James A Eastham1, Glenn Heller1, Susan Halabi2, J Paul Monk3, Himisha Beltran4, Martin Gleave5, Christopher P Evans6, Steven K Clinton3, Russell Z Szmulewitz7, Jonathan Coleman1, David W Hillman8, Colleen R Watt9, Saby George10, Martin G Sanda11, Olwen M Hahn9, Mary-Ellen Taplin4, J Kellogg Parsons12, James L Mohler10, Eric J Small13, Michael J Morris1. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC. 3. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, The James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH. 4. Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, MA. 5. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 7. University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL. 8. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 9. Alliance Protocol Operations Office, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 10. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY. 11. Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 12. University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA. 13. University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center-Mount Zion, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, -0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION: The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.
PURPOSE: Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, -0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION: The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Kapil Pareek; Rooholiah Sharifi; Zev Wajsman; David McLeod; David P Wood; Antonio Puras-Baez Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rana R McKay; Huihui Ye; Wanling Xie; Rosina Lis; Carla Calagua; Zhenwei Zhang; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Steven L Chang; Lauren C Harshman; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Daniel W Lin; William J Ellis; Bruce Montgomery; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Glenn J Bubley; Adam S Kibel; Mary-Ellen Taplin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M E Gleave; S L Goldenberg; J L Chin; J Warner; F Saad; L H Klotz; M Jewett; V Kassabian; M Chetner; C Dupont; S Van Rensselaer Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rana R McKay; Bruce Montgomery; Wanling Xie; Zhenwei Zhang; Glenn J Bubley; David W Lin; Mark A Preston; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Peter Chang; Andrew A Wagner; Elahe A Mostaghel; Philip W Kantoff; Peter S Nelson; Adam S Kibel; Mary-Ellen Taplin Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Seth A Rosenthal; Chen Hu; Oliver Sartor; Leonard G Gomella; Mahul B Amin; James Purdy; Jeff M Michalski; Mark G Garzotto; Nadeem Pervez; Alexander G Balogh; George B Rodrigues; Luis Souhami; M Neil Reaume; Scott G Williams; Raquibul Hannan; Eric M Horwitz; Adam Raben; Christopher A Peters; Felix Y Feng; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Gaëtan Devos; Wout Devlies; Gert De Meerleer; Marcella Baldewijns; Thomas Gevaert; Lisa Moris; Daimantas Milonas; Hendrik Van Poppel; Charlien Berghen; Wouter Everaerts; Frank Claessens; Steven Joniau Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: James A Eastham; Glenn Heller; David W Hillman; Olwen M Hahn; J Kellogg Parsons; James L Mohler; Eric J Small; Michael Morris Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Cynthia Ménard; Sympascho Young; Katherine Zukotynski; Robert J Hamilton; François Bénard; Steven Yip; Christopher McCabe; Fred Saad; Michael Brundage; Roy Nitulescu; Glenn Bauman Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Wanling Xie; Elizabeth McMahon; Marian Loffredo; Shana Medeiros; David Joseph; Jim Denham; Parvesh Kumar; Glenn Bubley; Molly Sullivan; Richard Hellwig; Juan Carlos Vera; Rolf Freter; W Jeffrey Baker; Jeffrey Y Wong; Andrew A Renshaw; Philip W Kantoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 50.717