PURPOSE: To determine the acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant maximal androgen deprivation (MAD) to patients treated with external beam radiation for locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS:Between 1996 and 2000, 818 patients with locally advanced, but non-metastatic, prostate cancer were entered into a randomised clinical trial (TROG 96.01), which compared radiation treatment alone with the same radiation treatment and 3 or 6 months neo-adjuvant MAD with goserelin and flutamide. Relevant symptoms, and how troublesome they were to the patient, were scored using a self-assessment questionnaire. This was completed by the patient at registration, and at specified times during and after treatment. Patients taking flutamide had liver function tests checked at regular intervals. RESULTS: All patients have completed at least 12 months follow-up after treatment. Nearly all patients completed planned treatment with goserelin, but 27% of patients in the 6-month MAD treatment arm, and 20% in the 3-month arm, had to stop flutamide early. This was mainly due to altered liver function (up to 17% patients) and bowel side effects (up to 8% patients). However, although flutamide resulted in more bowel symptoms for patients on MAD, there was significant reduction in some urinary symptoms on this treatment. Acute bowel and urinary side effects at the end of radiation treatment were similar in all treatment arms. Side effect severity was unrelated to radiation target volume size, which was reduced by MAD, but symptomatology prior to any treatment was a powerful predictor. Of the 36% of patients who were sexually active before any treatment, the majority became inactive whilst on MAD. However, sexual activity at 12 months after radiation treatment was similar in all treatment arms, indicating that the effects of short term MAD on sexual function are reversible. CONCLUSION: Despite temporary effects on sexual activity, and compliance difficulties with flutamide, short-term neo-adjuvant MAD was not perceived by patients to be a major inconvenience. If neo-adjuvant MAD in the way tested can be demonstrated to lead to improved biochemical control and/or survival, then patients would view these therapeutic gains as worthwhile. Compliance with short-term goserelin was excellent, confirming that LH-RH analogues have a potential role in more long-term adjuvant treatment. However, for more protracted androgen deprivation, survival advantages and deleterious effects need to be assessed in parallel, in order to determine the optimal duration of treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the acceptability of short term neo-adjuvant maximal androgen deprivation (MAD) to patients treated with external beam radiation for locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2000, 818 patients with locally advanced, but non-metastatic, prostate cancer were entered into a randomised clinical trial (TROG 96.01), which compared radiation treatment alone with the same radiation treatment and 3 or 6 months neo-adjuvant MAD with goserelin and flutamide. Relevant symptoms, and how troublesome they were to the patient, were scored using a self-assessment questionnaire. This was completed by the patient at registration, and at specified times during and after treatment. Patients taking flutamide had liver function tests checked at regular intervals. RESULTS: All patients have completed at least 12 months follow-up after treatment. Nearly all patients completed planned treatment with goserelin, but 27% of patients in the 6-month MAD treatment arm, and 20% in the 3-month arm, had to stop flutamide early. This was mainly due to altered liver function (up to 17% patients) and bowel side effects (up to 8% patients). However, although flutamide resulted in more bowel symptoms for patients on MAD, there was significant reduction in some urinary symptoms on this treatment. Acute bowel and urinary side effects at the end of radiation treatment were similar in all treatment arms. Side effect severity was unrelated to radiation target volume size, which was reduced by MAD, but symptomatology prior to any treatment was a powerful predictor. Of the 36% of patients who were sexually active before any treatment, the majority became inactive whilst on MAD. However, sexual activity at 12 months after radiation treatment was similar in all treatment arms, indicating that the effects of short term MAD on sexual function are reversible. CONCLUSION: Despite temporary effects on sexual activity, and compliance difficulties with flutamide, short-term neo-adjuvant MAD was not perceived by patients to be a major inconvenience. If neo-adjuvant MAD in the way tested can be demonstrated to lead to improved biochemical control and/or survival, then patients would view these therapeutic gains as worthwhile. Compliance with short-term goserelin was excellent, confirming that LH-RH analogues have a potential role in more long-term adjuvant treatment. However, for more protracted androgen deprivation, survival advantages and deleterious effects need to be assessed in parallel, in order to determine the optimal duration of treatment.