Corbin D Jacobs1, Stephen G Chun1, Jingsheng Yan2, Xian-Jin Xie2, David A Pistenmaa1, Raquibul Hannan1, Yair Lotan3, Claus G Roehrborn3, Kevin S Choe1, D W Nathan Kim1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology; Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center; University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center; Dallas, TX USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences; Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center; University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center; Dallas, TX USA. 3. Department of Urology; University of Texas at Southwestern Medical Center; Dallas, TX USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High-risk prostate cancer (PC) has poor outcomes due to therapeutic resistance to conventional treatments, which include prostatectomy, radiation, and hormone therapy. Previous studies suggest that anticoagulant (AC) use may improve treatment outcomes in PC patients. We hypothesized that AC therapy confers a freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and overall survival (OS) benefit when administered with radiotherapy in patients with high-risk PC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis was performed on 74 high-risk PC patients who were treated with radiotherapy from 2005 to 2008 at UT Southwestern. Of these patients, 43 were on AC including aspirin (95.6%), clopidogrel (17.8%), warfarin (20%), and multiple ACs (31.1%). Associations between AC use and FFBF, OS, distant metastasis, and toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 56.6 mo for all patients. For patients taking any AC compared with no AC, there was improved FFBF at 5 years of 80% vs. 62% (P = 0.003), and for aspirin the FFBF was 84% vs. 65% (P = 0.008). Aspirin use was also associated with reduced rates of distant metastases at 5 years (12.2% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.039). On subset analysis of patients with Gleason score (GS) 9-10 histology, aspirin resulted in improved 5-year OS (88% vs. 37%, P = 0.032), which remained significant on multivariable analysis (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AC use was associated with a FFBF benefit in high-risk PC which translated into an OS benefit in the highest risk PC patients with GS 9-10, who are most likely to experience mortality from PC. This hypothesis-generating result suggests AC use may represent an opportunity to augment current therapy.
PURPOSE: High-risk prostate cancer (PC) has poor outcomes due to therapeutic resistance to conventional treatments, which include prostatectomy, radiation, and hormone therapy. Previous studies suggest that anticoagulant (AC) use may improve treatment outcomes in PC patients. We hypothesized that AC therapy confers a freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and overall survival (OS) benefit when administered with radiotherapy in patients with high-risk PC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis was performed on 74 high-risk PC patients who were treated with radiotherapy from 2005 to 2008 at UT Southwestern. Of these patients, 43 were on AC including aspirin (95.6%), clopidogrel (17.8%), warfarin (20%), and multiple ACs (31.1%). Associations between AC use and FFBF, OS, distant metastasis, and toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 56.6 mo for all patients. For patients taking any AC compared with no AC, there was improved FFBF at 5 years of 80% vs. 62% (P = 0.003), and for aspirin the FFBF was 84% vs. 65% (P = 0.008). Aspirin use was also associated with reduced rates of distant metastases at 5 years (12.2% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.039). On subset analysis of patients with Gleason score (GS) 9-10 histology, aspirin resulted in improved 5-year OS (88% vs. 37%, P = 0.032), which remained significant on multivariable analysis (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AC use was associated with a FFBF benefit in high-risk PC which translated into an OS benefit in the highest risk PC patients with GS 9-10, who are most likely to experience mortality from PC. This hypothesis-generating result suggests AC use may represent an opportunity to augment current therapy.
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jonathan D Tward; Christopher M Lee; Lisa M Pappas; Aniko Szabo; David K Gaffney; Dennis C Shrieve Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew R Smith; Judith Manola; Donald S Kaufman; William K Oh; Glenn J Bubley; Philip W Kantoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chang Mo Moon; Ji-Hee Kwon; Ji Suk Kim; Sun-Hee Oh; Kyoung Jin Lee; Jae Jun Park; Sung Pil Hong; Jae Hee Cheon; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Raj S Pruthi; J Eric Derksen; Dominic Moore; Culley C Carson; Gayle Grigson; Cathy Watkins; Eric Wallen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Anna S C Conlon; Stephanie Daignault; Rodney L Dunn; Howard M Sandler; A Larry Hembroff; Anthony L Zietman; Irving Kaplan; Jay Ciezki; Deborah A Kuban; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda; Jeff M Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mark Shilkrut; P William McLaughlin; Gregory S Merrick; Jeffrey M Vainshtein; Felix Y Feng; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mohammad K Khan; Tahseen H Nasti; Zachary S Buchwald; Ralph R Weichselbaum; Stephen J Kron Journal: Cancer J Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Cheryl Jacobs Smith; Tiffany H Dorsey; Wei Tang; Symone V Jordan; Christopher A Loffredo; Stefan Ambs Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jing-Huan Li; Yan Wang; Xiao-Ying Xie; Xin Yin; Lan Zhang; Rong-Xin Chen; Zheng-Gang Ren Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Peter C Elwood; Gareth Morgan; Janet E Pickering; Julieta Galante; Alison L Weightman; Delyth Morris; Mark Kelson; Sunil Dolwani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marek Z Wojtukiewicz; Dominika Hempel; Ewa Sierko; Stephanie C Tucker; Kenneth V Honn Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.264