External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis

  • Sagar A Patel
  • Ting Martin Ma
  • Jessica K Wong
  • Bradley J Stish
  • Robert T Dess
  • Avinash Pilar
  • Chandana Reddy
  • Trude B Wedde
  • Wolfgang A Lilleby
  • Ryan Fiano
  • Gregory S Merrick
  • Richard G Stock
  • D Jeffrey Demanes
  • Brian J Moran
  • Phuoc T Tran
  • Daniel J Krauss
  • Eyad I Abu-Isa
  • Thomas M Pisansky
  • C Richard Choo
  • Daniel Y Song
  • Stephen Greco
  • Curtiland Deville
  • Theodore L DeWeese
  • Derya Tilki
  • Jay P Ciezki
  • R Jeffrey Karnes
  • Nicholas G Nickols
  • Matthew B Rettig
  • Felix Y Feng
  • Alejandro Berlin
  • Jonathan D Tward
  • Brian J Davis
  • Robert E Reiter
  • Paul C Boutros
  • Tahmineh Romero
  • Eric M Horwitz
  • Rahul D Tendulkar
  • Michael L Steinberg
  • Daniel E Spratt
  • Michael Xiang
  • Amar U Kishan

Related Research units

Abstract

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression.

RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Bibliographical data

Original languageEnglish
ISSN0360-3016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01.03.2023

Comment Deanary

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed 36179990