Search

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendalls tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendalls tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

PURPOSE: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state with diverse treatment options. The 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) retrospectively has shown to improve risk stratification in these patients. We assessed the performance of the GC in men with intermediate-risk disease enrolled in NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26 with updated follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After National Cancer Institute approval, biopsy slides were collected from NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26, a randomized phase 3 trial of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer randomized to 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of radiation therapy without androgen deprivation therapy. RNA was extracted from the highest-grade tumor foci to generate the locked 22-gene GC model. The primary endpoint for this ancillary project was disease progression (composite of biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and use of salvage therapy). Individual endpoints were also assessed. Fine-Gray or cause-specific Cox multivariable models were constructed adjusting for randomization arm and trial stratification factors. RESULTS: Two-hundred fifteen patient samples passed quality control for analysis. The median follow-up was 12.8 years (range, 2.4-17.7). On multivariable analysis, the 22-gene GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently prognostic for disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.26; P = .04), biochemical failure (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55; P = .01), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76; P < .001). Ten-year distant metastasis in GC low-risk patients was 4% compared with 16% for GC high-risk patients. In patients with lower GC scores, the 10-year difference in metastasis-free survival rate between arms was -7%, compared with 21% for higher GC patients (P-interaction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first validation of a biopsy-based gene expression classifier, assessing both its prognostic and predictive value, using data from a randomized phase 3 trial of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Decipher improves risk stratification and can aid in treatment decision-making in men with intermediate-risk disease.

PurposeThe sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT).Materials and methodsIndividual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality.ResultsOverall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT.ConclusionADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

PurposeFor men with localized prostate cancer, NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9408 demonstrated that adding short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) improved the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) and improved disease-specific mortality (DSM), biochemical failure (BF), local progression, and freedom from distant metastases (DM). This study was performed to determine whether the short-term ADT continued to improve OS, DSM, BF, and freedom from DM with longer follow-up.Methods and materialsFrom 1994 to 2001, NRG/RTOG 9408 randomized 2028 men from 212 North American institutions with T1b-T2b, N0 prostate adenocarcinoma and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20ng/mL to RT alone or RT plus short-term ADT. Patients were stratified by PSA, tumor grade, and surgical versus clinical nodal staging. ADT was flutamide with either goserelin or leuprolide for 4 months. Prostate RT (66.6 Gy) was started after 2 months. OS was calculated at the date of death from any cause or at last follow-up. Secondary endpoints were DSM, BF, local progression, and DM. Acute and late toxic effects were assessed using RTOG toxicity scales.ResultsMedian follow-up in surviving patients was 14.8 years (range, 0.16-21.98). The 10-year and 18-year OS was 56% and 23%, respectively, with RT alone versus 63% and 23% with combined therapy (HR 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.05; P = .94). The hazards were not proportional (P = .003). Estimated restricted mean survival time at 18 years was 11.8 years (95% CI, 11.4-12.1) with combined therapy versus 11.3 years with RT alone (95% CI, 10.9-11.6; P = .05). The 10-year and 18-year DSM was 7% and 14%, respectively, with RT alone versus 3% and 8% with combined therapy (HR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P < .01). DM and BF favored combined therapy at 18 years. Rates of late grade ≥3 hepatic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary toxicity were ≤1%, 3%, and 8%, respectively, with combined therapy versus ≤1%, 2%, and 5% with RT alone.ConclusionsFurther follow-up demonstrates that OS converges at approximately 15 years, by which point the administration of 4 months of ADT had conferred an estimated additional 6 months of life.

PurposeIn 2009, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary members published a consensus atlas for contouring prostate pelvic nodal clinical target volumes (CTVs). Data have emerged further informing nodal recurrence patterns. The objective of this study is to provide an updated prostate pelvic nodal consensus atlas.Methods and materialsA literature review was performed abstracting data on nodal recurrence patterns. Data were presented to a panel of international experts, including radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists. After data review, participants contoured nodal CTVs on 3 cases: postoperative, intact node positive, and intact node negative. Radiation oncologist contours were analyzed qualitatively using count maps, which provided a visual assessment of controversial regions, and quantitatively analyzed using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients and Hausdorff distances compared with the 2009 RTOG atlas. Diagnostic radiologists generated a reference table outlining considerations for determining clinical node positivity.ResultsEighteen radiation oncologists' contours (54 CTVs) were included. Two urologists' volumes were examined in a separate analysis. The mean CTV for the postoperative case was 302 cm3, intact node positive case was 409 cm3, and intact node negative case was 342 cm3. Compared with the original RTOG consensus, the mean Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficient for the postoperative case was 0.63 (standard deviation [SD] 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.68 (SD 0.13), and the intact node negative case was 0.66 (SD 0.18). The mean Hausdorff distance (in cm) for the postoperative case was 0.24 (SD 0.13), the intact node positive case was 0.23 (SD 0.09), and intact node negative case was 0.33 (SD 0.24). Four regions of CTV controversy were identified, and consensus for each of these areas was reached.ConclusionsDiscordance with the 2009 RTOG consensus atlas was seen in a group of experienced NRG Oncology and international genitourinary radiation oncologists. To address areas of variability and account for new data, an updated NRG Oncology consensus contour atlas was developed.

PurposeIn men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT.Materials and methodsA systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve.ResultsSix trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT.ConclusionOur findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

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.

PurposeThe survival benefit of combined radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone for clinically lymph node-positive prostate cancer remains controversial.Methods and materialsWe identified patients with clinically node-positive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 and treated with ADT (n = 450) or ADT-RT (n = 198) from a national Veterans Affairs database. We compared prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) between treatment groups using multivariable competing-risks regression and Cox regression, respectively. An interaction term between ADT-RT and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (dichotomized about the median) was included in the multivariable models.ResultsADT-RT was associated with improved PCSM among patients with PSA levels less than the median of 26 ng/mL (sub-distribution hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.88; P = .02) but not greater than the median (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI 0.67-1.96; P = .62) (P = .038 for interaction). ADT-RT was also associated with improved ACM among patients with PSA levels less than the median (HR, 0.38; 95% CI 0.25-0.57; P

PurposeLeaders in the oncology community are sounding a clarion call to promote "value" in cancer care decisions. Value in cancer care considers the clinical effectiveness, along with the costs, when selecting a treatment. To discuss possible solutions to the current obstacles to achieving value in the use of advanced technologies in oncology, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop, "Appropriate Use of Advanced Technologies for Radiation Therapy and Surgery in Oncology" in July 2015. The present report summarizes the discussions related to radiation oncology.Methods and materialsThe workshop convened stakeholders, including oncologists, researchers, payers, policymakers, and patients. Speakers presented on key themes, including the rationale for a value discussion on advanced technology use in radiation oncology, the generation of scientific evidence for value of advanced radiation technologies, the effect of both scientific evidence and "marketplace" (or economic) factors on the adoption of technologies, and newer approaches to improving value in the practice of radiation oncology. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion with dialogue among the stakeholders.ResultsChallenges to generating evidence for the value of advanced technologies include obtaining contemporary, prospective, randomized, and representative comparative effectiveness data. Proposed solutions include the use of prospective registry data; integrating radiation oncology treatment, outcomes, and quality benchmark data; and encouraging insurance coverage with evidence development. Challenges to improving value in practice include the slow adoption of higher value and the de-adoption of lower value treatments. The proposed solutions focused on engaging stakeholders in iterative, collaborative, and evidence-based efforts to define value and promote change in radiation oncology practice. Recent examples of ongoing or successful responses to the discussed challenges were provided.ConclusionsDiscussions of "value" have increased as a priority in the radiation oncology community. Practitioners in the radiation oncology community can play a critical role in promoting a value-oriented framework to approach radiation oncology treatment.