54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

          Methods

          Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65–69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633.

          Results

          Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4–8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70–78 vs 66%, 60–70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61–0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups).

          Interpretation

          The benefits of combined modality treatment—ADT and RT—should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

          Funding

          Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

          Androgen deprivation therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist is associated with increased fat mass and insulin resistance in men with prostate cancer, but the risk of obesity-related disease during treatment has not been well studied. We assessed whether androgen deprivation therapy is associated with an increased incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Observational study of a population-based cohort of 73,196 fee-for-service Medicare enrollees age 66 years or older who were diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer during 1992 to 1999 and observed through 2001. We used Cox proportional hazards models to assess whether treatment with GnRH agonists or orchiectomy was associated with diabetes, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. More than one third of men received a GnRH agonist during follow-up. GnRH agonist use was associated with increased risk of incident diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; P .20). GnRH agonist treatment for men with locoregional prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The benefits of GnRH agonist treatment should be weighed against these potential risks. Additional research is needed to identify populations of men at highest risk of treatment-related complications and to develop strategies to prevent treatment-related diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer.

            To report the long-term results of a randomized radiotherapy dose escalation trial for prostate cancer. From 1993 to 1998, a total of 301 patients with stage T1b to T3 prostate cancer were accrued to a randomized external beam dose escalation trial using 70 Gy versus 78 Gy. The median follow-up is now 8.7 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compute rates of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure (nadir + 2), clinical failure, distant metastasis, disease-specific, and overall survival as well as complication rates at 8 years post-treatment. For all patients, freedom from biochemical or clinical failure (FFF) was superior for the 78-Gy arm, 78%, as compared with 59% for the 70-Gy arm (p = 0.004, and an even greater benefit was seen in patients with initial PSA >10 ng/ml (78% vs. 39%, p = 0.001). The clinical failure rate was significantly reduced in the 78-Gy arm as well (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.014). Twice as many patients either died of prostate cancer or are currently alive with cancer in the 70-Gy arm. Gastrointestinal toxicity of grade 2 or greater occurred twice as often in the high dose patients (26% vs. 13%), although genitourinary toxicity of grade 2 or greater was less (13% vs. 8%) and not statistically significantly different. Dose-volume histogram analysis showed that the complication rate could be significantly decreased by reducing the amount of treated rectum. Modest escalation in radiotherapy dose improved freedom from biochemical and clinical progression with the largest benefit in prostate cancer patients with PSA >10 ng/ml.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer.

              PURPOSE In the absence of high-level evidence or clinical guidelines supporting any given active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in treatment use. METHODS Data were analyzed from 36 clinical sites that contributed data to the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Distribution of primary treatment use was measured over time. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the D'Amico risk groups and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a hierarchical model was constructed that controlled for year of diagnosis, cancer risk variables, and other patient factors to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Results Among 11,892 men analyzed, 6.8% elected surveillance, 49.9% prostatectomy, 11.6% external-beam radiation, 13.3% brachytherapy, 4.0% cryoablation, and 14.4% androgen deprivation monotherapy. Prostate cancer risk drives treatment selection, but the data suggest both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. The former trend appears to be improving over time, while the latter is worsening. Treatment varies with age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. However, treatment patterns vary markedly across clinical sites, and this variation is not explained by case-mix variability or known patient factors. Practice site explains a proportion of this variation ranging from 13% for androgen deprivation monotherapy to 74% for cryoablation. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measurable factors. A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decision making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet Publishing Group
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                17 December 2011
                17 December 2011
                : 378
                : 9809
                : 2104-2111
                Affiliations
                [a ]Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada
                [b ]Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK
                [c ]Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
                [d ]NCIC CTG, Kingston, Canada
                [e ]Kingston Regional Cancer Center, Kingston, Canada
                [f ]Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK
                [g ]Fraser Valley Cancer Center, Surrey, Canada
                [h ]University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
                [i ]Dr H Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic, St John's, Canada
                [j ]Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
                [k ]MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
                [l ]Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK
                [m ]Carlo Fidani Cancer Center, Mississauga, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Padraig Warde, Radiation Medicine Program, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada padraig.warde@ 123456rmp.uhn.on.ca
                [*]

                These authors both contributed equally

                [†]

                Joint senior authors

                Article
                LANCET61095
                10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61095-7
                3243932
                22056152
                d1993904-8f26-4bda-86e7-572309a190df
                © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article