Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Radiation Therapy: Comparative Effectiveness in Real-World Clinical Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. S40-S41
Author(s):  
J.E. Bekelman ◽  
N. Mitra ◽  
E. Handorf ◽  
R. Uzzo ◽  
S. Hahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Androgen Deprivation

scholarly journals Radiation therapy dose and androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer: a meta-regression of 5-year outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommy Jiang ◽  
Daniela Markovic ◽  
Jay Patel ◽  
Jesus E. Juarez ◽  
Ting Martin Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Intensification ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background While multiple randomized trials have evaluated the benefit of radiation therapy (RT) dose escalation and the use and prolongation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer, few studies have evaluated the relative benefit of either form of treatment intensification with each other. Many trials have included treatment strategies that incorporate either high or low dose RT, or short-term or long-term ADT (STADT or LTADT), in one or more trial arms. We sought to compare different forms of treatment intensification of RT in the context of localized prostate cancer. Methods Using preferred reporting items for systemic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we collected over 40 phases III clinical trials comparing different forms of RT for localized prostate cancer. We performed a meta-regression of 40 individual trials with 21,429 total patients to allow a comparison of the rates and cumulative proportions of 5-year overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and distant metastasis (DM) for each treatment arm of every trial. Results Dose-escalation either in the absence or presence of STADT failed to significantly improve any 5-year outcome. In contrast, adding LTADT to low dose RT significantly improved 5-year PCSM (Odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22–0.54, p < 0.001) and DM (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20–0.63. p < 0.001) over low dose RT alone. Adding STADT also significantly improved 5-year PCSM over low dose RT alone (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.75, p < 0.001). Conclusion While limited by between-study heterogeneity and a lack of individual patient data, this meta-analysis suggests that adding ADT, versus increasing RT dose alone, offers a more consistent improvement in clinical endpoints.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document