Contemporary role of postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dal Pra A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6043752 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Contemporary role of postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
Dal Pra Alan A Abramowitz Matthew C MC Stoyanova Radka R Pollack Alan A
Translational andrology and urology 20180601 3
While radical prostatectomy (RP) has provided long-term disease control for the majority of patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP), nearly 30% of all surgical patients have disease progression. For high-risk patients, more than half of men experience disease recurrence within 10 years. Postoperative radiotherapy is the only known potentially curative treatment for a large number of patients following prostatectomy. Lately, there have been several advances with the potential to improve out ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Penile cancer is a rare clinical entity that contributes to significant patient morbidity and mortality. Human papilloma virus (HPV) plays an important role in the carcinogenesis of penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), is associated with improved clinical outcomes, and is predictive for response to treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Historically, treatment consisted of radical surgery with partial or total penectomy. While effective for local control, surgical resection can impart significant physical, psychological and sexual dysfunction for afflicted men. Organ preservation strategies offer significant quality of life advantages over standard surgery and can be utilized without compromising oncological control. As an alternative or adjunct to surgical resection, radiation therapy can be used for organ preservation strategies successfully in up to 70% of patients. A variety of treatment techniques can be employed depending on the location and burden of disease. Limited disease can be amenable to treatment with interstitial brachytherapy, surface mold plesiotherapy or external beam radiotherapy. For locally advanced presentations, or for patients not amenable to surgical resection, excellent clinical outcomes can be achieved using a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Here, we discuss the management of penile SCC using modern radiation therapy treatment techniques, the expected clinical outcomes for organ preservation, as well as the management of side-effects and toxicities. While large randomized trials are being developed, the management of penile cancer is informed from the management of other of other anogenital malignancies, which we also review.
| S-EPMC5673811 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10209331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextAndrogen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) represents one of the most effective systemic palliative treatments known for solid tumors. Although clinical trials have assessed the role of ADT in patients with metastatic and advanced locoregional disease, the risk-benefit ratio, especially in earlier stages, remains poorly defined. Given the mounting evidence for potentially life-threatening adverse effects with short- and long-term ADT, it is important to redefine the role of ADT for this disease.ObjectiveReview the published experience with currently available ADT approaches in various contemporary clinical settings of PCa and reported serious treatment-related adverse events. This review addresses the level of evidence associated with the use of ADT in PCa, focusing upon survival outcome measures. Furthermore, this paper discusses evolving approaches targeting androgen receptor signaling pathways and emerging evidence from clinical trials with newer compounds.Evidence acquisitionA comprehensive review of the literature was performed, focusing on data from the last 10 yr (January 2000 to July 2011) and using the terms androgen deprivation, hormone treatment, prostate cancer and adverse effects. Abstracts from trials reported at international conferences held in 2010 and 2011 were also evaluated.Evidence synthesisData from randomized controlled trials and population-based studies were analyzed in different clinical paradigms. Specifically, the role of ADT was evaluated in patients with nonmetastatic disease as the primary and sole treatment, in combination with radiation therapy (RT) or after surgery, and in patients with metastatic disease. The data suggest that in men with nonmetastatic disease, the use of primary ADT as monotherapy has not shown a benefit and is not recommended, while ADT combined with conventional-dose RT (<72Gy) for patients with high-risk disease may delay progression and prolong survival. The postoperative use of ADT remains poorly evaluated in prospective studies. Likewise, there are no trials evaluating the role of ADT in patients with biochemical relapses after surgery or RT. In patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear benefit in terms of quality of life, reduction of disease-associated morbidity, and possibly survival. Treatment with bilateral orchiectomy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy, with and without antiandrogens has been associated with various serious adverse events, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and skeletal complications that may also affect mortality.ConclusionsAlthough ADT is an effective treatment of PCa, consistent long-term benefits in terms of quality and quantity of life are predominantly evident in patients with advanced/metastatic disease or when ADT is used in combination with RT (<72Gy) in patients with high-risk tumors. Implementation of ADT should be evidence based, with special consideration to adverse events and the risk-benefit ratio.
| S-EPMC3483081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextRadiotherapy (RT) is a valid adjuvant treatment for men with high-risk pathological features after radical prostatectomy and a salvage treatment for biochemical recurrence. A major inconvenience is that RT takes course over 7-8 wk in these settings, which has been shown to limit its use. Retrospective and pilot prospective investigations suggest that hypofractionation may provide noninferior outcomes but report variable results regarding toxicities. Additionally, our evolving understanding of prostate cancer radiobiology suggests that hypofractionated regimens may not increase toxicity.ObjectiveWe examine and review the rationale and clinical evidence of hypofractionated RT in the adjuvant and salvage settings for prostate cancer.Evidence acquisitionWe reviewed relevant literature, with a particular focus on recent studies employing hypofractionated RT.Evidence synthesisHypofractionated RT in the adjuvant or salvage setting is not a standard option for prostate cancer RT outside of an investigational trial. While smaller studies show conflicting data regarding toxicity, initial evidence from larger clinical trials appears to demonstrate that hypofractionated postoperative RT is as effective and safe as conventionally fractionated courses.ConclusionsWith the growing acceptance of hypofractionation across other cancer sites and the rise of extreme hypofractionation for definitive prostate cancer treatment, hypofractionated postoperative therapy for prostate cancer is poised to become an option, as it may reduce the burden on men and treatment centers while maintaining clinical efficacy and safety. Prospective trials are currently ongoing to address efficacy and safety concerns.Patient summaryPostoperative radiotherapy is a potentially curative treatment for patients with high-risk disease or recurrence after surgery. Shortening of the treatment regimen with the availability of modern treatment delivery techniques in conjunction with the integration of molecular imaging information to refine treatment volumes may improve therapeutic benefit without increasing toxicity.
| S-EPMC8317782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current standard of care for patients with metastatic prostate cancer includes ADT with a palliative intent. Recent studies have investigated the role of local therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. While retrospective data has shown some benefit with regard to survival and delay in initiation of ADT, there has been limited prospective Randomized data. To date, there has only been one recent randomized trial revealing a survival benefit with local radiotherapy, largely benefiting patients with the lowest burden of disease. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence and ongoing clinical trials regarding the role of radiotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer patients.
| S-EPMC6526359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although salvage prostate bed radiotherapy is highly effective in biochemically-relapsing prostate cancer patients following prostatectomy, relapses remain frequent and improvements are needed. Randomized phase 3 trials have shown the benefit of adding androgen-depriving therapy to irradiation, but not all patients benefit from this combination. Preclinical studies have shown that novel agents targeting the androgen receptor, DNA repair, PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways, or the hypoxic microenvironment may help increase the response to prostate bed irradiation while minimizing potential side effects. This perspective review focuses on the most relevant molecules that may have an impact when combined with salvage radiotherapy, and underlines the strategies that need to be developed to increase the efficacy of salvage post-prostatectomy radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients.
| S-EPMC8739777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjuvant (ART) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT) are two common concepts to enhance biochemical relapse free survival (BCRFS) in patients with prostate cancer (PC). We analyzed differences in outcome between ART and SRT in patients with steep decline of PSA-levels after surgery to compare outcome. METHODS:We evaluated 253 patients treated with postoperative RT with a median age of 66?years (range 42-85?years) treated between 2004 and 2014. Patients with additive radiotherapy due to PSA persistence and patients in the SRT group, who did not achieve a postoperative PSA level?<0.1?ng/mL were excluded. Hence, data of 179 patients was evaluated. We used propensity score matching to build homogenous groups. A Cox regression model was used to determine differences between treatment options. Median follow-up was 32.5?months (range 1.4-128.0?months). RESULTS:Early SRT at PSA levels <0.3?ng/mL was associated with significant longer BCRFS than late SRT (HR: 0.32, 95%-CI: 0.14-0.75, p =?0.009). Multiple Cox regression showed pre-RT PSA level, tumor stage, and Gleason score as predictive factors for biochemical relapse. In the overall group, patients treated with either ART or early SRT showed no significant difference in BCRFS (HR: 0.17, 95%-CI: 0.02-1.44, p =?0.1). In patients with locally advanced PC (pT3/4) BCRFS was similar in both groups as well (HR: 0.21, 95%-CI:0.02-1.79, p =?0.15). CONCLUSION:For patients with PSA-triggered follow-up, close observation is essential and early initiation of local treatment at low PSA levels (<0.3?ng/mL) is beneficial. Our data suggest, that SRT administered at early PSA rise might be equieffective to postoperative ART in patients with locally advanced PC. However, the individual treatment decision must be based on any adverse risk factors and the patients' postoperative clinical condition. STUDY REGISTRATION:The present work is approved by the Ethics Commission of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and is registered with the project number 320/14.
| S-EPMC6849377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn men with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy there are limited data on the value of adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to postoperative radiotherapy.ObjectiveTo determine whether there is a clear oncologic benefit to ADT in the setting of node-positive prostate cancer treated with postoperative radiotherapy.MethodsWe analyzed data for 372 prostate cancer patients treated at San Raffaele Hospital with postoperative radiotherapy for node-positive disease after radical prostatectomy, 272 received both ADT and radiotherapy. Eighty-six men were followed without an event for more than 10 years.ResultsPatients who received postoperative radiotherapy + ADT had more aggressive disease, with higher preoperative PSA level, higher rate of ISUP grade 5, pT3b-T4 tumors and ≥3 positive nodes. At multivariable Cox regression, the comparison between men treated by postoperative radiotherapy + ADT vs. radiotherapy alone did not show a significant difference for overall (hazards ratio: 0.91; 95% confidence interval: 0.45, 1.84; P = 0.8) and cancer-specific survival (hazards ratio: 5.39; 95% confidence intervalI: 0.70, 41.39; P = 0.11). These results remained consistent in a number of sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching. Consideration of 95% CIs suggests that a clinically significant benefit of ADT in node-positive patients receiving radiotherapy after surgery is unlikely.ConclusionsWe can exclude the sort of large survival benefit that would be required to justify the risks and toxicities of ADT in men with node-positive disease receiving postoperative radiotherapy. Awaiting larger and more powered studies on this topic, men with pN+ prostate cancer treated with postoperative radiotherapy should not receive ADT outside well-controlled clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8142939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the value of radiotherapy in C-SCLC patients, especially in those receiving a radical resection.The differences of survivals between the postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) and non-PORT groups were not statistically significant. But analyzing the benefits in subgroups, PORT significantly improved OS (p = 0.015), DFS (p = 0.026), LRFS (p = 0.008) and DMFS (p = 0.030) in stage III patients. For the patients with N2 stage, all survivals of the PORT group were also statistically significantly higher than non-PORT group (p = 0.018, 0.032, 0.008, 0.042). Patients with more than 10% of metastatic lymph nodes could get a significant benefit survivals by receiving PORT (p = 0.033, 0.030, 0.025, 0.031). Having a systematic dissection of more than 17 lymph nodes was a subset which could get better OS and LRFS by receiving PORT (p = 0.045, 0.048).Between Jan. 2004 to Dec. 2012, fifty-five patients diagnosed as C-SCLC after complete surgical resection in our center were retrospectively analyzed. The overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), loco-regional recurrence free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.PORT can significantly improve the survival of C-SCLC patients with resected pathological pN2 stage. For the patients with a large percent of metastatic lymph nodes, PORT can also improve survivals.
| S-EPMC5564736 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS:We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.
| S-EPMC6457851 | biostudies-literature