scholarly journals PO-0724: Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis from randomized trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. S379-S380
Author(s):  
Z. Yin ◽  
Z. Yuan ◽  
J. You
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hypofractionated Radiotherapy

scholarly journals Addition of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Brachytherapy Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (26) ◽  
pp. 3024-3031 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Jackson ◽  
Holly E. Hartman ◽  
Robert T. Dess ◽  
Sam R. Birer ◽  
Payal D. Soni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Brachytherapy Boost ◽  
Meta Analyses

PURPOSE In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

scholarly journals Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Guo ◽  
Yun-Chuan Sun ◽  
Jian-Qiang Bi ◽  
Xin-Ying He ◽  
Li Xiao
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Hypofractionated Radiotherapy ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Conventional Radiotherapy ◽  
Results Of Treatment

Abstract Background Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. The results of treatment after hypofractionated radiotherapy only have been reported from several small randomized clinical trials. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. Methods Relevant studies were identified through searching related databases till August 2018. Hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as pooled statistics for all analyses. Results The meta-analysis results showed that overall survival (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.93–1.35, p = 0.219) and prostate cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.42–3.95, p = 0.661) were similar in two groups. The pooled data showed that biochemical failure was RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.76–1.07, p = 0.248. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events (grade ≥ 2) was higher in the hypofractionated radiotherapy (RR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.12–2.56, p = 0.012); conversely, for late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal adverse events, a significant increase in the conventional radiotherapy was found (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61–0.91, p = 0.003). Acute (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.89–1.15, p = 0.894) and late (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.86–1.10, p = 0.692) genitourinary adverse events (grade ≥ 2) were similar for both treatment groups. Conclusion Results suggest that the efficacy and risk for adverse events are comparable for hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials to study the impact of prednisone on toxicities and survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Gurudatta Naik ◽  
Charity Morgan ◽  
Matt D. Galsky ◽  
William K. Oh ◽  
Guru Sonpavde
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Prednisone ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

28 Background: The impact of daily oral prednisone (P) on toxicities and outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing regimens that included P in only one arm. Methods: PubMed, conferences and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for articles reported from January 1966 to June 2013. Eligible studies were selected in an unbiased manner and limited to randomized trials enrolling patients with mCRPC and comparing regimens administering P in only one arm. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Arms containing P were compared with arms without P for severe toxicities grade 3 or higher and overall survival (OS). Results: Five randomized trials were published or presented with P in only one arm: by Scher and colleagues comparing docetaxel (D) plus P versus D plus DN101 (n=953), by Higano and colleagues comparing DP versus GVAX (n=621), by Small and colleagues comparing DP versus GVAX plus D (n=394), by Fossa and colleagues comparing P versus flutamide (n=201) and by Petrylak and colleagues comparing mitoxantrone plus P versus D plus estramustine phosphate (n=770). The total number of patients was 2,939, of whom 1,471 received therapy not containing P and 1,468 received therapy containing P. All five trials were eligible for analysis of toxicities, but the Fossa trial was excluded for the OS analysis due to lack of required parameters. There was no difference between the non-P and P groups for severe toxicities (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.82, p = 0.712, I2 = 97.9%). When examining toxicities as a reason for discontinuing therapy, the non-P groups were not different from the P groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.24, p = 0.413, I2 = 86.8%). The non-P groups demonstrated no difference in OS compared to the P groups (HR = 1.09, p = 0.531, I2= 79.7%). The meta-analysis is limited by the trial level design and small number of patients and does not exclude a favorable palliative impact of P. Conclusions: This meta-analysis of randomized trials in mCRPC suggests no significant impact on severe toxicities and OS with the use of daily oral prednisone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document