The Roles of Radiotherapy, Androgen Deprivation Therapy, and Their Combination for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
pp. 67-76
Author(s):  
Sung Uk Lee ◽  
Kwan Ho Cho
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

scholarly journals The modern role of androgen deprivation therapy in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 24-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gunner ◽  
Aziz Gulamhusein ◽  
Derek J Rosario
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction: Approximately 50% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some stage. The role of ADT in the management of metastatic disease has long been recognised, and its place in the management of localised and locally advanced disease has become clearer in the past few years. Nevertheless, concerns remain that some men might not benefit from ADT in earlier-stage disease. The purpose of the current article is to provide a brief narrative review of the role of ADT as part of a strategy of treatment with curative intent, concentrating mainly on key recent developments in the area. Methods: Narrative literature review of key publications in the English language relating to ADT in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. Results: In locally advanced and high-risk localised prostate cancer, the use of ADT in combination with radiotherapy improves disease-specific and overall survival. There is no evidence to support the use of ADT in the treatment of low-risk localised prostate cancer. There appears to be an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, particularly in men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, but the relevance of this in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting is currently unclear. Conclusions: Future studies should focus on identification of men who are at risk from cardiovascular complications associated with ADT and on the comparison of radiotherapy with ADT versus surgery in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly with regards to men with pre-existing comorbidities.

Recent Developments in Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
David A Bader ◽  
Jasmina Z Cerne ◽  
Sean E McGuire ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Recent Developments

Locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) is often managed with a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Clinical protocols combining ADT and EBRT for the treatment of LAPC were developed based on clinical trials that used conventional-dose EBRT (~70 Gy) and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog monotherapy. However, dose-escalated EBRT (>74 Gy) is in widespread clinical use and potent second-generation agents targeting the androgen axis have recently received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. These and other recent developments challenge the current standard of care for LAPC. Determining the optimal duration and potency of ADT in combination with dose-escalated EBRT in LAPC is an active area of clinical research seeking to balance the side-effect profile of ADT with its well-established therapeutic benefits. Prospective randomized clinical trials incorporating dose-escalated EBRT and second-generation androgen axis inhibitors are necessary to clarify the role of ADT in this new arena. Further, since biochemical response to neoadjuvant ADT predicts for efficacy of EBRT, new trials should seek to achieve maximal androgen suppression prior to EBRT to increase clinical benefit. Last, recent clinical and preclinical research efforts hold significant promise and seek to provide better predictive markers and expand the therapeutic target spectrum in prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Between Radical Prostatectomy and Radiotherapy With Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Cheng Lu ◽  
Chao-Yuan Huang ◽  
Chia-Hsien Cheng ◽  
Kuo-How Huang ◽  
Yu-Chuan Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Abstract To compare clinical outcomes between the use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in locally advanced prostate cancer (PC), we enrolled 315 patients with locally advanced PC (clinical T-stage 3/4). Propensity score-matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed. The median follow-up period was 59.2 months (IQR: 39.8-87.4). There were 117 (37.1%) patients in the RP group and 198 (62.9%) patients in the RT group. RT patients were older and had higher PSA at diagnosis, higher Gleason score grade group and more advanced T-stage (all p<0.001). After propensity score-matching, there were 68 patients in each group. Among locally advanced PC patients, treatment with RP had a higher risk of biochemical recurrence compared to the RT group. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, treatment with RT plus ADT significantly decreased the risk of biochemical failure (HR: 0.162, p<0.001), but there was no significant difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis and overall survival (p=0.470, p=0.268 and p=0.509, respectively). This information may provide insight for clinicians and patients for decision-making regarding their preference for either treatment strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document