Redefining the role of adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for T3 disease and/or positive margins.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 367-367
Author(s):  
Barry W. Goy ◽  
In-Lu Amy Liu
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Positive Margins ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy

367 Background: SWOG 8794 recommends adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for T3 and/or positive margins. Our purpose was to assess 12-year outcomes on 862 RP patients who had either T3 and/or positive margins who underwent surveillance, salvage radiation therapy (SRT), or hormonal therapy (HT), while categorizing these patients into very low risk (VLR), low risk (LR), high risk (HR), and ultra high risk (UHR) groups. Methods: From 2004 - 2007, 862 RP patients had adverse factors of extracapsular penetration (T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (T3b), positive margins, and/or detectable post-operative PSA. Management included surveillance (54.8%), SRT (36.8%), and HT (8.5%) as first salvage therapy, and 21.5% eventually received hormonal therapy. Twenty patients underwent ART, and were excluded from this analysis. We assessed prognostic factors using multivariable analysis, and 12-year estimates of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), freedom from salvage therapy (FFST), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS). VLR were those with Gleason Score (GS) of 6. LR were GS 3+4 with only T3a or positive margins, but an undetectable postoperative PSA <0.1. HR were T3b with GS 7-10, any GS 7-10 with T3a/b and positive margins, but an undetectable PSA. UHR were those with a detectable PSA with a GS 7-10. Results: Median follow-up was 12.1 years. Median age was 61.6 years. Median time to first salvage treatment for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 10.8, 11.1, 5.3, and 0.6 years, p<0.001. 12-year estimates of FFBF for VLR, LR, HR, and UHR were 60.2%, 52.9%, 28.4%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For FFST, 70.9%, 68.6%, 40.5%, and 0%, p<0.0001. For DMFS, 99.1%, 97.8%, 88.6%, and 63.6%, p<0.0001. For PCSS, 99.4%, 99.5%, 93.5%, and 78.9%, p<0.0001. For OS, 91.8%, 91.8%, 81.0%, and 69.9%, p<0.0001. Conclusions: Outcomes of T3 and/or positive margins using surveillance or SRT as initial management yields excellent outcomes for VLR and LR groups, in which ART should be avoided. For HR, ART can be considered reasonable, since FFBF is only 28.4%. For VHR, these patients may benefit from combined hormonal therapy and ART.

scholarly journals Adjuvant vs. salvage radiation therapy in men with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy: Survey of North American genitourinary expert radiation oncologists

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shearwood McClelland 3rd ◽  
Kiri A. Sandler ◽  
Catherine Degnin ◽  
Yiyi Chen ◽  
Timur Mitin
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
North American ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Current View ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radiation Oncologists

Introduction: The management of patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. Level 1 evidence demonstrates that adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves survival compared to no treatment; however, it may overtreat up to 30% of patients, as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using salvage RT on observation arms failed to reveal a survival advantage of adjuvant RT. We, therefore, sought to determine the current view of adjuvant vs. salvage RT among North American genitourinary (GU) radiation oncology experts. Methods: A survey was distributed to 88 practicing North American GU physicians serving on decision-making committees of cooperative group research organizations. Questions pertained to opinions regarding adjuvant vs. salvage RT for this patient population. Treatment recommendations were correlated with practice patterns using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Forty-two of 88 radiation oncologists completed the survey; 23 (54.8%) recommended adjuvant RT and 19 (45.2%) recommended salvage RT. Recommendation of active surveillance for Gleason 3+4 disease was a significant predictor of salvage RT recommendation (p=0.034), and monthly patient volume approached significance for recommendation of adjuvant over salvage RT; those seeing <15 patients/month trended towards recommending adjuvant over salvage RT (p=0.062). No other demographic factors approached significance. Conclusions: There is dramatic polarization among North American GU experts regarding optimal management of patients with highrisk features after RP. Ongoing RCTs will determine whether adjuvant RT improves survival over salvage RT. Until then, the almost 50/50 division seen from this analysis should encourage practicing clinicians to discuss the ambiguity with their patients.

Impact of genomic risk scores on treatment decisions following radical prostatectomy in a prospective Medicare registry.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
John L. Gore ◽  
Darlene Dai ◽  
Robert Benjamin Den ◽  
Kasra Yousefi ◽  
Tiffany Le ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact

72 Background: Prostate cancer patients and providers confront uncertainty as they consider adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (ART, SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We prospectively evaluated the impact of the Decipher RP test, which predicts metastasis risk after RP, on decision-making for postoperative radiation therapy. Methods: Between October 2016 and May 2017, 1,319 patients treated with RP and considering ART or SRT were enrolled into a Medicare Certification and Training Registry (CTR). Providers submitted a management recommendation based on initial clinical and pathology findings prior to obtaining the Decipher RP test and again upon receiving test results. Only Medicare patients that met the Local Coverage Determination inclusion criteria (i.e., non-organ confined prostate cancer or positive margins or rising PSA) and whose provider was certified in the CTR registry were included in the analysis. Results: Based on clinical variables alone, treatment was recommended for 26% of adjuvant and 19% of salvage patients. Obtaining a Decipher score, changed treatment recommendations in 34% (95% CI 30-39%) and 28% (95% CI 19-38%) of men considering adjuvant or salvage therapy respectively. Among men considering ART, 9% of Decipher low risk patients and 45% of Decipher high-risk patients were recommended treatment. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that – independent of pathology risk factors, a high-risk Decipher score was associated with an odds ratio of 7.3 (95% CI 3.9-14.2 p < 0.001) in the adjuvant and 5.5 (95% CI, 1.3-27.8, p = 0.026) in the salvage setting. Conclusions: A prospective CTR demonstrated that use of Decipher resulted in significant changes in treatment decisions for Medicare beneficiaries with PCa considering adjuvant and salvage therapies. Ongoing prospective studies aim at determining how increased use of therapy in men with high Decipher risk impacts oncologic outcomes and whether decreased use in Decipher low risk individuals improves health related quality of life without harming patient survival.

scholarly journals Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy for Men at High Risk for Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer and the Risk of Death

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.20.03714
Author(s):  
Derya Tilki ◽  
Ming-Hui Chen ◽  
Jing Wu ◽  
Hartwig Huland ◽  
Markus Graefen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Salvage Radiation Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
The Impact

PURPOSE Adjuvant compared with early salvage radiation therapy (sRT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) has not been shown to reduce progression-free survival in randomized controlled trials. However, these trials might have missed a benefit in men with adverse pathology at RP given that these men were under-represented and immortal time bias might have been present; herein, we investigate this possibility. METHODS We evaluated the impact of adjuvant versus early sRT on all-cause mortality (ACM) risk in men with adverse pathology defined as positive pelvic lymph nodes (pN1) or pGleason score 8-10 prostate cancer (PC) and disease extending beyond the prostate (pT3/4). We used a treatment propensity score to minimize potential treatment selection bias when estimating the causal effect of adjuvant versus early sRT on ACM risk and a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact that varying definitions of adverse pathology had on ACM risk adjusting for age at RP, PC prognostic factors, site, and the time-dependent use of post-RP androgen deprivation therapy. RESULTS After a median follow-up (interquartile range) of 8.16 (6.00-12.10) years, of the 26,118 men in the study cohort, 2,104 (8.06%) died, of which 539 (25.62%) were from PC. After excluding men with a persistent prostate-specific antigen, adjuvant compared with early sRT was associated with a significantly lower ACM risk among men with adverse pathology at RP when men with pN1 PC were excluded (0.33 [0.13-0.85]; P = .02) or included (0.66 [0.44-0.99]; P = .04). CONCLUSION Adjuvant radiation therapy should be considered in men with pN1 or pGleason score 8 to 10 and pT3/4 PC given the possibility that a significant reduction in ACM risk exists.

Radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer—The risk of extraprostatic spread by NCCN risk group and its implications for adjuvant therapy: An analysis of 23,988 patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5125-5125
Author(s):  
D. Schreiber ◽  
J. Rineer ◽  
M. Olsheski ◽  
D. Vongtama ◽  
A. Wortham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ◽  
Positive Margins

5125 Background: Swanson et al recently reported an update of SWOG 8794 (ASTRO 2008, oral presentation) revealing a 10% absolute overall survival benefit at 15 years with adjuvant radiation therapy for patients with extraprostatic extension (EPE) or positive margins after radical prostatectomy (RP). In this population based analysis, we analyze and report on the pathologic rates of EPE or positive margins in clinically localized prostate cancer as well as how often these patients have received adjuvant radiation therapy. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry was used to identify patients between 2004–2005 with clinically staged T1-T2c prostate cancer who underwent RP. Patients were stratified using NCCN risk groups into low (T1c- T2a, PSA less than 10ng/ml, Gleason 2–6), intermediate (T2b, PSA 10–20ng/ml, Gleason 7), and high (T2c, PSA greater than 20ng/ml, Gleason 8–10). Results: 23,988 patients were identified: 6,314 in the NCCN low risk group (LR), 12,052 in the NCCN intermediate risk group (IR), and 5,622 in the NCCN high risk group (HR). Overall, 68.2% of patients had organ-confined disease with negative margins. However, the risk of EPE or positive margins increased with the NCCN risk group, PSA value, and Gleason score (see table ). Of those who met criteria for adjuvant radiation, 11.9% received the treatment: 4.7% of the LR group, 9.2% of the IR group and 18.9% of the HR group. Conclusions: This is, to our knowledge, the largest reported multi-institutional surgical series of clinically localized prostate cancer. Patients can use this data to be counseled on their risk of requiring adjuvant radiation based on their pre-treatment parameters. This data also reveals that nearly one third of all patients met the indications for adjuvant radiation, but only a small percentage of them received this treatment. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document