Thomas Wiegel1, Detlef Bartkowiak2, Dirk Bottke2, Claudia Bronner2, Ursula Steiner3, Alessandra Siegmann4, Reinhard Golz5, Stephan Störkel5, Normann Willich6, Axel Semjonow7, Michael Stöckle8, Christian Rübe9, Udo Rebmann10, Tilman Kälble11, Horst Jürgen Feldmann12, Manfred Wirth13, Rainer Hofmann14, Rita Engenhart-Cabillic15, Axel Hinke16, Wolfgang Hinkelbein4, Kurt Miller3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.wiegel@uniklinik-ulm.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Campus Benjamin- Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Campus Benjamin- Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Pathology, Helios-Clinic Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, University Hospital Homburg/Saar, Homburg, Germany. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Homburg/Saar, Homburg, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Diakonissen-Krankenhaus Dessau, Dessau-Rosslau, Germany. 11. Department of Urology, General Hospital Fulda, Fulda, Germany. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, General Hospital Fulda, Fulda, Germany. 13. Department of Urology, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 14. Departments of Urology, University Hospital Giessen-Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 15. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Giessen-Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 16. WiSP GmbH, Langenfeld, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Three prospectively randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) compared with a wait-and-see (WS) policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficiency of ART after a 10-yr follow-up in the ARO 96-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After RP, 388 patients with pT3 pN0 prostate cancer (PCa) were randomized to WS or three-dimensional conformal ART with 60 Gy. The present analysis focuses on intent-to-treat patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen after RP (ITT2 population)--that is, 159 WS plus 148 ART men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS) (events: biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, or death). Outcomes were compared by log-rank test. Cox regression analysis served to identify variables influencing the course of disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 111 mo for ART and 113 mo for WS. At 10 yr, PFS was 56% for ART and 35% for WS (p<0.0001). In pT3b and R1 patients, the rates for WS even dropped to 28% and 27%, respectively. Of all 307 ITT2 patients, 15 died from PCa, and 28 died for other or unknown reasons. Neither metastasis-free survival nor overall survival was significantly improved by ART. However, the study was underpowered for these end points. The worst late sequelae in the ART cohort were one grade 3 and three grade 2 cases of bladder toxicity and two grade 2 cases of rectum toxicity. No grade 4 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with WS, ART reduced the risk of (biochemical) progression with a hazard ratio of 0.51 in pT3 PCa. With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe. PATIENT SUMMARY:Precautionary radiotherapy counteracts relapse after surgery for prostate cancer with specific risk factors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Three prospectively randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) compared with a wait-and-see (WS) policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficiency of ART after a 10-yr follow-up in the ARO 96-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After RP, 388 patients with pT3 pN0 prostate cancer (PCa) were randomized to WS or three-dimensional conformal ART with 60 Gy. The present analysis focuses on intent-to-treat patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen after RP (ITT2 population)--that is, 159 WS plus 148 ART men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS) (events: biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, or death). Outcomes were compared by log-rank test. Cox regression analysis served to identify variables influencing the course of disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 111 mo for ART and 113 mo for WS. At 10 yr, PFS was 56% for ART and 35% for WS (p<0.0001). In pT3b and R1 patients, the rates for WS even dropped to 28% and 27%, respectively. Of all 307 ITT2 patients, 15 died from PCa, and 28 died for other or unknown reasons. Neither metastasis-free survival nor overall survival was significantly improved by ART. However, the study was underpowered for these end points. The worst late sequelae in the ART cohort were one grade 3 and three grade 2 cases of bladder toxicity and two grade 2 cases of rectum toxicity. No grade 4 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with WS, ART reduced the risk of (biochemical) progression with a hazard ratio of 0.51 in pT3 PCa. With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe. PATIENT SUMMARY: Precautionary radiotherapy counteracts relapse after surgery for prostate cancer with specific risk factors.
Authors: Robert B Den; Kasra Yousefi; Edouard J Trabulsi; Firas Abdollah; Voleak Choeurng; Felix Y Feng; Adam P Dicker; Costas D Lallas; Leonard G Gomella; Elai Davicioni; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Wadhwa; M K Terris; W J Aronson; C J Kane; C L Amling; M R Cooperberg; S J Freedland; M R Abern Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Heather L Huelster; Aaron A Laviana; Daniel D Joyce; Li-Ching Huang; Zhiguo Zhao; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Ralph Conwill; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: T M Morgan; S R Hawken; K R Ghani; D C Miller; F Y Feng; S M Linsell; J A Salisz; Y Gao; J E Montie; M L Cher Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: William L Hwang; Rahul D Tendulkar; Andrzej Niemierko; Shree Agrawal; Kevin L Stephans; Daniel E Spratt; Jason W Hearn; Bridget F Koontz; W Robert Lee; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; Stanley L Liauw; Matthew C Abramowitz; Alan Pollack; Drew Moghanaki; Mitchell S Anscher; Robert B Den; Anthony L Zietman; Andrew J Stephenson; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 31.777