Christopher L Hallemeier1, Peixin Zhang2, Thomas M Pisansky3, Gerald E Hanks4, David G McGowan5, Mack Roach6, Kenneth L Zeitzer7, Selim Y Firat8, Siraj M Husain9, David P D'Souza10, Luis Souhami11, Matthew B Parliament5, Seth A Rosenthal12, Himanshu R Lukka13, Marvin Rotman14, Eric M Horwitz4, Edward F Miles15, Rebecca Paulus2, Howard M Sandler16. 1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: hallemeier.christopher@mayo.edu. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 6. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 7. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Medical College of Wisconsin-Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 9. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 10. London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada. 11. McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 12. Radiological Associates of Sacramento, Sacramento, California. 13. McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Brooklyn MB-CCOP/SUNY Downstate, Brooklyn, New York. 15. Naval Medical Center Accruals Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia. 16. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after neoadjuvant androgen suppression (neoAS) is associated with long-term outcome after neoAS and external beam radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent short-term androgen suppression (AS) in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 2404 patients. The patients were treated with neoAS before RT and concurrent AS (without post-RT AS) and were pooled from NRG Oncology/RTOG trials 9202, 9408, 9413, and 9910. Multivariable models were used to test associations between the prespecified dichotomized post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level (≤0.1 vs >0.1 ng/mL) groupings, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The median follow-up for surviving patients was 9.4 years. The median post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level was 0.3 ng/mL, with 32% of patients having levels ≤0.1 ng/mL. Race, Gleason score, tumor stage, node stage, pretreatment PSA level, and duration of neoAS were associated with the groups of patients with PSA levels ≤0.1 and >0.1 ng/mL. In univariate analyses, post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level >0.1 ng/mL was associated with increased risks of biochemical failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04; P < .0001); local failure (HR, 2.51; P < .0001); distant metastases (HR, 1.73; P = .0006); cause-specific mortality (HR, 2.36; P < .0001); and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.24; P = .005). In multivariable models that also included baseline and treatment variables, post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level >0.1 ng/mL was independently associated with increased risk of biochemical failure (HR, 2.00; P < .0001); local failure (HR, 2.33; P < .0001); and cause-specific mortality (HR, 1.75; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a PSA level >0.1 ng/mL after neoAS and before the start of RT had less favorable clinical outcomes than patients whose PSA level was ≤0.1 ng/mL. The role of post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level relative to PSA levels obtained along the continuum of medical care is not presently defined but could be tested in future clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To validate whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after neoadjuvant androgen suppression (neoAS) is associated with long-term outcome after neoAS and external beam radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent short-term androgen suppression (AS) in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 2404 patients. The patients were treated with neoAS before RT and concurrent AS (without post-RT AS) and were pooled from NRG Oncology/RTOG trials 9202, 9408, 9413, and 9910. Multivariable models were used to test associations between the prespecified dichotomized post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level (≤0.1 vs >0.1 ng/mL) groupings, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The median follow-up for surviving patients was 9.4 years. The median post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level was 0.3 ng/mL, with 32% of patients having levels ≤0.1 ng/mL. Race, Gleason score, tumor stage, node stage, pretreatment PSA level, and duration of neoAS were associated with the groups of patients with PSA levels ≤0.1 and >0.1 ng/mL. In univariate analyses, post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level >0.1 ng/mL was associated with increased risks of biochemical failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04; P < .0001); local failure (HR, 2.51; P < .0001); distant metastases (HR, 1.73; P = .0006); cause-specific mortality (HR, 2.36; P < .0001); and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.24; P = .005). In multivariable models that also included baseline and treatment variables, post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level >0.1 ng/mL was independently associated with increased risk of biochemical failure (HR, 2.00; P < .0001); local failure (HR, 2.33; P < .0001); and cause-specific mortality (HR, 1.75; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with a PSA level >0.1 ng/mL after neoAS and before the start of RT had less favorable clinical outcomes than patients whose PSA level was ≤0.1 ng/mL. The role of post-neoAS, pre-RT PSA level relative to PSA levels obtained along the continuum of medical care is not presently defined but could be tested in future clinical trials.
Authors: Abraham S Alexander; Aminudin Mydin; Stuart O Jones; Jennifer Christie; Jan T W Lim; Pauline T Truong; Charles M Ludgate Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James W Denham; Allison Steigler; David S Lamb; David Joseph; Sandra Turner; John Matthews; Chris Atkinson; John North; David Christie; Nigel A Spry; Keen-Hun Tai; Chris Wynne; Catherine D'Este Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Ming-Hui Chen; Mario de Castro; Marian Loffredo; David S Lamb; Allison Steigler; Philip W Kantoff; James W Denham Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael E Ray; Larry B Levy; Eric M Horwitz; Patrick A Kupelian; Alvaro A Martinez; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; Michael J Zelefsky; Anthony L Zietman; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yolanda D Tseng; Ming-Hui Chen; Clair J Beard; Neil E Martin; Peter F Orio; Marian Loffredo; Andrew A Renshaw; Toni K Choueiri; Jim C Hu; Philip W Kantoff; Anthony V D'Amico; Paul L Nguyen Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michel Bolla; Theodorus M de Reijke; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Alphonsus C M Van den Bergh; Jorg Oddens; Philip M P Poortmans; Eliahu Gez; Paul Kil; Atif Akdas; Guy Soete; Oleg Kariakine; Elsbietha M van der Steen-Banasik; Elena Musat; Marianne Piérart; Murielle E Mauer; Laurence Collette Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: David P Dearnaley; Gordana Jovic; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Richard A Cowan; John D Graham; Edwin G Aird; David Bottomley; Robert A Huddart; Chakiath C Jose; John H L Matthews; Jeremy L Millar; Claire Murphy; J Martin Russell; Christopher D Scrase; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Neal S McCall; Yuan Liu; Sagar A Patel; Bruce Hershatter; Drew Moghanaki; Karen D Godette; Sheela Hanasoge; Pretesh Patel; Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Joseph W Shelton; Ashesh B Jani Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-10