Vedang Murthy1, Priyamvada Maitre1, Sadhana Kannan2, Gitanjali Panigrahi1, Rahul Krishnatry1, Ganesh Bakshi3, Gagan Prakash3, Mahendra Pal3, Santosh Menon4, Reena Phurailatpam5, Smruti Mokal2, Dipika Chaurasiya1, Palak Popat6, Nilesh Sable6, Archi Agarwal7, Venkatesh Rangarajan7, Amit Joshi8, Vanita Noronha8, Kumar Prabhash8, Umesh Mahantshetty1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 2. Clinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 3. Department of Surgery, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 4. Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 5. Department of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 6. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Advanced Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer (ACTREC), Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Mumbai, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; P < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% v 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; P = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% v 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; P = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% v 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; P = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.
PURPOSE: We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; P < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% v 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; P = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% v 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; P = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% v 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; P = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.
Authors: William A Hall; Eric Paulson; X Allen Li; Beth Erickson; Christopher Schultz; Alison Tree; Musaddiq Awan; Daniel A Low; Brigid A McDonald; Travis Salzillo; Carri K Glide-Hurst; Amar U Kishan; Clifton D Fuller Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Hae Lin Cho; Vedang Murthy; Kent W Mouw; Anthony V D'Amico; Paul L Nguyen; Jonathan E Leeman; Edward Christopher Dee Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Neal Andruska; Jeff M Michalski; Ruben Carmona; Temitope Agabalogun; Randall J Brenneman; Hiram A Gay; Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Brian C Baumann Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 2.441
Authors: Raquibul Hannan; Samer Salamekh; Neil B Desai; Aurelie Garant; Michael R Folkert; Daniel N Costa; Samantha Mannala; Chul Ahn; Osama Mohamad; Aaron Laine; Dong W Nathan Kim; Tamara Dickinson; Ganesh V Raj; Rajal B Shah; Jing Wang; Xun Jia; Hak Choy; Claus G Roehrborn; Yair Lotan; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Kai Yun Ooi; Ian Pereira; Himanshu Nagar; Richard Simcock; Matthew S Katz; Christopher C Parker; Colleen Lawton; Hina Saeed Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-08-06
Authors: Marnix Rasing; Marieke van Son; Marinus Moerland; Bart de Keizer; Frank Wessels; Trudy Jonges; Sandrine van de Pol; Wietse Eppinga; Juus Noteboom; Jan Lagendijk; Jochem van der Voort van Zijp; Max Peters Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Christina Phuong; Jason W Chan; Lisa Ni; Phillip Wall; Osama Mohamad; Anthony C Wong; I-Chow Hsu; Albert J Chang Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.481