Long-term use of combined radiation therapy and hormonal therapy in the management of stage D1 prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To determine tumor response, patterns of relapse, and prognostic indicators in patients followed long-term after combined hormonal radiation therapy of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in men with tumor metastatic to pelvic lymph nodes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-nine patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathologically confirmed pelvic lymph node metastases were treated with combined radiation therapy and hormonal therapy. Of these, 55 patients (70%) had T3 disease, with the remainder having earlier-stage disease; 45 (57%) patients had N2 disease (Whitmore-Jewett staging). No distant metastases were detected at initial staging, and no patient had radiographic or pathologic involvement of the para-aortic nodes. Pelvic lymph nodes were irradiated to a dose 45-54 Gy, and the prostate was irradiated to a dose 65-71.8 Gy. Hormonal therapy began up to 2 months before radiation and continued indefinitely. Patients were allowed to select their hormonal therapy and could choose diethylstilbestrol (DES) (2 patients), orchiectomy (21 patients), luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (12 patients), or combined androgen blockade (44 patients). Prognostic factors examined included microscopic vs. measurable lymph node involvement, one-sided vs. two-sided disease, T stage, pretreatment PSA, method of androgen blockade, and Gleason score. Log-rank analysis was used to determine statistical significance with respect to overall survival, disease-free survival, clinical freedom from progression, and biochemical freedom from progression; Cox multivariate analysis was employed to determine potential confounders. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.7 years. There were 25 recurrences among the 79 patients, including 7 biochemical recurrences without clinical evidence of disease, three local recurrences in the prostate, and distant metastases in 14 patients; 2 patients were deceased, with cause of death listed as prostate cancer, though the location of recurrence was unknown. Patients with biochemical failure before 5 years were more likely to fail distantly, 16% vs. 4% (p < 0.001). Overall actuarial survival at 5, 8, and 12 years was 86%, 72%, and 53%, respectively, whereas actuarial disease-free survival was 90%, 87%, and 81%. Ten patients died of intercurrent disease; these included 4 patients who died of a separate (nonpelvic) malignancy of nonadenocarcinomatous histology with no elevation in PSA. When the potential prognostic variables were examined, a trend toward increased biochemical recurrence in patients with Gleason score >or=8 was observed; this became statistically significant when the 4 patients with known residual lymph node disease after biopsy were excluded (p < 0.03). Gleason score remained the only significant indicator on multivariate analysis. A single long-term toxic event, recto-ureteral fistula, was observed. CONCLUSION: Combined hormonal and radiation therapy continues to represent an effective treatment option for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate with metastasis confined to pelvic lymph nodes. All patient groups seem to have a better disease-free survival than that reported previously in single-modality hormone or radiation treatment series. There is a suggestion that patients with lower Gleason score have a lower risk for recurrence. Combined modality therapy may also extend disease-free survival and allow patients to maintain independent function.     

Clinical potential of gene-directed enzyme prodrug therapy to improve radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients

Despite the advances in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, current therapies are not curative in a significant proportion of patients. Gene-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (GDEPT), when combined with radiation therapy, could improve the outcome of treatment for prostate cancer, the second leading cause of cancer death in the western world. GDEPT involves the introduction of a therapeutic transgene, which can be targeted to the tumour cells. A prodrug is administered systemically and is converted to its toxic form only in those cells containing the transgene, resulting in cell kill. This review will discuss the clinical trials which have investigated the potential of GDEPT at various stages of prostate cancer progression. The advantages of using GDEPT in combination with radiotherapy will be examined, as well as some of the recent advances which enhance the potential utility of GDEPT.     

Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms among long-term survivors after radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Background and purpose

With modern radiotherapy technology we have the means to substantially reduce late gastrointestinal toxicities after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding the spectrum of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms after such treatment.

Materials and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a study-specific questionnaire to survey gastrointestinal symptoms 2–14 years after prostate cancer radiation therapy. We included 985 men treated between 1994 and 2006 with primary (EBRT) or salvage (POSTOP) external beam radiation therapy or EBRT and high-dose rate brachytherapy (EBRT BT). We also included 350 non-irradiated population-based controls randomly matched 1:3 for age and area of residence.

Results

Survey participation rate was 89% (874/985) for survivors and 73% (243/332) for controls. We found significant increased prevalence ratios for 13/34 symptoms in the primary EBRT group, 10/34 symptoms in the EBRT BT group and 9/34 symptoms in the POSTOP group, several of which have not been described previously. Bother due to these symptoms increased with increasing symptom intensity and was highest for fecal leakage and defecation urgency.

Conclusions

Our results can be used to inform clinical evaluation and future studies of long-term gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.     

Combined hypofractionated radiation and hormone therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE: Because of the low alpha/beta value of prostate cancer, a therapeutic gain may be possible with a hypofractionated radiation scheme, and this gain may be further increased with the adjunct of hormone therapy. A Phase II study was undertaken to study the toxicity of such a treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-two patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were recruited for this study. Neoadjuvant and concomitant hormone therapy consisted of one injection of leuprolide acetate (4-month preparation) and 1 month of oral nonsteroidal, anti-androgen medication starting on the day of the injection. Radiation treatment was started 8 weeks after the injection and patients received 57 Gy in 19 fractions. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46 months. The treatment was well tolerated and no interruptions occurred. The majority (59%) had Grade 0 or 1 acute genitourinary (GU) toxicity, whereas 36% had Grade 2 and 5% had Grade 3 acute GU toxicity. Only Grade 1 or 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was seen. All chronic toxicity was of Grade 1 or 2 except for 3 patients (8%) with Grade 3 toxicity. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of patients had no long-term side effects from the treatment. At time of analysis, 79% showed no sign of treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation with neoadjuvant and concomitant hormone therapy is well tolerated with no significant short- or long-term morbidity. Control for this risk group is good, and comparative Phase III studies should be undertaken to determine whether this treatment is superior to new evolving treatments.     

Daily CT localization for correcting portal errors in the treatment of prostate cancer

Introduction: Improved prostate localization techniques should allow the reduction of margins around the target to facilitate dose escalation in high-risk patients while minimizing the risk of normal tissue morbidity. A daily CT simulation technique is presented to assess setup variations in portal placement and organ motion for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Methods and Materials: Six patients who consented to this study underwent supine position CT simulation with an alpha cradle cast, intravenous contrast, and urethrogram. Patients received 46 Gy to the initial Planning Treatment Volume (PTV₁) in a four-field conformal technique that included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes as the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV₁). The prostate or prostate and seminal vesicles (GTV₂) then received 56 Gy to PTV₂. All doses were delivered in 2-Gy fractions.

After 5 weeks of treatment (50 Gy), a second CT simulation was performed. The alpha cradle was secured to a specially designed rigid sliding board. The prostate was contoured and a new isocenter was generated with appropriate surface markers. Prostate-only treatment portals for the final conedown (GTV₃) were created with a 0.25-cm margin from the GTV to PTV. On each subsequent treatment day, the patient was placed in his cast on the sliding board for a repeat CT simulation. The daily isocenter was recalculated in the anterior/posterior (A/P) and lateral dimension and compared to the 50-Gy CT simulation isocenter. Couch and surface marker shifts were calculated to produce portal alignment. To maintain proper positioning, the patients were transferred to a stretcher while on the sliding board in the cast and transported to the treatment room where they were then transferred to the treatment couch. The patients were then treated to the corrected isocenter. Portal films and electronic portal images were obtained for each field.

Results: Utilizing CT–CT image registration (fusion) of the daily and 50-Gy baseline CT scans, the isocenter changes were quantified to reflect the contribution of positional (surface marker shifts) error and absolute prostate motion relative to the bony pelvis. The maximum daily A/P shift was 7.3 mm. Motion was less than 5 mm in the remaining patients and the overall mean magnitude change was 2.9 mm. The overall variability was quantified by a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 mm. The maximum lateral shifts were less than 3 mm for all patients. With careful attention to patient positioning, maximal portal placement error was reduced to 3 mm.

Conclusion: In our experience, prostate motion after 50 Gy was significantly less than previously reported. This may reflect early physiologic changes due to radiation, which restrict prostate motion. This observation is being tested in a separate study. Intrapatient and overall population variance was minimal. With daily isocenter correction of setup and organ motion errors by CT imaging, PTV margins can be significantly reduced or eliminated. We believe this will facilitate further dose escalation in high-risk patients with minimal risk of increased morbidity. This technique may also be beneficial in low-risk patients by sparing more normal surrounding tissue.     

Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer

We review radiation therapy (RT) options available for prostate cancer, including external beam (EBRT; with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation, stereotactic body RT [SBRT]) and brachytherapy (BT), with an emphasis on the outcomes, toxicities, and contraindications for therapies. PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015) that included men treated on prospective studies with a primary endpoint of patient outcomes, with ⩾70 patients, and ⩾5 year median follow up. Twenty-six studies met inclusion criteria; of these, 16 used EBRT, and 10 used BT. Long-term freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) rates were roughly equivalent between conventional and hypofractionated RT with intensity modulation (evidence level 1B), with 10-year FFBF rates of 45–90%, 40–60%, and 20–50% (for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively). SBRT had promising rates of BF, with shorter follow-up (5-year FFBF of >90% for low-risk patients). Similarly, BT (5-year FFBF for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients have generally been >85%, 69–97%, 63–80%, respectively) and BT + EBRT were appropriate in select patients (evidence level 1B). Differences in overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer specific mortality (5-year rates: 82–97%, 1–14%, 0–8%, respectively) have not been detected in randomized trials of dose escalation or in studies comparing RT modalities. Studies did not use patient-reported outcomes, through Grade 3–4 toxicities were rare (<5%) among all modalities. There was limited evidence available to compare proton therapy to other modalities. The treatment decision for a man is usually based on his risk group, ability to tolerate the procedure, convenience for the patient, and the anticipated impact on quality of life. To further personalize therapy, future trials should report (1) race; (2) medical comorbidities; (3) psychiatric comorbidities; (4) insurance status; (5) education status; (6) marital status; (7) income; (8) sexual orientation; and (9) facility-related characteristics.     

Results of radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for stage III prostate cancer: comparison of two different definitions of PSA failure

Background We herein report the clinical outcome of radical radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) for stage III (International Union Against Cancer [UICC] 1997: UICC 97) prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free survival was assessed according to two different definitions, and the appropriateness of each definition is discussed. Methods Between October 1997 and December 2000, 27 patients with stage III prostate cancer were enrolled in this study. The median pretreatment PSA level was 29 ng/ml (range, 7.4–430 ng/ml). The Gleason score (GS) was 7 or more in 22 patients (81%). All patients received 3 months of NHT with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogue, in combination with an antiandrogen (flutamide), given during the first 2 weeks, followed by 70-Gy external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in 35 fractions. The initial 46 Gy was given with a four-field technique, while the remainder was given with a dynamic conformal technique. No adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) was given. Results The median follow-up time was 63 months. PSA levels decreased to the normal range (<4 ng/ml) after irradiation in all but one patient. The 5-year PSA failure-free survival was 34.8% according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition and it was 43.0% according to the “nadir plus 2” definition. Discordance of the results between the two definitions was seen in two patients. The 5-year overall and cause-specific survivals were 83.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No severe acute or late adverse effects were observed. Conclusion Seventy Gy of EBRT following 3 months of NHT produced therapeutic results comparable to those reported in other studies which used long-term AHT. The value of long-term AHT for Japanese men should be tested in a clinical trial.     

Improved control of bulky prostate carcinoma with sequential estrogen and radiation therapy

Patients with bulky prostate cancer have usually been treated by palliative measures because the likelihood of tumor control with definitive irradiation has been low and the development of distant metastases high. The addition of estrogen to irradiation has not been shown to be of value. However, we believe the method of estrogen administration may have been the cause for the apparent lack of benefit. Estrogen had been started either concurrent with irradiation or had been used for palliation and was given for long and unscheduled time periods prior to irradiation. We have used estrogen for two months prior to and concurrent with irradiation. We postulated that in those patients with estrogen responsive cancer, the reduced tumor burden prior to irradiation could enhance tumor control and survival. Between 1975 and 1980, 25 patients with bulky prostate cancer received sequential estrogen and irradiation, 12 patients irradiation alone and six patients irradiation after having become refractory to longterm estrogen use. One patient was lost to follow-up. Eighteen of 25 (72%) treated by sequential estrogen and irradiation, 14/17 (82%) with estrogen responsive cancer and 4/8 (50%) with estrogen resistant cancer had a complete tumor response. Six of 11 (55%) patients treated by irradiation alone and 2/6 (33%) treated by irradiation for estrogen refractory cancer had a complete tumor response. Disease-free survival was observed in 13/25 (52%) treated by sequential estrogen and irradiation, and 8/17 patients (47%) with irradiation. It is also possible the improved survival in the estrogen responsive group was a direct result of improved local control. Persistent local disease can act as a source for distant metastases. Distant metastases was observed in 15% of patients when the primary tumor was controlled and 30% when there was persistent or recurrent local disease. Also, progressive local disease can be an important cause of death. This was most evident in our patients with estrogen refractory cancer. Almost all patients in this group had progressive local disease that caused serious urinary bleeding and urinary infection that were considered the major cause of death. Our results suggest bulky prostate cancer should be aggressively treated when first diagnosed. The value of adjunct estrogen is unproven. Our results with the use of estrogen prior to and concurrent with irradiation is encouraging. Estrogen may shrink the cancer and allow for a more favorable geometry for external irradiation. Tumor control and survival may be thereby improved. The lower frequency of tumor control and survival of patients with estrogen resistant cancer indicates the need to explore other therapeutic approaches for this group of patients. A higher dose of external irradiation or the addition of chemotherapy prior to irradiation may be of value.     

中晚期前列腺癌同期调强放疗联合内分泌治疗的临床观察

目的 观察中晚期前列腺癌同步三维适形调强放疗联合内分泌治疗的疗效及不良反应。方法 67例中晚期前列腺癌患者接受同步三维适形调强放疗联合内分泌治疗：2.2～2.4Gy/f,每天1次,每周5次,共31次,DT 70～75Gy;放疗第1天起口服氟他胺0.25g/次,每天3次。评价疗效及不良反应,并分析影响放射性直肠损伤的因素。结果 67例患者均完成治疗,获CR 21例、PR 37例、SD 9例,总有效率（RR）为86.5%。随访时间为12.5～99.6个月,6例失访。随访满5年者（包括随访5年内死亡患者）共39例,其3、5年生存率分别为89.0%、80.5%,3、5年无进展生存率为72.0%、63.0%。肿瘤GTV≥141cm³者的中位生存时间为36.7个月,较GTV＜141cm³者的56.9个月短,差异具有统计学意义（P=0.037）。全组患者白细胞减少和血红蛋白减少的发生率分别为91.0%、89.6%,急性肝损伤为3.0%,急性放射性肠炎和放射性膀胱炎分别为100.0%和95.5%。肿瘤GTV体积是影响放射性直肠损伤的因素（P＜0.05）。结论 同步适形调强放疗联合内分泌治疗治疗中晚期前列腺癌患者的有效率高,不良反应可耐受,预后良好。     

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma: updated results of a phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the toxicity and efficacy of radiation therapy (RT) for localized carcinoma of the prostate, using a hypofractionated (55 Gy/20 fractions/4 weeks) vs. a conventionally fractionated (64 Gy/32 fractions/6.5 weeks) dose schedule. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 217 patients were randomized to either the hypofractionated (108 patients) or the conventional (109 patients) dose schedule, with planning with two-dimensional (2D) CT scan planning methodology in the majority of cases. All patients were followed for a median of 48 (6-108) months. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was evaluated before RT and after its completion using modified late effects of normal tissue-subjective, objective, management, analytic (LENT-SOMA) scales and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer sexual function questionnaire. Efficacy of RT based on clinical, radiologic, and prostate-specific antigen data were also evaluated at baseline and after RT. RESULTS: Gastrointestinal and GU toxicity persisted 5 years after RT and did not differ between the two dose schedules other than in regard to urgency of defecation. However, 1-month GI toxicity was not only worse in patients with the hypofractionated RT schedule but also adversely affected daily activities. Nadir prostate-specific antigen values occurred at a median of 18.0 (3.0-54.0) months after RT. A total of 76 biochemical relapses, with or without clinical relapses, have occurred since; of these, 37 were in the hypofractionated and 39 in the conventional schedule. The 5-year biochemical +/- clinical relapse-free and overall survival was 55.9% and 85.3% respectively for all patients, and did not differ between the two schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma causes persistent GI toxicity that is largely independent of the two dose schedules. The hypofractionated schedule is equivalent in efficacy to the conventional schedule.     

Using decision analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: The specific aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of a 70-year-old with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A Markov model was designed with the following states; posttreatment, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and death. Transition probabilities from one state to another were calculated from rates derived from the literature for IMRT and 3D-CRT. Utility values for each health state were obtained from preliminary studies of preferences conducted at Fox Chase Cancer Center. The analysis took a payer's perspective. Expected mean costs, cost-effectiveness scatterplots, and cost acceptability curves were calculated with commercially available software. RESULTS: The expected mean cost of patients undergoing IMRT was $47,931 with a survival of 6.27 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The expected mean cost of patients having 3D-CRT was $21,865 with a survival of 5.62 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness comparing IMRT with CRT was $40,101/QALYs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis revealed a 55.1% probability of IMRT being cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY willingness to pay. CONCLUSION: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was found to be cost-effective, however, at the upper limits of acceptability. The results, however, are dependent on the assumptions of improved biochemical disease-free survival with fewer patients undergoing subsequent salvage therapy and improved quality of life after the treatment. In the absence of prospective randomized trials, decision analysis can help inform physicians and health policy experts on the cost-effectiveness of emerging technologies.     

Mature results of the Ottawa phase II study of intermittent androgen-suppression therapy in prostate cancer: clinical predictors of outcome

PURPOSE: To present the mature experience of a phase II trial of intermittent androgen suppression (IAS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intermittent androgen-suppression therapy was initiated in prostate-cancer patients to delay hormone resistance and minimize potential side effects of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients received cyclical periods of ADT and observation (off-treatment interval [OTI]). Androgen-deprivation therapy was reinitiated when the level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rose above 10 ng/ml, or for disease progression. Associations between clinical factors and eligibility for OTI were measured. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to determine factors predicting the duration of OTIs. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients completed 187 cycles of treatment. The median duration of OTIs was 8.5 months. Patients with higher PSA and metastatic disease were less likely to be eligible for the first OTI (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, patients with higher PSA and local relapse had significantly longer OTIs (p < 0.01) compared with metastatic patients. The median time to withdrawal from the study was 37 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent androgen suppression appears to be a favorable treatment option for patients with biochemically (according to level of PSA) or locally recurrent prostate cancer with favorable long-term survival, a high probability of eligibility for OTIs, and durable OTIs.