Arya Amini1, Bernard L Jones1, Norman Yeh1, Chad G Rusthoven1, Hirotatsu Armstrong1, Brian D Kavanagh2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: brian.kavanagh@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: The addition of whole pelvic (WP) compared with prostate-only (PO) radiation therapy (RT) for clinically node-negative prostate cancer remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the survival benefit of adding WPRT versus PO-RT for high-risk, node-negative prostate cancer, using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated from 2004 to 2006, with available data for RT volume, coded as prostate and pelvis (WPRT) or prostate alone (PO-RT) were included. Multivariate analysis (MVA) and propensity-score matched analysis (PSM) were performed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) based on overall survival (OS) using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 14,817 patients were included: 7606 (51.3%) received WPRT, and 7211 (48.7%) received PO-RT. The median follow-up time was 81 months (range, 2-122 months). Under MVA, the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients had no OS benefit compared with PO-RT (HR 1.05; P=.100). On subset analysis, patients receiving dose-escalated RT also did not benefit from WPRT (HR 1.01; P=.908). PSM confirmed no survival benefit with the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients (HR 1.05; P=.141). In addition, RPA was unable to demonstrate a survival benefit of WPRT for any subset. Other prognostic factors for inferior OS under MVA included older age (HR 1.25; P<.001), increasing comorbidity scores (HR 1.46; P<.001), higher T stage (HR 1.17; P<.001), PSA (HR 1.81; P<.001), and GS (HR 1.29; P<.001), and decreasing median county household income (HR 1.15; P=.011). Factors improving OS included the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (HR 0.92; P=.033), combination external beam RT plus brachytherapy boost (HR 0.71; P<.001), and treatment at an academic/research institution (HR 0.84; P=.002). CONCLUSION: In the largest reported analysis of WPRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated in the dose-escalated era, the addition of WPRT demonstrated no survival advantage compared with PO-RT.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: The addition of whole pelvic (WP) compared with prostate-only (PO) radiation therapy (RT) for clinically node-negative prostate cancer remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the survival benefit of adding WPRT versus PO-RT for high-risk, node-negative prostate cancer, using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated from 2004 to 2006, with available data for RT volume, coded as prostate and pelvis (WPRT) or prostate alone (PO-RT) were included. Multivariate analysis (MVA) and propensity-score matched analysis (PSM) were performed. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) based on overall survival (OS) using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 14,817 patients were included: 7606 (51.3%) received WPRT, and 7211 (48.7%) received PO-RT. The median follow-up time was 81 months (range, 2-122 months). Under MVA, the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients had no OS benefit compared with PO-RT (HR 1.05; P=.100). On subset analysis, patients receiving dose-escalated RT also did not benefit from WPRT (HR 1.01; P=.908). PSM confirmed no survival benefit with the addition of WPRT for high-risk patients (HR 1.05; P=.141). In addition, RPA was unable to demonstrate a survival benefit of WPRT for any subset. Other prognostic factors for inferior OS under MVA included older age (HR 1.25; P<.001), increasing comorbidity scores (HR 1.46; P<.001), higher T stage (HR 1.17; P<.001), PSA (HR 1.81; P<.001), and GS (HR 1.29; P<.001), and decreasing median county household income (HR 1.15; P=.011). Factors improving OS included the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (HR 0.92; P=.033), combination external beam RT plus brachytherapy boost (HR 0.71; P<.001), and treatment at an academic/research institution (HR 0.84; P=.002). CONCLUSION: In the largest reported analysis of WPRT for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated in the dose-escalated era, the addition of WPRT demonstrated no survival advantage compared with PO-RT.
Authors: Jianqing Lin; Robert B Den; Jacob Greenspan; Timothy N Showalter; Jean H Hoffman-Censits; Costas D Lallas; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Mark D Hurwitz; Benjamin Leiby; Adam P Dicker; W Kevin Kelly Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas L Jang; Neal Patel; Izak Faiena; Kushan D Radadia; Dirk F Moore; Sammy E Elsamra; Eric A Singer; Mark N Stein; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Yong Lin; Isaac Y Kim; Grace L Lu-Yao Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ariel E Marciscano; Ali Ghasemzadeh; Thomas R Nirschl; Debebe Theodros; Christina M Kochel; Brian J Francica; Yuki Muroyama; Robert A Anders; Andrew B Sharabi; Esteban Velarde; Wendy Mao; Kunal R Chaudhary; Matthew G Chaimowitz; John Wong; Mark J Selby; Kent B Thudium; Alan J Korman; David Ulmert; Daniel L J Thorek; Theodore L DeWeese; Charles G Drake Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Miguel Reis Ferreira; Atia Khan; Karen Thomas; Lesley Truelove; Helen McNair; Annie Gao; Chris C Parker; Robert Huddart; Margaret Bidmead; Ros Eeles; Vincent Khoo; Nicholas J van As; Vibeke N Hansen; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anthony Ricco; Genevieve Manahan; Rachelle Lanciano; Alexandra Hanlon; Jun Yang; Stephen Arrigo; John Lamond; Jing Feng; Michael Mooreville; Bruce Garber; Luther Brady Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 6.244