Adding higher radiation dose to long-term ADT linked to survival boost in prostate cancer

News
Article

Ten-year follow-up data from the GETUG-AFU 18 trial (NCT00967863) showed that in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, survival outcomes were improved when combining a higher dose of radiation therapy with long-term use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).1

“Obviously IMRT is required to obtain these results. So, we have now level 1 evidence that high-dose [radiotherapy] with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD.

“Obviously IMRT is required to obtain these results. So, we have now level 1 evidence that high-dose [radiotherapy] with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD.

“Even if we use a long-term ADT, high-dose radiotherapy [80 Gy] improves progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival, compared to a [standard dose of] 70 Gy, in [patients with] high-risk prostate cancer without increasing toxicity,” Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, said during a presentation of the data.

After a median follow-up of 114.2 months (95% CI, 112.5-116.5), the 5-year biochemical or clinical progression-free survival (PFS) rates in the 80 Gy (dose escalation) and 70 Gy (control) groups were 91.4% (95% CI, 87.0%-94.4%) and 88.1% (95% CI, 83.2%-91.6%), respectively, while the 10-year rates were 83.6% (95% CI, 77.8%-88.0%) and 72.2% (95% CI, 65.3%-78.0%). The dose-escalation of radiotherapy reduced the risk for disease progression by 44% (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76; P = .0005).

When evaluating cancer-specific survival in the dose escalation and control groups, the 5-year (98.7% [95% CI, 96.2%-99.6] vs 96.6% [95% CI, 93.3%-98.3%], respectively) and 10-year (95.6% [95% CI, 91.7%-97.7%] vs 90.0% [95% CI, 84.1%-93.8%]) rates continued to demonstrate superiority with the 80-Gy dose (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83; P = .0009).

Lastly, the dose-escalation arm showed a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 93.4% (95% CI, 89.5%-95.9%), compared with 88.7% (95% CI, 84.0%-92.0%) with the control arm, as well as 10-year OS rates of 77.0% (95% CI, 70.2%-82.4%) and 65.9% (95% CI, 58.7%-72.1%), respectively, reducing the risk for death by 39% (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = .0039).

Hennequin noted that there was no difference between arms regarding toxicity and quality of life. Grade 3 or higher late genitourinary toxicities occurred in 20.6% of the high-dose arm, vs 19.9% in the control arm, while 1.6% of patients in each arm experienced a grade 3 or higher late digestive toxicity.

Hennequin noted that a variety of randomized trials have been conducted to evaluate the role of de-escalation in prostate cancer. “Most of them demonstrated an improvement in biochemical control, but no demonstrated benefit in overall survival. However, most of these trials included a low number of high-risk patients, and most of [the patients] did not choose long-term ADT. They used no ADT or short-term ADT,” he added, also acknowledging that long-term ADT is the standard of care in this patient population.

“The question remains: Is it necessary to increase the dose of radiotherapy in case of long-term ADT, or is the standard dose good enough for these patients?” Hennequin said.

Therefore, in the randomized phase 3 trial, high-risk patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either dose-escalated (80 Gy) or conventional-dose (70 Gy) radiotherapy plus 3 years of ADT to determine the efficacy and safety of dose escalation in combination with long-term ADT.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to have high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma, with 1 of 3 factors (PSA ≥ ng/ml, Gleason ≥ 8, or cT3-T4) and a performance score of 0 to 2. Key inclusion criteria included histologically-proven prostate adenocarcinoma; disease of the unfavorable group defined by T3 or T4 clinical stage, Gleason score or serum PSA level; lymphatic dissection or cN0 ≥ 15 mm on CT or MRI; absence of bone or visceral metastases; hormone treatment beginning no later than the day of radiotherapy and no earlier than 6 months before irradiation; absence of prior pelvic radiotherapy; absence of surgical treatment for prostate cancer, except transurethral resection performed at least 3 or 4 months previously; aged 18 to 80 years; ECOG performance status of 1 or less; and life expectancy of more than 5 years.

Investigators stratified patients by lymph node resection and institution.

PFS served as the trial’s primary end point, while secondary end points included cancer-specific survival, OS, and late toxicity. In the updated evaluation of the trial, 6-year biochemical or clinical PFS was the primary end point; OS, specific survival, acute and delayed toxicities, and quality of life were the secondary end points; and exploratory end points included clinical relapse-free survival and metastasis-free survival.

In total, 505 patients from across 25 French centers were recruited from June 4, 2009, to January 24, 2013. Patients were a median age of 71 years (range, 52-80), with the majority reporting with just 1 high-risk disease factor (64.6%). Further, 16.4% of patients received lymph node dissection.

Median duration for ADT was 33.4 months, while 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation, and 6 patients did not have radiotherapy performed. Interestingly, according to Hennequin, 80.6% of the dose-escalation arm received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in addition to ADT (P < .001).

“Obviously IMRT is required to obtain these results. So, we have now level 1 evidence that high-dose [radiotherapy] with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients,” Hennequin concluded.

Reference

1. Hennequin C, Sargos P, Roca L, et al. Long-term results of dose escalation (80 vs 70 Gy) combined with long-term androgen deprivation in high-risk prostate cancers: GETUG-AFU 18 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(suppl 4). Abstract LBA259.

Related Videos
Dr. Jasmeet Kaur in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. Martin Voss in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. Jacqueline Brown in an interview with Urology Times
blurred clinic hallway
Dr. Dalia Kaakour in an interview with red Urology Times backdrop
Dr. Maria Teresa Bourlon in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. David Braun in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. Neeraj Agarwal in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. Saby George in an interview with Urology Times
Dr. Laura Bukavina in an interview with Urology Times
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.