Keen Hun Tai

Influence of Androgen Suppression Therapy for Prostate Cancer on the Frequency and Timing of Fatal Myocardial Infarctions

PURPOSE We evaluated whether the timing of fatal myocardial infarction (MI) was influenced by the administration of androgen suppression therapy (AST). PATIENTS AND METHODS The study cohort comprised 1,372 men who were enrolled onto three randomized trials between February 1995 and June 2001. In the three trials, the men were randomly assigned to receive radiation therapy with 0 versus 3 versus 6, 3 versus 8, or 0 versus 6 months of AST. Fine and Grays regression was used to determine the clinical factors associated with the time to fatal MI, and estimates of time to fatal MI were calculated using a cumulative incidence method. When comparing the cumulative incidence estimates using Grays k-sample P values, increased weight was ascribed to the earlier data because recovery of testosterone is expected for most men within 2 years after short-course AST. RESULTS Men age 65 years or older who received 6 months of AST experienced shorter times to fatal MIs compared with men in this age group who did not receive AST (P = .017) and men younger than 65 years (P = .016). No significant difference (P = .97) was observed in the time to fatal MIs in men age 65 years or older who received 6 to 8 months of AST compared with 3 months of AST. CONCLUSION The use of AST is associated with earlier onset of fatal MIs in men age 65 years or older who are treated for 6 months compared with men who are not treated with AST.

Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial

BACKGROUND The TROG 96.01 trial assessed whether 3-month and 6-month short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) decreases clinical progression and mortality after radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer. Here we report the 10-year results. METHODS Between June, 1996, and February, 2000, 818 men with T2b, T2c, T3, and T4 N0 M0 prostate cancers were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT plus radiotherapy, or 6 months of NADT plus radiotherapy. The radiotherapy dose for all groups was 66 Gy, delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicles (excluding pelvic nodes) in 33 fractions of 2 Gy per day (excluding weekends) over 6·5-7·0 weeks. NADT consisted of 3·6 mg goserelin given subcutaneously every month and 250 mg flutamide given orally three times a day. NADT began 2 months before radiotherapy for the 3-month NADT group and 5 months before radiotherapy for the 6-month NADT group. Primary endpoints were prostate-cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Treatment allocation was open label and randomisation was done with a minimisation technique according to age, clinical stage, tumour grade, and initial prostate-specific antigen concentration (PSA). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial has been closed to follow-up and all main endpoint analyses are completed. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12607000237482. FINDINGS 802 men were eligible for analysis (270 in the radiotherapy alone group, 265 in the 3-month NADT group, and 267 in the 6-month NADT group) after a median follow-up of 10·6 years (IQR 6·9-11·6). Compared with radiotherapy alone, 3 months of NADT decreased the cumulative incidence of PSA progression (adjusted hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90; p=0·003) and local progression (0·49, 0·33-0·73; p=0·0005), and improved event-free survival (0·63, 0·52-0·77; p<0·0001). 6 months of NADT further reduced PSA progression (0·57, 0·46-0·72; p<0·0001) and local progression (0·45, 0·30-0·66; p=0·0001), and led to a greater improvement in event-free survival (0·51, 0·42-0·61, p<0·0001), compared with radiotherapy alone. 3-month NADT had no effect on distant progression (0·89, 0·60-1·31; p=0·550), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·86, 0·60-1·23; p=0·398), or all-cause mortality (0·84, 0·65-1·08; p=0·180), compared with radiotherapy alone. By contrast, 6-month NADT decreased distant progression (0·49, 0·31-0·76; p=0·001), prostate cancer-specific mortality (0·49, 0·32-0·74; p=0·0008), and all-cause mortality (0·63, 0·48-0·83; p=0·0008), compared with radiotherapy alone. Treatment-related morbidity was not increased with NADT within the first 5 years after randomisation. INTERPRETATION 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined radiotherapy is an effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly in men without nodal metastases or pre-existing metabolic comorbidities that could be exacerbated by prolonged androgen deprivation. FUNDING Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, Hunter Medical Research Institute, AstraZeneca, and Schering-Plough.

Urethral stricture following high dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE To evaluate the incidence, timing, nature and outcome of urethral strictures following high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for prostate carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS Data from 474 patients with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with HDRB were analysed. Ninety percent received HDRB as a boost to external beam radiotherapy (HDRBB) and the remainder as monotherapy (HDRBM). Urethral strictures were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 41 months, 38 patients (8%) were diagnosed with a urethral stricture (6-year actuarial risk 12%). Stricture location was bulbo-membranous (BM) urethra in 92.1%. The overall actuarial rate of grade 2 or more BM urethral stricture was estimated at 10.8% (95% CI 7.0-14.9%), with a median time to diagnosis of 22 months (range 10-68 months). All strictures were initially managed with either dilatation (n=15) or optical urethrotomy (n=20). Second line therapy was required in 17 cases (49%), third line in three cases (9%) and 1 patient open urethroplasty (grade 3 toxicity). Predictive factors on multivariate analysis were prior trans-urethral resection of prostate (hazard ratio (HR) 2.81, 95% CI 1.15-6.85, p=0.023); hypertension (HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.37-5.85, p=0.005); and dose per fraction used in HDR (HR for 1 Gy increase per fraction 1.33, 95% CI 1.08-1.64, p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS BM urethral strictures are the most common late grade 2 or more urinary toxicity following HDR brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Most are manageable with minimally invasive procedures. Both clinical and dosimetric factors appear to influence the risk of stricture formation.

Post-prostatectomy radiation therapy: Consensus guidelines of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Three randomised trials have demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) for high risk patients. Data also documents the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy following a biochemical relapse post-prostatectomy. The Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recognised the need to develop consensus guidelines on to whom, when and how to deliver PPRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Draft guidelines were developed and refined at a consensus conference in June 2006 attended by 63 delegates where urological, radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging experts spoke on aspects of PPRT. Unresolved issues were further developed by working parties and redistributed until consensus was reached. RESULTS Central to the recommendations is that patients with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and/or extracapsular extension have a high risk of residual local disease and should be informed of the options of either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or active surveillance with early salvage in the event of biochemical recurrence. Salvage radiotherapy should be instituted at the earliest confirmation of biochemical recurrence. Detailed contouring guidelines have been developed, defining the regions at risk of residual microscopic disease which should be included in the clinical target volume. The recommended doses are 60-64Gy for adjuvant, and 60-66Gy for salvage radiotherapy. The role of hormone therapy in conjunction with PPRT is yet to be defined. CONCLUSIONS These consensus guidelines have been developed to give clinical and technical guidance to radiation oncologists and urologists in the management of high risk post-prostatectomy patients.

High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy as a Monotherapy for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase II Trial

PURPOSE There are multiple treatment options for favorable-risk prostate cancer. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as a monotherapy is appealing, but its use is still investigational. A Phase II trial was undertaken to explore the value of such treatment in low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS This was a single-institution, prospective study. Eligible patients had low-risk prostate cancer features but also Gleason scores of 7 (51% of patients) and stage T2b to T2c cancer. Treatment with HDR brachytherapy with a single implant was administered over 2 days. One of four fractionation schedules was used in a dose escalation study design: 3 fractions of 10, 10.5, 11, or 11.5 Gy. Patients were assessed with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 2.0 for urinary toxicity, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scoring schema for rectal toxicity, and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire to measure patient-reported health-related quality of life. Biochemical failure was defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir plus 2 ng/ml. RESULTS Between 2003 and 2008, 79 patients were enrolled. With a median follow-up of 39.5 months, biochemical relapse occurred in 7 patients. Three- and 5-year actuarial biochemical control rates were 88.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.0-96.2%) and 85.1% (95% CI, 72.5-94.5%), respectively. Acute grade 3 urinary toxicity was seen in only 1 patient. There was no instance of acute grade 3 rectal toxicity. Rates of late grade 3 rectal toxicity, dysuria, hematuria, urinary retention, and urinary incontinence were 0%, 10.3%, 1.3%, 9.0%, and 0%, respectively. No grade 4 or greater toxicity was recorded. Among the four (urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal) domains assessed with the EPIC questionnaire, only the sexual domain did not recover with time. CONCLUSIONS HDR brachytherapy as a monotherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer, administered using a single implant over 2 days, is feasible and has acceptable acute and late toxicities. Further follow-up is still required to better evaluate the efficacy of such treatment.

Online Adaptive Radiotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study

PURPOSE To determine the advantages and disadvantages of daily online adaptive image-guided radiotherapy (RT) compared with conventional RT for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven patients with T2-T4 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder were treated with daily online adaptive image-guided RT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). From day 1 daily soft tissue-based isocenter positioning was performed using CBCT images acquired before treatment. Using a composite of the initial planning CT and the first five daily CBCT scans, small, medium, and large adaptive plans were created. Each of these adaptive plans used a 0.5-cm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume expansion. For Fractions 8-32, treatment involved daily soft tissue-based isocenter positioning and selection of suitable adaptive plan of the day. Treating radiation therapists completed a credentialing program, and one radiation oncologist performed all the contouring. Comparisons were made between adaptive and conventional treatment on the basis of CTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. RESULTS All 27 patients completed treatment per protocol. Bladder volume decreased with time or fraction number (p < 0.0001). For the adaptive component (Fractions 8-32) the small, medium, large, and conventional plans were used in 9.8%, 49.2%, 39.5%, and 1.5% of fractions, respectively. For the adaptive strategy, 2.7% of occasions resulted in a CTV V95 <99%, compared with 4.8% of occasions for the conventional approach (p = 0.42). Mean volume of normal tissue receiving a dose >45 Gy was 29% (95% confidence interval, 24-35%) less with adaptive RT compared with conventional RT. The mean volume of normal tissue receiving >5 Gy was 15% (95% confidence interval, 11-18%) less with adaptive RT compared with conventional RT. CONCLUSIONS Online adaptive radiotherapy is feasible in an academic radiotherapy center. The volume of normal tissue irradiated can be significantly smaller without reducing CTV coverage.

Time to biochemical failure and prostate-specific antigen doubling time as surrogates for prostate cancer-specific mortality : evidence from the TROG 96.01 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality after curative primary treatment are not well established. We sought to assess time to biochemical failure (TTBF) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) after failure of curative treatment as candidates for this endpoint. METHODS PSA and survival data from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 96.01 trial were used to assess surrogate candidates. Between June 28, 1996, and Feb 16, 2000, 802 eligible men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly allocated to prostatic irradiation alone, or to 3 or 6 months of maximum short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) before and during radiation. Successful surrogates were required to satisfy the Prentice criteria and to predict the trial finding. The TROG 96.01 trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12607000237482. FINDINGS 6 months of STAD was shown to significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with radiation alone, but 3 months of STAD did not result in a decrease. Relative to radiation alone, the hazard ratio of prostate cancer-specific mortality from randomisation was 0.95 (95% CI 0.63-1.41; p=0.79) in the 3-month STAD treatment arm and 0.56 (0.36-0.88; p=0.01) in the 6-month arm. PSADT predicted the trial finding and satisfied all four Prentice criteria at the cutpoints of less than 12 months and less than 15 months, with proportion of treatment effect ratios between 0.36 and 0.56. Time to biochemical failure was better than PSADT at predicting the trial finding and satisfying all four Prentice criteria at cutpoints of less than 1.5, less than 2, and less than 2.5 years, with proportion of treatment effect ratios between 0.45 and 0.64. INTERPRETATION This study provides proof of principle that TTBF and PSADT can be useful as surrogate endpoints for prostate cancer-specific mortality and offer potential to substantially reduce follow up in clinical trials. These endpoints now require assessment in multi-trial meta-analyses before use in clinical trials.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥10 μg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b-4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation--stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost--to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5-8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9-11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6-11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3-7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0-22·1), 18·9% (14·6-24·2), 19·4% (15·0-24·7), and 13·9% (10·3-18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6-39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6-45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8-34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8-31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2-7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7-9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5-3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7-6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8-11·1), 14·6% (10·6-19·2), 8·4% (5·5-12·2), and 7·6% (4·8-11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14-3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7-19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0-22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3-18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6-15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5-30·9), 28·9% (23·5-34·5), 20·7% (16·1-25·9), and 15·3% (11·3-20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8-10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. INTERPRETATION Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8-10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.

Direct 2-Arm Comparison Shows Benefit of High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs External Beam Radiation Therapy Alone for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the outcomes of patients treated for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer with a single schedule of either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost or EBRT alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2001-2006, 344 patients received EBRT with HDRB boost for definitive treatment of intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. The prescribed EBRT dose was 46 Gy in 23 fractions, with a HDR boost of 19.5 Gy in 3 fractions. This cohort was compared to a contemporaneously treated cohort who received EBRT to 74 Gy in 37 fractions, using a matched pair analysis. Three-dimensional conformal EBRT was used. Matching was performed using a propensity score matching technique. High-risk patients constituted 41% of the matched cohorts. Five-year clinical and biochemical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS Initial significant differences in prognostic indicators between the unmatched treatment cohorts were rendered negligible after matching, providing a total of 688 patients. Median biochemical follow-up was 60.5 months. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure was 79.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.3%-85.0%) and 70.9% (95% CI, 65.4%-76.0%) for the HDRB and EBRT groups, respectively, equating to a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.43-0.81, P=.0011). Interaction analyses showed no alteration in HDR efficacy when planned androgen deprivation therapy was administered (P=.95), but a strong trend toward reduced efficacy was shown compared to EBRT in high-risk cases (P=.06). Rates of grade 3 urethral stricture were 0.3% (95% CI, 0%-0.9%) and 11.8% (95% CI, 8.1%-16.5%) for EBRT and HDRB, respectively (P<.0001). No differences in clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS This comparison of 2 individual contemporaneously treated HDRB and EBRT approaches showed improved freedom from biochemical progression with the HDR approach. The benefit was more pronounced in intermediate- risk patients but needs to be weighed against an increased risk of urethral toxicity.

Randomized Trial of a Hypofractionated Radiation Regimen for the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose Men with localized prostate cancer often are treated with external radiotherapy (RT) over 8 to 9 weeks. Hypofractionated RT is given over a shorter time with larger doses per treatment than standard RT. We hypothesized that hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation is similar in efficacy without increased toxicity. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T1 to 2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 10.1 to 20 ng/mL; T2b to 2c, Gleason ≤ 6, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL; or T1 to 2, Gleason = 7, and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL). Patients were allocated to conventional RT of 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or to hypofractionated RT of 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. Androgen deprivation was not permitted with therapy. The primary outcome was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of the following: PSA failure (nadir + 2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death as a result of prostate cancer. The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32). Results Median follow-up was 6.0 years. One hundred nine of 608 patients in the hypofractionated arm versus 117 of 598 in the standard arm experienced BCF. Most of the events were PSA failures. The 5-year BCF disease-free survival was 85% in both arms (hazard ratio [short v standard], 0.96; 90% CI, 0.77 to 1.2). Ten deaths as a result of prostate cancer occurred in the short arm and 12 in the standard arm. No significant differences were detected between arms for grade ≥ 3 late genitourinary and GI toxicity. Conclusion The hypofractionated RT regimen used in this trial was not inferior to conventional RT and was not associated with increased late toxicity. Hypofractionated RT is more convenient for patients and should be considered for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.