Adnan Ali1,2,3, Alex Hoyle1,2,3,4, Áine M Haran1,2,3,4, Christopher D Brawley5, Adrian Cook5, Claire Amos5, Joanna Calvert5, Hassan Douis6, Malcolm D Mason7, David Dearnaley8, Gerhardt Attard9, Silke Gillessen10,11,12, Mahesh K B Parmar5, Christopher C Parker8, Matthew R Sydes5, Nicholas D James8, Noel W Clarke1,2,3,4. 1. Genito-Urinary Cancer Research Group, Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2. FASTMAN Centre of Excellence, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Surgery, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Urology, The Salford NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. 5. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 7. Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom. 8. Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom. 9. UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom. 10. Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 11. Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland. 12. Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Prostate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were OS and FFS. RESULTS: A total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P = .003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.
IMPORTANCE: Prostate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were OS and FFS. RESULTS: A total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P = .003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.
Authors: Igor Tsaur; Roman A Blaheta; Robert Dotzauer; Cristian Mirvald; Jonathan Olivier; Cristian Surcel; Maximilian P Brandt; Giorgio Gandaglia; Ioanel Sinescu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-10-02 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Philip Sutera; Kim Van Der Eecken; Amar U Kishan; Anis Hamid; Emily Grist; Gerhardt Attard; Tamara Lotan; Adrianna A Mendes; Channing J Paller; Michael A Carducci; Ashley Ross; Hao Wang; Ken Pienta; Felix Y Feng; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Piet Ost; Daniel Y Song; Stephen Greco; Curtiland Deville; Theodore DeWeese; Phuoc T Tran; Matthew P Deek Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Chris C Parker; Nicholas D James; Christopher D Brawley; Noel W Clarke; Adnan Ali; Claire L Amos; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; Adrian Cook; William Cross; David P Dearnaley; Hassan Douis; Duncan C Gilbert; Clare Gilson; Silke Gillessen; Alex Hoyle; Rob J Jones; Ruth E Langley; Zafar I Malik; Malcolm D Mason; David Matheson; Robin Millman; Mary Rauchenberger; Hannah Rush; J Martin Russell; Hannah Sweeney; Amit Bahl; Alison Birtle; Lisa Capaldi; Omar Din; Daniel Ford; Joanna Gale; Ann Henry; Peter Hoskin; Mohammed Kagzi; Anna Lydon; Joe M O'Sullivan; Sangeeta A Paisey; Omi Parikh; Delia Pudney; Vijay Ramani; Peter Robson; Narayanan Nair Srihari; Jacob Tanguay; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Paul Rogowski; Christian Trapp; Rieke von Bestenbostel; Dinah Konnerth; Sebastian Marschner; Nina-Sophie Schmidt Hegemann; Claus Belka; Minglun Li Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.033