimodality therapy? Findings In this cohort study of 6004 men with high-risk prostate cancer and at least 1 additional adverse clinicopathologic feature, no differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality across treatment modalities were identified among patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality therapy, although differences in time to metastasis were observed. However, significant differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality were identified when guideline-concordant multimodality care was not delivered. Meaning These findings suggest that guideline-concordant multimodality care was associated with better prostate cancer–specific mortality outcomes for patients with high-risk prostate cancer., This cohort study assesses prostate cancer–specific mortality and distant metastasis outcomes among men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy with or without brachytherapy boost., Importance The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was prostate cancer–specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight–adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer–specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer–specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer–specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P

INTRODUCTION: Distinct PSA kinetics have been reported across the breadth of radiation modalities used to definitively treat prostate cancer. This study uses a patient-specific model to characterize and compare ideal PSA kinetics for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer following definitive treatment with conventionally fractionated (CFRT), hypofractionated (HFRT), ultra-hypofractionated or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SbRT), or brachytherapy, both high-dose-rate (HDR) and low-dose-rate (LDR). METHODS: This retrospective analysis includes patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive radiation between 1998 and 2018 at a single, NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and follow-up information were prospectively collected in an institutional database. Eligible patients had at least two PSA measurements within 24-months of treatment and were free from biochemical recurrence and receipt of androgen deprivation therapy. The incidence of, time to, and risk factors for PSA nadir (nPSA) and bounce (bPSA) were analyzed by radiation modality. Ideal PSA kinetics were characterized for each modality and compared. RESULTS: Of 1,047 patients included, 45% had low-risk prostate cancer, 37% had favorable intermediate-risk, and 19% had unfavorable intermediate-risk. The majority of patients were treated with CFRT or LDR; the smallest subset was 52 patients (5%) who received SbRT. nPSA measurements within the two-year follow-up period were significantly higher for those treated with ablative modalities, both as absolute nPSA values and relative to initial PSA (iPSA). Median time to nPSA ranged from 14.8 to 17.1 months. Over 50% of those treated with non-ablative therapy (CFRT, HFRT, and LDR) reached a critical nPSA threshold of ≤0.5 ng/mL, while only 23% of SbRT and 33% of HDR cohorts achieved the same threshold. The overall incidence of bPSA was 13.3% and was not affected by treatment modality, Gleason Score, or prostate volume. A piecewise linear regression showed no statistically significant difference in the PSA decay rates between radiation modalities over time, though there was a trend toward faster PSA decay in ablative therapies between the 6–24-month period. CONCLUSION: Ablative therapies, such as HDR and SbRT, are associated with a latent PSA response and higher nPSA when compared to non-ablative therapies. Multivariate logistics modeling revealed younger age, iPSA above the mean, presence of bPSA, and receipt of ablative therapy as significant predictors for not achieving an nPSA ≤0.5 ng/mL. Understanding the different PSA kinetic profiles for the various radiation modalities is critical to assess treatment response and survey for disease recurrence.

Purpose The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) is the most commonly used patient reported outcome (PRO) tool in prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials, but health utilities associated with the different health states assessed with this tool are unknown, limiting our ability to perform cost-utility analyses. This study aimed to map EPIC tool to EuroQoL-5D-3L (EQ5D) to generate EQ5D health utilities. Methods and materials This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, conducted between 04/2006 and 12/2009 at cancer centers across the United States, Canada, and Switzerland. Eligible patients included men >18 years with a known diagnosis of low-risk PC. Patient HRQoL data were collected using EPIC and health utilities were obtained using EQ5D. Data were divided into an estimation sample (n = 765, 70%) and a validation sample (n = 327, 30%). The mapping algorithms that capture the relationship between the instruments were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and two-part models. Five-fold cross-validation (in-sample) was used to compare the predictive performance of the estimated models. Final models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). Results A total of 565 patients in the estimation sample had complete information on both EPIC and EQ5D questionnaires at baseline. Mean observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 (range: 0.28–1) with 55% of patients in full health. OLS models outperformed their counterpart Tobit and two-part models for all pre-determined model specifications. The best model fit was: “EQ5D utility = 0.248541 + 0.000748*(Urinary Function) + 0.001134*(Urinary Bother) + 0.000968*(Hormonal Function) + 0.004404*(Hormonal Bother)– 0.376487*(Zubrod) + 0.003562*(Urinary Function*Zubrod)”; RMSE was 0.10462. Conclusions This is the first study to identify a comprehensive set of mapping algorithms to generate EQ5D utilities from EPIC domain/ sub-domain scores. The study results will help estimate quality-adjusted life-years in PC economic evaluations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) The use/prolongation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) improves distant metastasis outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The optimal duration of ADT when adding a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) remains unknown. MATERIALS/METHODS A total of 2935 patients who received treatment across 15 institutions between 2000-2014 were identified (1827 treated with EBRT and 1108 with EBRT+BT). Three broad ADT strata were defined: no ADT, 1-18 months ADT, and 18-36 months ADT. Fine-Gray competing risk regression models evaluating the association between differing ADT duration strata and time to distant metastasis (DM) were developed. Models were adjusted for ln (initial PSA), clinical T stage, Gleason grade group, age at treatment, treatment type, and interaction between ADT duration and treatment. A continuous, non-linear relationship between ADT duration and DM was investigated in the overall cohort and within the EBRT and EBRT+BT cohorts using a restricted cubic spline transformation with 4 knots. Splines were adjusted for the same covariates. RESULTS Median follow-up was 8 years (IQR, 5-11.3 years). ADT duration was significantly greater in patients treated with EBRT (median 18 months vs. 8 months, P < 0.001). A substantial proportion of patients did not receive any ADT (26.2% and 14.9% of those undergoing EBRT and EBRT+BT, respectively). Overall, DM rates were improved with adding 1-18 months of ADT or 18-36 months of ADT versus no ADT (sHR 0.66 and 0.43, respectively). DM rates were also lower after 18-36 months vs. 1-18 months (sHR 0.64). No significant interaction between treatment type and ADT duration was seen. Based on spline analysis, the optimal durations of ADT were 26 months for the total cohort and patients receiving EBRT and 22.5 months for patients receiving EBRT+BT. However, the incremental benefit of prolonged time to DM per month ADT added appears to be more pronounced in patients receiving EBRT than in those undergoing combined EBRT+BT treatment. CONCLUSION A clear relationship between ADT duration and DM risk following definitive radiotherapy in patients with HRPCa was seen, with durations of 18-36 months being associated with the lowest risk of DM. The lack of a significant interaction between ADT duration and treatment type implies this relationship persists even in patients receiving EBRT+BT. However, the magnitude of this benefit may differ, and prospective evidence seems warranted to determine the optimal duration of ADT in patients receiving of EBRT+BT.

Purpose/objective(s) Occult non-localized disease (N1 or M1) at the time of definitive treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) underlies most treatment failures. We recently developed a nomogram tuned to the identification of non-localized disease on prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT) in patients with cN0M0 HR-PCa by conventional imaging, which incorporates iPSA, percent positive core on biopsy, Gleason Grade and cT stage. We systematically compared the prognostic performance of the PSMA nomogram against other validated risk stratification tools for HR-PCa. Materials/methods We identified 5275 men from a multi-institutional database treated with radical prostatectomy (55%), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, 31%), or EBRT and brachytherapy (14%). The prognostic performance of the PSMA nomogram was compared against the STAR-CAP score, the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, Cambridge Prognostic Groups (CPG) risk group, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram of 5-year recurrence probability. Accuracy was determined for 5- and 10-year distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) using the concordance index (C-index). Results Median follow-up was 50.3 months (interquartile range 28.1-84.5 months). Overall, 16.1% developed DM, and 4.6% died from PCa. C-indices for the PSMA nomogram were 0.67 and 0.67 for 5- and 10-year DM, and 0.69 and 0.73 for 5- and 10-year PCSM, respectively. The PSMA nomogram outperformed CAPRA, CPG, and MSKCC for all endpoints, outperformed STAR-CAP for 10-year DM, and performed similarly to STAR-CAP for all other endpoints (see Table). The comparative performance between the tools was generally maintained at different follow-up times and in subgroup analyses stratified by primary treatment modalities. Conclusion A nomogram tuned to the detection of non-localized disease on PSMA/PET in HR-PCa patients is significantly prognostic of important clinical endpoints, with performance comparable to STAR-CAP and superior to other tools. These data strongly suggest that upstaging based on PSMA PET/CT provides clinically relevant information and warrant prospective validation.

Purpose We sought to compare changes in patient-reported quality of life (PRQOL) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), high dose rate (HDR), and low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Materials and methods International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory For Men (SHIM), and Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) were prospectively collected for men with low/intermediate-risk cancer treated at a single institution. We used Generalized Estimating Equations to identify associations between variables and early (3 to 6 mo) or late (1 to 2 y) PRQOL scores. Minimally important differences (MID) were compared with assess clinical relevance. Results A total of 342 LDR, 159 HDR, and 112 SBRT patients treated from 2001 to 2018 were eligible. Gleason score, PSA, and age were lower among LDR patients compared with HDR/SBRT. Unadjusted baseline IPSS score was similar among all groups. Adjusted IPSS worsened at all time points compared with baseline after LDR/HDR. At early/late time points, rates of IPSS MID after LDR were higher compared to HDR/SBRT. There were no IPSS differences between SBRT and HDR. All modalities showed early and late SHIM worsening. There were no temporal differences in SHIM between SBRT and brachytherapy. There were no differences in EPIC subdomains between HDR and SBRT. Bowel symptoms worsened early after SBRT, whereas urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms worsened late after HDR. Among all domains, MID after SBRT and HDR were similar. Conclusions In a cohort of patients treated with modern radiotherapy techniques, HDR and SBRT resulted in clinically meaningful improved urinary PRQOL compared with LDR.

PurposeOnly retrospective data are available for low-dose-rate (LDR) salvage prostate brachytherapy for local recurrence after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The primary objective of this prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) was to evaluate late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (AEs) after salvage LDR brachytherapy.Methods and materialsEligible patients had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancerbefore EBRT and biopsy-proven recurrence >30months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen levels

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) are ablative-intent radiotherapy options for prostate cancer (PCa). These vary considerably in dose delivery, which may impact post-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) patterns and biochemical control. We compared PSA kinetics between SBRT, HDR-BT, and LDR-BT, and assessed their relationships to biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS).Retrospective PSA data were analyzed for 3502 men with low-risk (n = 2223; 63.5%), favorable intermediate-risk (n = 869; 24.8%), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 410; 11.7%) PCa treated with SBRT (n = 1716; 49.0%), HDR-BT (n = 512; 14.6%), or LDR-BT (n = 1274; 36.4%) without upfront androgen deprivation therapy at 10 institutions from 1990 to 2017. We compared nadir PSA (nPSA), time to nPSA, achievement of nPSA0.2 ng/mL and0.5 ng/mL, rates of nPSA0.4 ng/mL at 4 years, and BCRFS.Median follow-up was 72 months. Median nPSA and nPSA0.2 ng/mL were stratified by risk group (interaction p ≤ 0.001). Median nPSA and time to nPSA were 0.2 ng/mL at 44 months after SBRT, 0.1-0.2 ng/mL at 37 months after HDR-BT, and 0.01-0.2 ng/mL at 51 months after LDR-BT (mean log nPSA p ≤ 0.009 for LDR-BT vs. SBRT or HDR-BT for low/favorable intermediate-risk). There were no differences in nPSA0.4 ng/mL at 4 years (p ≥ 0.51). BCRFS was similar for all three modalities (p ≥ 0.27). Continued PSA decay beyond 4 years was predictive of durable biochemical control.LDR-BT led to lower nPSAs with longer continued decay compared to SBRT and HDR-BT, but no differences in BCRFS.

Background Optimal management of isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy remains to be defined. Up-front androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used but may adversely affect the quality of life and is essentially a palliative treatment. Local salvage carries a different side-effect profile and is potentially curative, but it has not been compared to ADT. Materials and methods We conducted a propensity-matched analysis of cohorts of men treated with either whole gland cryotherapy (CRYO) or primary ADT following the diagnosis of locally recurrent prostate cancer. Our specific objectives were to compare overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) between CRYO vs. ADT. Results After a one-to-one matching, 169 patients from each cohort were included in comparisons. Median follow-up time was 6.7 years (ADT) vs. 18 years (CRYO). The 10-year PCSM was 18.5% (ADT) vs. 16.2% (CRYO), which was not statistically different [hazard ratioo (HR): 0.69, 95% CI: 0.36-1.34, p=0.27]. The median OS was 12.3 years (CRYO) versus 10.2 years (ADT) (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.95, p=0.03). Conclusions While PCSM was similar between the two strategies, CRYO was associated with a longer OS compared to primary ADT. Given the retrospective nature of the trial, these results should be considered hypothesis-generating, and phase III trials comparing these two options are required to further explore these findings.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT) with ADT, and radical prostatectomy (RP) with or with...

PURPOSE The previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure. METHODS Men with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment. RESULTS Overall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use ( P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%). CONCLUSION H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) is a common primary outcome of randomized-controlled trials of prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to determine how increasing the PCa biologically equivalent dose (BED) of external radiation therapy (RT) is correlated with FFBF and overall patient outcomes: overall survival (OS), distant metastasis (DM), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM); as well as genitourinary (GU), and gastrointestinal toxicities. We performed a meta-analysis of 6884 PCa patients from 12 randomized-controlled trials of external beam RT. Mixed effects regression models were used to estimate weighted linear relationships between BED and observed percentages of 5- and 10-year outcomes. For toxicities, a subset analysis of using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) versus intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) was performed. Increasing BED correlated with improved FFBF: 10-year absolute improvement of 9.6% and 7.2% for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients, respectively (P

Key Points Question Is previously occult, nonlocalized (regional or metastatic) disease detected on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) associated with clinically significant outcomes in patients with high-risk and very high-risk prostate cancer? Findings In this cohort study of 5275 patients, a nomogram estimative of an individual’s risk of nonlocalized disease on PSMA PET/CT was significantly associated with long-term outcomes, including distant metastasis and prostate cancer–specific mortality. The nomogram performed favorably compared with other risk-stratification tools. Meaning These findings suggest that previously occult disease may be associated with outcomes in this patient population., This cohort study evaluates the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual’s risk of nonlocalized upstaging on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and compares its performance with existing risk-stratification tools., Importance Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear. Objectives To evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual’s risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021. Exposures Curative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures PSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index. Results Of 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Limited published data address modifiable risk factors for significant toxicity complicating moderately hypofractionated schedules of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton-beam therapy (PBT) in patients with early-stage prostate cancer (PC). This study explored dosimetric predictors of Grade 3+ gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity following IMRT or PBT in this patient population. MATERIALS/METHODS The study population included patients from five tertiary referral centers treated from 2002-2018 for low- or intermediate-risk biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma. All patients were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation defined as 250-300 cGY per daily fraction given over 4-6 weeks. Primary outcomes were late GI and GU toxicity as defined by CTCAE v4.0. Dosimetric variables included PTV max dose, PTV volume, bladder V31 Gy, bladder V50 Gy, bladder V70 Gy, bladder max dose, rectum V31 Gy, rectum V50 Gy, rectum V70 Gy, rectum max dose, penile bulb V10 Gy, penile bulb V15 Gy, and the left and right femoral head V40 Gy. The association of dosimetric variables with treatment toxicity was assessed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Dosimetric data were obtained for 1139 patients, including 667 treated with IMRT and 472 treated with PBT. Median follow-up for the two groups was 46.0 and 48.5 months, respectively. Late toxicity rates for the total population were 4.7% for Grade 3+ GU toxicity and 1.5% for Grade 3+ GI toxicity. Grade 3+ GU toxicity was associated with prostate volume, bladder V31 Gy and bladder V50 Gy (P = 0.016, P = 0.018, P = 0.028), but not with bladder V70 Gy or maximum dose to the bladder. Grade 3+ GI toxicity was not associated with any of the dosimetric variables. When analyzed by treatment group, Grade 3+ GU toxicity was observed in 3% of the IMRT cohort and 1.7% of the PBT cohort. Grade 3+ GI toxicity was seen only in PBT and was observed in 1.5% of patients. Proton plans were associated with less radiation exposure of rectum and bladder at lower doses (rectum V31 Gy: 13% vs 16%, P < 0.001; bladder V31 Gy: 18% vs 26%, P < 0.001), while IMRT was associated with less radiation exposure of rectum and bladder at higher doses (rectum V70 Gy: 0.4% vs 2%, P < 0.001; bladder V70 Gy: 1% vs 3%, P < 0.001). Photon plans yielded superior V40 Gy to the femoral heads, and superior V10 Gy and V15 Gy to the penile bulb (P < 0.001, P < 0.003, P < 0.002). CONCLUSION In this multi-institutional analysis of 1139 early-stage PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated IMRT or PBT, risk of serious late GU and GI complications was low for both treatment groups. Analysis of the dosimetric variables identified an association of Grade 3+ GU toxicity with low-dose radiation exposure of the bladder. Grade 3+ GI toxicity was unrelated to dosimetric variables. PBT plans yielded less exposure of non-target organs to lower-dose radiation while IMRT plans yielded less exposure of non-target organs to higher-dose radiation.

Purpose/Objective(s) Prospective data show improved biochemical control—at a cost of worse urinary and overall physical function scores—in patients receiving a low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy boost when compared to IMRT alone. An HDR prostate boost may cause less toxicity than LDR brachytherapy. We, therefore, compared patient status post an HDR prostate boost or IMRT alone to see if there were any differences in PRO data between groups. Materials/Methods American Urologic Association (AUA) symptom score and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score were prospectively collected for men with intermediate/high risk prostate cancer at a single institution. Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were also obtained and graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE). Patients had undergone either IMRT plus an HDR prostate boost (n = 53) or IMRT alone (n = 346). Patients were excluded if they had prior TURP, a history of irritable bowel disease (IBD), or a prostate size greater than 75 cc. PRO were compared at baseline and at 1-2 years. AUA and SHIM scores were compared using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results We identified 346 patients treated between 2001 and 2018 with IMRT alone (80 Gy median EBRT dose) and 53 patients treated with HDR boost (46 Gy median EBRT dose). Patient characteristics and unadjusted PRO scores are reported below in the table. There was no grade 4 or 5 acute or late GU or GI events. Conclusion Zero grade 3 late GI events occurred in the IMRT plus HDR group, while 1.7% of patients (n = 6) in the IMRT alone group experienced late grade 3 GI toxicity; this difference was not statistically significant. Patients receiving an HDR boost have greater change in AUA score at 1-2 years compared to the IMRT alone patients; this change does not appear clinically significant. SHIM scores are higher in the HDR group before and after treatment, suggesting patients selected for a prostate boost may have better erectile function at baseline. Lastly, clinicians seem more comfortable withholding ADT in patients receiving an HDR prostate boost, possibly due to the higher ablative dose provided by HDR brachytherapy.

Introduction To evaluate if interruptions of external beam radiation therapy impact outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Methods We included men with localized PCa treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of escalated dose (≥74 Gy in 1.8 or 2 Gy fractions) between 1992 and 2013 at an NCI-designated cancer centre. Men receiving androgen deprivation therapy were excluded. The non-treatment day ratio (NTDR) was defined as the number of non-treatment days divided by the total elapsed days of therapy. NTDR was analysed for each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Results There were 1728 men included (839 low-risk, 776 intermediate-risk and 113 high-risk), with a median follow up of 53.5 months (range 12–185.8). The median NTDR was 31% (range 23–71%), translating to approximately 2 breaks (each break represents a missed treatment that will be made up) for 8 weeks of RT with 5 treatments per week. The 75 percentile of NTDR was 33%, translating to approximately 4 breaks, which was used as the cutoff for analysis. There were no significant differences in freedom from biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastasis, cancer specific survival, or overall survival for men with NTDR ≥33% compared to NTDR

Brachytherapy BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and — typically — fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes (evidence level 1). The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69–97%, and 63–80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease (evidence level 1). The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%

BackgroundThe long natural history of prostate cancer (CaP) limits comparisons of efficacy between radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), since patients treated years ago received treatments considered suboptimal by modern standards (particularly with regards to androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] and radiotherapy dose-escalation]. Gleason score (GS) 9-10 CaP is particularly aggressive, and clinically-relevant endpoints occur early, facilitating meaningful comparisons.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of patients with GS 9-10 CaP following EBRT, extremely-dose escalated radiotherapy (as exemplified by EBRT+brachytherapy [EBRT+BT]), and RP.Design, setting, participantsRetrospective analysis of 487 patients with biopsy GS 9-10 CaP treated between 2000 and 2013 (230 with EBRT, 87 with EBRT+BT, and 170 with RP). Most radiotherapy patients received ADT and dose-escalated radiotherapy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisKaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression estimated and compared 5-yr and 10-yr rates of distant metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS).Results and limitationsThe median follow-up was 4.6 yr. Local salvage and systemic salvage were performed more frequently in RP patients (49.0% and 30.1%) when compared with either EBRT patients (0.9% and 19.7%) or EBRT+BT patients (1.2% and 16.1%, p

BACKGROUND Phase 3 trials have demonstrated a benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for men who have adverse factors at radical prostatectomy (RP). However, some patients have a high risk of progression despite ART. The role of systemic therapy with ART in this high-risk group remains to be defined. METHODS Patients who had either a post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir > 0.2 ng/mL and a Gleason score ≥7 or a PSA nadir ≤0.2 ng/mL, a Gleason score ≥8, and a pathologic tumor (pT) classification ≥ pT3 received 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiotherapy and 6 cycles of docetaxel. The primary objective was to assess whether the addition of ADT and docetaxel to ART resulted in a freedom from progression (FFP) rate ≥ 70% compared with an expected rate of 50%. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to model associations between factors and outcomes. RESULTS In total, 74 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The pathologic tumor classification was pT2 in 4% of patients, pT3 in 95%, and pT4 in 1%. The Gleason score was 7 in 18% of patients and ≥8 in 82%. Post-RP PSA levels were ≤0.2 ng/mL in 53% of patients and >0.2 ng/mL in 47%. The 3-year FFP rate was 73% (95% confidence interval, 61%-83%), and the 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical, distant, and local failure was 26%, 7%, and 0%, respectively. In multivariate models, postprostatectomy PSA nadir was associated with 3-year FFP, Gleason score, and PSA with biochemical failure. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was common; however, only 3 episodes of febrile neutropenia occurred. Late toxicities were not impacted by the addition of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS Combined ADT, docetaxel, and ART for men with high-risk prostate cancer after prostatectomy exceeded the prespecified study endpoint of 70% 3-year FFP. Phase 3 trials assessing combined local and systemic therapies for these high-risk patients are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2489–96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Importance In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Stratification of Gleason score (GS) into three categories (2-6, 7, and 8-10) may not fully utilize its prognostic discrimination, with Gleason Pattern 5 (GP5) previously identified as an independent adverse factor. MATERIALS/METHODS: Patients treated on RTOG 9202 (n = 1292) or RTOG 9902 (n = 378) were pooled and assessed for association of GS and GP5 on biochemical failure (BF), local failure (LF), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Fine and Gray’s regression and cumulative incidence methods were used for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 9.4 years, patients with GS 8-10 with GP5 had worse outcome than GS 4+4 for DM on both RTOG9202 (p=0.038) and RTOG9902 (p

BACKGROUND Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed cancer patients start taking dietary supplements. Men's health supplements (MHSs), which we define as supplements that are specifically marketed with the terms men's health and prostate health (or similar permutations), are often mislabeled as having potential anticancer benefits. OBJECTIVE We evaluated the effects of MHSs on patient outcomes and toxicities in patients who were undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer. DESIGN This retrospective analysis included patients who were being treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center and consented to have information stored in a prospective database. MHSs were queried online. Outcome measures were freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) (biochemical failure was defined with the use of the prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2-ng/mL definition), freedom from distant metastasis (FFDM), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) as well as toxicities. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, Fine and Gray competing-risk regression (to adjust for patient and lifestyle factors), and Cox models were used. RESULTS From 2001 to 2012, 2207 patients were treated with IMRT with a median dose of 78 Gy, and a median follow-up of 46 mo. Of these patients, 43% were low risk, 37% were intermediate risk, and 20% were high risk; 10% used MHSs. MHSs contained a median of 3 identifiable ingredients (range: 0-78 ingredients). Patients who were taking an MHS compared with those who were not had improved 5-y OS (97% compared with 92%, respectively; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the FFBF (94% compared with 89%, respectively; P = 0.12), FFDM (96% compared with 97%, respectively; P = 0.32), or CSS (100% compared with 99%, respectively; P = 0.22). The unadjusted association between MHS use and improved OS was attenuated after adjustment for patient lifestyle factors and comorbidities. There was no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups (late-grade 3-4 genitourinary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6–15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5–7 years) and acute and late toxicity (6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Despite improvements in medical management of advanced prostate cancer (aPC), it continues to be a leading cause of cancer death in men. Contemporary management of men with aPC is complex and requires resources to be more readily available at high-volume facilities.To determine the relationship between facility volume and survival in men with aPC.The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried from 2004 to 2013 for aPC, defined as T4, N+, or M+ disease, identifying 64815 patients. Six predefined patient cohorts were evaluated. Cohort "A" included all patients with aPC. "B" cohorts included only M0 patients. "C" cohorts included only M1 patients. Facilities were divided into quartiles based on median treatment volume (patients/yr).Diagnosis and management of aPC at an NCDB-reporting facility.Overall survival (OS) was assessed as a function of facility volume. Multivariable Cox regression models were fitted. Cox regressions using natural cubic splines were used to test for nonlinear relationships between volume and OS.OS improved as facility volume increased (top quartile vs bottom quartile, hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.88, p0.001) and was consistent across patient cohorts. Spline models demonstrate a continuous decrease in hazard of death as volume increases. Limitations include the retrospective analysis and a lack of precise treatment information.In this retrospective analysis of nearly 65000 men who presented with aPC, we demonstrate an association between higher facility volume and improvements in OS. This OS advantage persisted with similar magnitudes of effect after narrowing the cohorts by disease and treatment characteristics.In this retrospective review of the National Cancer Database, we analyzed the association between treatment facility volume and survival in men who are diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. We found that survival improved as volume increased, indicating a possible imbalance of resources and expertise that favors higher-volume facilities.

Background In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. Materials and Methods In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. Results LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. Conclusion The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.

PurposeThere is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores.Methods and materialsNRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 weeks) or 12 fractions (4.3 Gy in 2.5 weeks). The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a change in EPIC-50 bowel score at 1 year (baseline to 1 year) >5 points and in EPIC-50 urinary score >2 points tested with a 1-sample binomial test.ResultsThe study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 analyzed) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 analyzed). Median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 3.8 years. The 1-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 29.8% (P < .001) and 28.4% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 1-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 45.7% (P < .001) and 42.2% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 32.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points (P = .34); for 12 fractions, 30.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥ 11 points (P = .20). Disease-free survival at 2 years is 99.2% (95% confidence interval: 97.5-100) in the 5-fraction arm and 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity.ConclusionsThis study confirms that, based on changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity (acute and late), the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Purpose: A meta-analysis of sociodemographic variables and their association with late (>180 days from start of radiation therapy[RT]) bowel, bladder, and clustered bowel and bladder toxicities was conducted in patients with high-risk (clinical stages T2c-T4b or Gleason score 8-10 or prostate-specific antigen level >20) prostate cancer. Methods and materials: Three NRG trials (RTOG 9202, RTOG 9413, and RTOG 9406) that accrued from 1992 to 2000 were used. Late toxicities were measured with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Late Radiation Morbidity Scale. After controlling for study, age, Karnofsky Performance Status, and year of accrual, sociodemographic variables were added to the model for each outcome variable of interest in a stepwise fashion using the Fine-Gray regression models with an entry criterion of 0.05. Results: A total of 2432 patients were analyzed of whom most were Caucasian (76%), had a KPS score of 90 to 100 (92%), and received whole-pelvic RT+HT (67%). Of these patients, 13 % and 16% experienced late grade ≥2 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively, and 2% and 3% experienced late grade ≥3 bowel and bladder toxicities, respectively. Late grade ≥2 clustered bowel and bladder toxicities were seen in approximately 1% of patients and late grade ≥3 clustered toxicities were seen in 2 patients (

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.

We assessed the prognostic value of the interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after salvage radiation therapy (SRT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer to identify patients at high risk for distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall mortality (OM). From 1991 and 2007, 222 men with T2a-4a, N0/X, M0 prostate cancer received SRT for a rising PSA after RP. Of these, 48 experienced BF. Univariate and multivariate analyses (UVA, MVA, respectively) included initial PSA; T-stage; RT dose; nadir PSA; risk group; IBF; time from surgery to SRT; seminal vesicle invasion; Gleason score; and PSA doubling time. Median follow-up from SRT was 67 months. The median IBF was 33 months (range, 4–96). On UVA, IBF

BACKGROUND Previous publications have demonstrated conflicting results regarding body mass index (BMI) and prostate cancer (CaP) outcomes after definitive radiotherapy (RT) before the dose escalation era. The goal of the current study was to determine whether increasing BMI was associated with outcomes in men with localized CaP who were treated with dose-escalated RT. METHODS The authors identified patients with localized (T1b-T4N0M0) CaP who were treated with definitive intensity-modulated RT and image-guided RT from 2001 through 2010. BMI was analyzed as a continuous variable. Adjusting for confounders, multivariable competing risk and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between BMI and the risk of biochemical failure (BF), distant metastases (DM), cause-specific mortality (CSM), and overall mortality. RESULTS Of the 1442 patients identified, approximately 20% had a BMI

PURPOSE Characterize use of postprostatectomy radiation (PPRT) for patients with prostate cancer at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS We queried our prospective prostate cancer database for patients treated with 60 to 68 Gy of radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed after prostatectomy from 2003 to 2011. Prostatectomy cases were obtained from billing records. Patients with an intact prostate treated with definitive RT served as a control for the change in volume of patients with prostate cancer treated in the department. Chi-square analysis assessed differences between adjuvant and salvage RT cohorts. Spearman correlation assessed yearly trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of referral for RT. Linear regression models tested trends for number of PPRT cases, prostatectomies, and patients with intact prostate receiving radiation across years. RESULTS PPRT was used to treat 475 men at Fox Chase Cancer Center from 2003 to 2011 (83 adjuvant and 392 salvage). Over time, an increased proportion of patients receiving RT to the prostate were treated with PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT compared with salvage RT (P=.5). Patients receiving adjuvant RT were younger, had higher pathologic Gleason score, pathologic T stage, and rates of positive margins than those receiving salvage RT. Pre-RT PSA values were inversely correlated with year (P=.005). The number of patients referred for salvage RT with a PSA of 0.5 ng/mL or less increased significantly from 7.9% in 2003 to 26.6% in 2011 (P=.002). CONCLUSIONS A larger proportion of patients treated with RT for localized prostate cancer are now receiving PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT. Over time, patients with lower PSAs were referred for salvage RT.

Purpose To determine whether computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging–based day 0 (d0) dosimetry is a meaningful predictor of day 21 (d21) dosimetry in low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials The study population consisted of 277 men with localized (T1-2 N0 M0), low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with low-dose-rate brachytherapy. Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion was used for postimplant dosimetry at d0 and d21. Logistic regression was used to construct receiver operating characteristic curves for achieving each constraint at d21, based on d0 D90 and V100, and Youden’s index was used to evaluate cutpoints. Freedom from biochemical failure (FBCF) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The median d0 D90 increased from 133 to 150 Gy at d21, and median d0 V100 increased from 87% to 91%. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 D90 was 135 Gy, with 84% of these patients maintaining a d21 D90 > 145 Gy. For achieving the D90 constraint at d21, the optimal cut-point for d0 V100 was 87%, with 83% of these patients maintained a d21 V100 > 90%. There was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 D90 > 135 Gy or D90 > 145 Gy. Similarly, there was no improvement in FBCF in patients with a d0 V100 > 87% or V100 > 90%. Conclusions Meeting dosimetric constraints on d0 does not obviate d21 dosimetric analysis. Constraints used for dose prescriptions on d0 are not the ideal predictors of d21 dosimetry.

The objective of the study is to determine if aspirin use is associated with decreased risk of biochemical failure, distant metastasis, and prostate cancer specific mortality in prostate cancer patients after adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy. We identified 189 men with pathologic T2a-4a, N0/X, M0 prostate adenocarcinoma who received adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy following prostatectomy. Aspirin use (defined as use at time of radiation therapy or during follow-up) was present in 60 men (32 %). Cox multivariate analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimation and log-rank test with the following covariates: pre-radiation therapy prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen doubling time, warfarin or clopidogrel use, aspirin use, surgical margin status, radiation dose, time interval from prostatectomy to radiation therapy, and radiation technique. The median follow-up time was 50 months. Aspirin use was associated with improved 5-year rates of prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2 ng/mL biochemical failure (15 vs. 42 %, p = 0.002), distant metastases (0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.02), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0 vs. 5 %, p = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, aspirin nonuse (hazard ratio = 2.9, 95 % confidence interval = 1.3–6.6) was the only predictor for prostate-specific antigen nadir + 2 ng/mL biochemical failure. In patients who received adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after primary radical prostatectomy, aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of biochemical failure.

PurposeTo validate whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after neoadjuvant androgen suppression (neoAS) is associated with long-term outcome after neoAS and external beam radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent short-term androgen suppression (AS) in patients with prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThis study included 2404 patients. The patients were treated with neoAS before RT and concurrent AS (without post-RT AS) and were pooled from NRG Oncology/RTOG trials 9202, 9408, 9413, and 9910. Multivariable models were used to test associations between the prespecified dichotomized post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level (≤0.1 vs>0.1ng/mL) groupings, and clinical outcomes.ResultsThe median follow-up for surviving patients was 9.4years. The median post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level was 0.3ng/mL, with 32% of patients having levels ≤0.1ng/mL. Race, Gleason score, tumor stage, node stage, pretreatment PSA level, and duration of neoAS were associated with the groups of patients with PSA levels ≤0.1 and>0.1ng/mL. In univariate analyses, post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level >0.1ng/mL was associated with increased risks of biochemical failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04; P0.1ng/mL was independently associated with increased risk of biochemical failure (HR, 2.00; P0.1ng/mL after neoAS and before the start of RT had less favorable clinical outcomes than patients whose PSA level was ≤0.1ng/mL. The role of post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level relative to PSA levels obtained along the continuum of medical care is not presently defined but could be tested in future clinical trials.

Purpose The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has been reported predominantly from single institutional studies, although concerns for broader adoption exist. Methods and materials From 2011 through 2013, 66 men were accrued to a phase 2 trial at 5 centers. SBRT consisted of 5 fractions of 7.4 Gy to a total dose of 37 Gy using conventional linear accelerators. Electromagnetic transponders were used for motion management. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated via the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 questionnaire. Acute and late toxicities were collected according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Linear mixed modeling was performed to assess changes in HRQOL over time. Results Median follow-up was 36 months. All men had low- or intermediate-risk disease. There have been 0 biochemical recurrences. No grade 3 urinary or bowel toxicity was reported. Twenty-three percent of patients had acute grade 2 urinary toxicity, with 9% late grade 2 urinary toxicity. Four percent and 5% experienced acute or late grade 2+ bowel toxicity, respectively. Urinary bother and bowel HRQOL transiently decreased during the first 6 to 12 months post-SBRT, and then returned to baseline. In men with good erectile function at baseline, sexual HRQOL declined during the first 6 months and stabilized thereafter. On linear mixed modeling, the strongest predictor of sustained bowel and sexual HRQOL was baseline HRQOL. Conclusions In this multi-institutional phase 2 clinical trial using continuous real-time evaluation of prostate motion, prostate SBRT has excellent intermediate-term tumor control with mild and expected treatment-related side effects.