William L Hwang1, Rahul D Tendulkar2, Andrzej Niemierko1, Shree Agrawal3, Kevin L Stephans2, Daniel E Spratt4, Jason W Hearn4, Bridget F Koontz5, W Robert Lee5, Jeff M Michalski6, Thomas M Pisansky7, Stanley L Liauw8, Matthew C Abramowitz9, Alan Pollack9, Drew Moghanaki10, Mitchell S Anscher11, Robert B Den12, Anthony L Zietman1, Andrew J Stephenson2, Jason A Efstathiou1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Departments of Radiation Oncology and Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
Importance: Prostate cancer with adverse pathological features (ie, pT3 and/or positive margins) after prostatectomy may be managed with adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or surveillance followed by early-salvage radiotherapy (ESRT) for biochemical recurrence. The optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy is unclear. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of postoperative ART and ESRT administered to patients with prostate cancer with adverse pathological features. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional, propensity score-matched cohort study involved 1566 consecutive patients who underwent postprostatectomy ART or ESRT at 10 US academic medical centers between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 2013. Propensity score 1-to-1 matching was used to account for covariates potentially associated with treatment selection. Data were collected from January 1 to September 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2016, to October 21, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Freedom from postirradiation biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastases, and overall survival. All outcomes were measured from date of surgery to address lead-time bias. Results: Of 1566 patients, 1195 with prostate-specific antigen levels of 0.1 to 0.5 ng/mL received ESRT and 371 patients with prostate-specific antigen levels lower than 0.1 ng/mL received ART. The median age (interquartile range) was 60 (55-65) years. After propensity score matching, the median (interquartile range) follow-up after surgery was similar between the ESRT and ART groups (73.3 [44.9-106.6] months vs 65.8 [40-107] months; P = .22). Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with higher freedom from biochemical failure (12-year actuarial rates: 69% [95% CI, 60%-76%] vs 43% [95% CI, 35%-51%]; effect size, 26%), freedom from distant metastases (95% [95% CI, 90%-97%] vs 85% [95% CI, 76%-90%]; effect size, 10%), and overall survival (91% [95% CI, 84%-95%] vs 79% [95% CI, 69%-86%]; effect size, 12%). Adjuvant RT, lower Gleason score and T stage, nodal irradiation, and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy were favorable prognostic features on multivariate analysis for biochemical failure. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the decreased risk of biochemical failure associated with ART remained significant unless more than 56% of patients in the ART group were cured by surgery alone. This threshold is greater than the estimated 12-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 33% to 52% after radical prostatectomy alone, as determined by a contemporary dynamic nomogram. Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with reduced biochemical recurrence, distant metastases, and death for high-risk patients, pending prospective validation. These findings suggest that a greater proportion of patients with prostate cancer who have adverse pathological features may benefit from postprostatectomy ART rather than surveillance followed by ESRT.
Importance: Prostate cancer with adverse pathological features (ie, pT3 and/or positive margins) after prostatectomy may be managed with adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or surveillance followed by early-salvage radiotherapy (ESRT) for biochemical recurrence. The optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy is unclear. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of postoperative ART and ESRT administered to patients with prostate cancer with adverse pathological features. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional, propensity score-matched cohort study involved 1566 consecutive patients who underwent postprostatectomy ART or ESRT at 10 US academic medical centers between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 2013. Propensity score 1-to-1 matching was used to account for covariates potentially associated with treatment selection. Data were collected from January 1 to September 30, 2016. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2016, to October 21, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Freedom from postirradiation biochemical failure, freedom from distant metastases, and overall survival. All outcomes were measured from date of surgery to address lead-time bias. Results: Of 1566 patients, 1195 with prostate-specific antigen levels of 0.1 to 0.5 ng/mL received ESRT and 371 patients with prostate-specific antigen levels lower than 0.1 ng/mL received ART. The median age (interquartile range) was 60 (55-65) years. After propensity score matching, the median (interquartile range) follow-up after surgery was similar between the ESRT and ART groups (73.3 [44.9-106.6] months vs 65.8 [40-107] months; P = .22). Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with higher freedom from biochemical failure (12-year actuarial rates: 69% [95% CI, 60%-76%] vs 43% [95% CI, 35%-51%]; effect size, 26%), freedom from distant metastases (95% [95% CI, 90%-97%] vs 85% [95% CI, 76%-90%]; effect size, 10%), and overall survival (91% [95% CI, 84%-95%] vs 79% [95% CI, 69%-86%]; effect size, 12%). Adjuvant RT, lower Gleason score and T stage, nodal irradiation, and postoperative androgen deprivation therapy were favorable prognostic features on multivariate analysis for biochemical failure. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the decreased risk of biochemical failure associated with ART remained significant unless more than 56% of patients in the ART group were cured by surgery alone. This threshold is greater than the estimated 12-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 33% to 52% after radical prostatectomy alone, as determined by a contemporary dynamic nomogram. Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant RT, compared with ESRT, was associated with reduced biochemical recurrence, distant metastases, and death for high-risk patients, pending prospective validation. These findings suggest that a greater proportion of patients with prostate cancer who have adverse pathological features may benefit from postprostatectomy ART rather than surveillance followed by ESRT.
Authors: Pierre I Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Urology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yuvnik Trada; Andrew Kneebone; Andrea Paneghel; Maria Pearse; Mark Sidhom; Colin Tang; Kirsty Wiltshire; Annette Haworth; Carol Fraser-Browne; Jarad Martin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Thomas Wiegel; Steven Joniau; Cesare Cozzarini; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Bertrand Tombal; Karin Haustermans; Tom Budiharto; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Nadia Di Muzio; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Francesco Montorsi; Hein Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Deepansh Dalela; María Santiago-Jiménez; Kasra Yousefi; R Jeffrey Karnes; Ashley E Ross; Robert B Den; Stephen J Freedland; Edward M Schaeffer; Adam P Dicker; Mani Menon; Alberto Briganti; Elai Davicioni; Firas Abdollah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ahmed Abugharib; William C Jackson; Vasu Tumati; Robert T Dess; Jae Y Lee; Shuang G Zhao; Moaaz Soliman; Zachary S Zumsteg; Rohit Mehra; Felix Y Feng; Todd M Morgan; Neil Desai; Daniel E Spratt Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Casas; I Valduvieco; G Oses; L Izquierdo; I Archila; M Costa; K S Cortes; T Barreto; F Ferrer Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Tamara Jamaspishvili; Palak G Patel; Yi Niu; Thiago Vidotto; Isabelle Caven; Rachel Livergant; Winnie Fu; Atsunari Kawashima; Nathan How; John B Okello; Liana B Guedes; Veronique Ouellet; Clarissa Picanço; Madhuri Koti; Rodolfo B Reis; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson; Tamara L Lotan; Jeremy A Squire; Yingwei P Peng; D Robert Siemens; David M Berman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ovidiu Gabriel Bratu; Camelia Cristina Diaconu; Dan Liviu Dorel Mischianu; Traian Constantin; Ana Maria Alexandra Stanescu; Simona Gabriela Bungau; Florentina Ionita-Radu; Radu Dragos Marcu Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.447