Colleen A. Lawton

Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE To test the hypothesis that androgen ablation before and during radiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate may, by reducing tumor bulk and enhancing tumor cell kill, improve locoregional control and ultimately survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS The study was conducted from 1987 to 1991. Eligible patients were those with bulky tumors (T2--T4) with or without pelvic lymph node involvement and without evidence of distant metastases. They were randomized to receive goserelin, 3.6 mg every 4 weeks; and flutamide, 250 mg t.i.d. for 2 months before radiation therapy and during radiation therapy (Arm I), or radiation therapy alone (Arm II). Of 471 randomized patients, 456 were evaluable: 226 on Arm I and 230 on Arm II. RESULTS As of November 1999, the median follow-up has reached 6.7 years for all patients and 8.6 years for alive patients. At 8 years, androgen ablation has been associated with an improvement in local control (42% vs. 30%, p = 0.016), reduction in the incidence of distant metastases (34% vs. 45%, p = 0.04), disease-free survival (33% vs. 21%, p = 0.004), biochemical disease-free survival = PSA <1.5 (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001), and cause-specific mortality (23% vs. 31%, p = 0.05). However, subset analysis indicates that the beneficial effect of short-term androgen ablation appears preferentially in patients with Gleason score 2--6. In that population, there is a highly significant improvement in all endpoints, including survival (70% vs. 52%, p = 0.015). In patients with Gleason 7--10 tumors, the regimen has not resulted in a significant enhancement in either locoregional control or survival. CONCLUSION In patients with Gleason score 2--6 carcinoma of the prostate, a short course of androgen ablation administered before and during radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control, reduction in disease progression, and overall survival.

Phase III Trial of Long-Term Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation After Neoadjuvant Hormonal Cytoreduction and Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Carcinoma of the Prostate: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92–02

PURPOSE Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Protocol 92-02 was a randomized trial testing long-term (LT) adjuvant androgen deprivation (AD) after initial AD with external-beam radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (PC; T2c-4) and with prostate-specific antigen level less than 150 ng/mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received a total of 4 months of goserelin and flutamide, 2 months before and 2 months during RT. A radiation dose of 65 to 70 Gy was given to the prostate and a dose of 44 to 50 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to receive no additional therapy (short-term [ST]AD-RT) or 24 months of goserelin (LTAD-RT); 1,554 patients were entered onto the study. RESULTS The LTAD-RT arm showed significant improvement in all efficacy end points except overall survival (OS; 80.0% v 78.5% at 5 years, P =.73), compared with the STAD-RT arm. In a subset of patients not part of the original study design, with tumors assigned Gleason scores of 8 to 10 by the contributing institutions, the LTAD-RT arm had significantly better OS (81.0% v 70.7%, P =.044). There was a small but significant increase in the frequency of late radiation grades 3, 4, and 5 gastrointestinal toxicity ascribed to the LTAD-RT arm (2.6% v 1.2% at 5 years, P =.037), the cause of which is not clear. CONCLUSION The RTOG 92-02 trial supports the addition of LT adjuvant AD to STAD with RT for T2c-4 PC. In the exploratory subset analysis of patients with Gleason scores 8 to 10, LT adjuvant AD resulted in a survival advantage.

Phase III trial of androgen suppression using goserelin in unfavorable-prognosis carcinoma of the prostate treated with definitive radiotherapy: report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85-31.

PURPOSE Although androgen suppression results in a tumor response/remission in the majority of patients with carcinoma of the prostate, its potential value as an adjuvant has not been substantiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 1987, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) initiated a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant goserelin in definitively irradiated patients with carcinoma of the prostate. A total of 977 patients had been accessioned to the study. Of these, 945 remained analyzable: 477 on the adjuvant arm and 468 on the observation arm. RESULTS Actuarial projections show that at 5 years, 84% of patients on the adjuvant goserelin arm and 71% on the observation arm remain without evidence of local recurrence (P < .0001). The corresponding figures for freedom from distant metastases and disease-free survival are 83% versus 70% (P < .001) and 60% and 44% (P < .0001). If prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 1.5 ng is included as a failure (after > or = 1 year), the 5-year disease-free survival rate on the adjuvant goserelin arm is 53% versus 20% on the observation arm (P < .0001). The 5-year survival rate (for the entire population) is 75% on the adjuvant arm versus 71% on the observation arm (P = .52). However, in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10, the difference in actuarial 5-year survival (66% on the adjuvant goserelin arm v 55% on the observation arm) reaches statistical significance (P = .03). CONCLUSION Application of androgen suppression as an adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control and freedom from disease progression. At this point, with a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, a significant improvement in survival has been observed only in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10.

Ten-Year Follow-Up of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02: A Phase III Trial of the Duration of Elective Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To determine whether adding 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcome for patients electively treated with ADT before and during radiation therapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Prostate cancer patients with T2c-T4 prostate cancer with no extra pelvic lymph node involvement and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 150 ng/mL were included. All patients received 4 months of goserelin and flutamide before and during RT. They were randomized to no further ADT (short-term ADT [STAD] + RT) or 24 months of goserelin (long-term ADT [LTAD] + RT). A total of 1,554 patients were entered. RT was 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes and 65 to 70 Gy to the prostate. Median follow-up of all survival patients is 11.31 and 11.27 years for the two arms. RESULTS At 10 years, the LTAD + RT group showed significant improvement over the STAD + RT group for all end points except overall survival: disease-free survival (13.2% v 22.5%; P < .0001), disease-specific survival (83.9% v 88.7%; P = .0042), local progression (22.2% v 12.3%; P < .0001), distant metastasis (22.8% v 14.8%; P < .0001), biochemical failure (68.1% v 51.9%; P <or= .0001), and overall survival (51.6% v 53.9%, P = .36). One subgroup analyzed consisted of all cancers with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 cancers. An overall survival difference was observed (31.9% v 45.1%; P = .0061), as well as in all other end points herein. CONCLUSION LTAD as delivered in this study for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is superior to STAD for all end points except survival. A survival advantage for LTAD + RT in the treatment of locally advanced tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10 suggests that this should be the standard of treatment for these high-risk patients.

Androgen deprivation with radiation therapy compared with radiation therapy alone for locally advanced prostatic carcinoma: a randomized comparative trial of the radiation therapy oncology group

OBJECTIVES Androgen deprivation therapy before and during radiation therapy could, by reducing tumor volume, increase local tumor control, disease-free survival, and overall survival in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the prostate. METHODS In a randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with large T2, T3, and T4 prostate tumors, but no evidence of osseous metastasis, were randomized to receive goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks and flutamide 250 mg orally three times daily 2 months before and during the radiation therapy course (Arm I) compared with radiation therapy alone (Arm II). Pelvic irradiation was administered with 1.8 to 2.0 Gy per day to a total dose of 45 +/- 1 Gy followed by a boost to the prostate target volume to a total dose of 65 to 70 Gy. RESULTS Of 471 randomized patients, 456 were evaluable, 226 on Arm I and 230 on Arm II. With a median potential follow-up of 4.5 years, the cumulative incidence of local progression at 5 years was 46% in Arm I and 71% in Arm II (P < 0.001). The 5-year incidence of distant metastasis on Arms I and II was 34% and 41%, respectively (P = 0.09). Progression-free survival rates including normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels for 396 patients with at least one PSA recorded were 36% in Arm I and 15% in Arm II at 5 years (P < 0.001). At this time, no significant difference in overall survival could be detected (P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS Short-term androgen deprivation with radiation therapy results in a marked increase in local control and disease-free survival compared with pelvic irradiation alone in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate. Long-term surveillance is required to assess effects on overall survival.

Short-Term Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External-Beam Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results of RTOG 8610

PURPOSE Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 8610 was the first phase III randomized trial to evaluate neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. This report summarizes long-term follow-up results. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 1987 and 1991, 456 assessable patients (median age, 70 years) were enrolled. Eligible patients had bulky (5 x 5 cm) tumors (T2-4) with or without pelvic lymph node involvement according to the 1988 American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system. Patients received combined ADT that consisted of goserelin 3.6 mg every 4 weeks and flutamide 250 mg tid for 2 months before and concurrent with EBRT, or they received EBRT alone. Study end points included overall survival (OS), disease-specific mortality (DSM), distant metastasis (DM), disease-free survival (DFS), and biochemical failure (BF). RESULTS Ten-year OS estimates (43% v 34%) and median survival times (8.7 v 7.3 years) favored ADT and EBRT, respectively; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = .12). There was a statistically significant improvement in 10-year DSM (23% v 36%; P = .01), DM (35% v 47%; P = .006), DFS (11% v 3%; P < .0001), and BF (65% v 80%; P < .0001) with the addition of ADT, but no differences were observed in the risk of fatal cardiac events. CONCLUSION The addition of 4 months of ADT to EBRT appears to have a dramatic impact on clinically meaningful end points in men with locally advanced disease with no statistically significant impact on the risk of fatal cardiac events.

Long-term treatment sequelae following external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: analysis of RTOG studies 7506 and 7706☆

Significant late intestinal and urinary morbidity from external beam irradiation for adenocarcinoma of the prostate has been a constant concern of both the urologist and the radiation oncologist. We analyzed two large Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials (7506 and 7706) using primary irradiation in the treatment of local or locoregional adenocarcinoma of the prostate to assess morbidity via the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring scheme (grade 1-5). One thousand twenty patients were treated in total with a minimum follow-up of 7 years in the surviving patients. There was a 3.3% incidence of intestinal complications defined as grade 3 toxicity or more with .6% of patients experiencing bowel obstruction or perforation. Urinary complications defined as grade 3 toxicity or more were found in 7.7% of patients with only 0.5% experiencing morbidity that would require a major surgical intervention such as laparotomy, cystectomy, or prolonged hospitalization. Intestinal and urinary complications were evaluated in reference to several parameters that might have an impact on their incidence (i.e., previous laparotomy, stage of disease, hypertension, positive lymph nodes, previous transurethral resection, total dose, and energy of accelerator used). Only total dose (greater than 70 Gray) was found to have a significant impact on the incidence of the urinary complications. None of these factors had a significant impact on the incidence of intestinal complications. These data from two large multi-institutional trials represent a fair estimate of the actual incidence of major intestinal and urinary complications from external beam irradiation in the management of local and locoregional adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Since the incidence of these major complications remains very low, we believe that external beam irradiation remains an excellent alternative to radical prostatectomy in the management of these patients.

Updated results of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 85-31 evaluating the potential benefit of androgen suppression following standard radiation therapy for unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE To determine the potential advantage of androgen ablation following standard external-beam radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced (clinical or pathologic T3; clinical or pathologic node positive) carcinoma of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS In 1987 the RTOG initiated a Phase III trial of long-term adjuvant goserelin in definitively irradiated patients with carcinoma of the prostate. A total of 977 patients were accrued to the study of which 945 remain analyzable: 477 on the adjuvant hormone arm (Arm I); and 468 on the radiation only arm (Arm II) with hormones initiated at relapse. The initial results were reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1997. RESULTS With a median follow up of 5.6 years for all patients and 6.0 years for living patients local failure at 8 years was 23% for Arm I and 37% for Arm II (p < 0.0001). Distant metastasis was likewise favorably impacted with the immediate use of hormonal manipulation with a distant metastasis rate in Arm I of 27% and 37% in Arm II (p < 0.0001). Disease-free survival (NED survival) and NED survival with PSA of 1.5 ng/mL (bNED) or less were both statistically significant in favor of the immediate hormone arm (both p < 0.0001). Cause-specific failure was not statistically different with a cause-specific failure of 16% for Arm I and 21% in Arm II (p = 0.23). Overall survival was likewise not statistically different between two arms, with a 49% overall survival at 8 years in Arm I and 47% in Arm II (p = 0.36). Subset analysis of centrally reviewed Gleason 8-10 patients who did not undergo prostatectomy showed that for patients receiving radiation therapy plus adjuvant hormones there was a statistically significant improvement in both absolute (p = 0.036) and cause-specific survival (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS Use of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation in addition to definitive radiation therapy results in a highly significant improvement in regards to local control, freedom from distant metastasis, and biochemical free survival in unfavorable prognosis patients with carcinoma of the prostate.

Successful Allogeneic Transplantation of T-Cell–Depleted Bone Marrow from Closely HLA-Matched Unrelated Donors

We describe a four-year experience with bone marrow transplantation involving closely HLA-matched unrelated donors and 55 consecutive patients with hematologic disease who were seven months to 48.6 years old (median, 18 years). An intensive pretransplantation conditioning regimen and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with CD3-directed T-cell depletion and cyclosporine were employed. Durable engraftment was achieved in 50 of 53 patients who could be evaluated (94 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 83 to 98 percent). Acute GVHD of Grade II to IV developed in 46 percent of the patients (confidence interval, 27 to 66 percent). The incidence and severity of acute GVHD were increased in recipients of HLA-mismatched marrow as compared with recipients of phenotypically matched marrow (incidence of 53 percent [confidence interval, 37 to 68 percent] vs. 17 percent [confidence interval, 5 to 45 percent]; P less than 0.05). Extensive chronic GVHD and deaths not due to relapse also tended to be more frequent when HLA-mismatched marrow was used, but not significantly so. With a median follow-up of more than 19 months (range, greater than 9 to greater than 39), the actuarial disease-free survival of transplant recipients with leukemia and a relatively good prognosis (acute leukemia in first remission and chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase) was 48 percent (confidence interval, 24 to 73 percent), and that of recipients with more aggressive leukemia was 32 percent (confidence interval, 18 to 51 percent); the actuarial survival of recipients with non-neoplastic disease was 63 percent (confidence interval, 31 to 86 percent). We conclude that marrow transplantation with closely HLA-matched unrelated donors can be effective treatment for neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases. Although transplants from phenotypically HLA-matched unrelated donors appear to be most effective, transplants with limited HLA disparity can also be successful in some patients.

RESPONSE, TOXICITY, FAILURE PATTERNS, AND SURVIVAL IN FIVE RADIATION THERAPY ONCOLOGY GROUP (RTOG) TRIALS OF SEQUENTIAL AND/OR CONCURRENT CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIOTHERAPY FOR LOCALLY ADVANCED NON-SMALL-CELL CARCINOMA OF THE LUNG

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to assess response, toxicity, failure patterns, and survival differences in three chemotherapy (ChT)/radiation therapy (RT) sequencing strategies for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Five completed Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials for Stage II-IIIA/B inoperable NSCLC patients employed one of the three following strategy groupings: 1) sequential ChT followed by standard RT (60 Gy in 6 weeks); 2) combined sequential and concurrent ChT and standard RT (60 Gy in 6 weeks); or 3) concurrent ChT and hyperfractionated RT (69.6 Gy in 6 weeks). All five trials required KPS > or = 70; two trials (314 patients) required <5% weight loss and three trials (147 patients) had no minimum weight loss requirement. In all five trials the ChT used cisplatin with either vinblastine or oral etoposide. Combining data for the five trials yielded an evaluable group of 461 patients. The three methods of sequencing ChT and RT were evaluated for differences in response, acute and late toxicity, patterns of failure, and survival. Acute toxicity was defined as that occurring within 90 days from the start of RT. Late toxicity was defined as that occurring after 90 days from the start of RT. Acute or late toxicity > or = grade 3 was defined as severe. Site of first failure was recorded by date. In-field failure excluded distant metastasis as a failure and included only tissue in the RT treatment field. Overall progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as survival without evidence of intra- or extrathoracic tumor or death from any cause. RESULTS Group 1 had a lower overall response rate (63%) compared to either Group 2 (77%) or Group 3 (79%), p = 0.03 and 0.003, respectively. Overall grade 4/5 acute toxicities were nearly equal between groups. The severe nonhematologic acute toxicities were significantly different by strategy group (p < 0.0001). Group 1 and 2 were not statistically different. Group 3 had significantly more patients with severe acute nonhematologic toxicity (55%) than either Group 1 (27%) or 2 (34%) with p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0005, respectively. This was due to a severe acute esophagitis rate of 34% for Group 3 versus 1.3% for Group 1 and 6% for Group 2 (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Overall grade 4/5 late toxicities did not differ by group. Severe late nonhematologic toxicities were different by group (p = 0.0098). Group 1 patients had significantly fewer severe late nonhematologic toxicities (14%) compared to patients in Groups 2 (26%) or 3 (28%) (p = 0.046 and 0.038, respectively). Severe late lung toxicity was 10% for Group 1 compared to 21% and 20% for Groups 2 and 3, respectively. Severe late lung toxicities differed by group (p = 0.033), but not severe late esophagitis (p = 0.077). There were no differences between the three strategy groups for patterns of first failure. The in-field failures were higher in Group 2 (71%) compared to Groups 1 (56%) and 3 (55%), p = 0.0478. Pairwise comparisons yielded p-values of 0.068 and 0.015 for Group 2 versus 1 and Group 2 versus 3, respectively. Three-year PFS was better in Group 2 (15%) and 3 (15%) compared to Group 1 (7%), but not statistically significant (p = 0.454). Similarly, in-field PFS was better in Group 2 (17%) and 3 (20%) than Group 1 (9%), but not significant (p = 0.167). There were improvements in 3-year survival for Group 2 (17%) and Group 3 (25%) compared to Group 1 (15%), but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.47). The same results were present for patients with less than 5% weight loss and patients with stage IIIA tumors. CONCLUSION Thus, concurrent ChT and hyperfractionated RT had a higher incidence of severe acute esophageal toxicity. Severe late lung toxicity with concurrent ChT/hyperfractionated RT, as well as with induction ChT followed by concurrent ChT/standard RT, may be greater compared to sequential ChT/RT. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)