Is Androgen Deprivation Therapy Necessary in All Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated in the Dose Escalation Era?

Journal Article · Fri Mar 01 04:00:00 EST 2013 · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.06.030· OSTI ID:22224367

Hoffman, Karen E.; Levy, Lawrence B.; Lee, Andrew K.; Choi, Seungtaek; Nguyen, Quynh N.; Frank, Steven J.; Pugh, Thomas J.; McGuire, Sean E.; Kuban, Deborah A. ^[1]

---

1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (United States)

Purpose: The benefit of adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer is unclear; therefore, we assessed the impact of adding ADT to dose-escalated RT on freedom from failure (FFF). Methods: Three groups of men treated with intensity modulated RT or 3-dimensional conformal RT (75.6-78 Gy) from 1993-2008 for prostate cancer were categorized as (1) 326 intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone, (2) 218 intermediate-risk patients treated with RT and ≤6 months of ADT, and (3) 274 low-risk patients treated with definitive RT. Median follow-up was 58 months. Recursive partitioning analysis based on FFF using Gleason score (GS), T stage, and pretreatment PSA concentration was applied to the intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5-year FFF. Results: Based on recursive partitioning analysis, intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone were divided into 3 prognostic groups: (1) 188 favorable patients: GS 6, ≤T2b or GS 3+4, ≤T1c; (2) 71 marginal patients: GS 3+4, T2a-b; and (3) 68 unfavorable patients: GS 4+3 or T2c disease. Hazard ratios (HR) for recurrence in each group were 1.0, 2.1, and 4.6, respectively. When intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone were compared to intermediate-risk patients treated with RT and ADT, the greatest benefit from ADT was seen for the unfavorable intermediate-risk patients (FFF, 74% vs 94%, respectively; P=.005). Favorable intermediate-risk patients had no significant benefit from the addition of ADT to RT (FFF, 94% vs 95%, respectively; P=.85), and FFF for favorable intermediate-risk patients treated with RT alone approached that of low-risk patients treated with RT alone (98%). Conclusions: Patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer did not benefit from the addition of ADT to dose-escalated RT, and their FFF was nearly as good as patients with low-risk disease. In patients with GS 4+3 or T2c disease, the addition of ADT to dose-escalated RT did improve FFF.

• OSTI ID: 22224367
• Journal Information: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics Journal Issue: 3 Vol. 85; ISSN IOBPD3; ISSN 0360-3016
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
ANDROGENS
CONCENTRATION RATIO
FAILURES
HEALTH HAZARDS
NEOPLASMS
PATIENTS
PROSTATE
RADIATION DOSES
RADIOTHERAPY