JAMA Oncol
Failure-Free Survival and Radiotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Data From Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial.
Abstract
Importance
The natural history of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk nonmetastatic (M0) prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy (HT) either alone or with standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) is not well documented. Furthermore, no clinical trial has assessed the role of RT in patients with node-positive (N+) M0 disease. The STAMPEDE Trial includes such individuals, allowing an exploratory multivariate analysis of the impact of radical RT.
Objective
To describe survival and the impact on failure-free survival of RT by nodal involvement in these patients.
Design, setting, and participants
Cohort study using data collected for patients allocated to the control arm (standard-of-care only) of the STAMPEDE Trial between October 5, 2005, and May 1, 2014. Outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models; survival estimates are reported at 2 and 5 years. Participants were high-risk, hormone-naive patients with newly diagnosed M0 prostate cancer starting long-term HT for the first time. Radiotherapy is encouraged in this group, but mandated for patients with node-negative (N0) M0 disease only since November 2011.
Exposures
Long-term HT either alone or with RT, as per local standard. Planned RT use was recorded at entry.
Main outcomes and measures
Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival.
Results
A total of 721 men with newly diagnosed M0 disease were included: median age at entry, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 61-72) years, median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level of 43 (18-88) ng/mL. There were 40 deaths (31 owing to prostate cancer) with 17 months' median follow-up. Two-year survival was 96% (95% CI, 93%-97%) and 2-year FFS, 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). Median (IQR) FFS was 63 (26 to not reached) months. Time to FFS was worse in patients with N+ disease (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.46-2.81]) than in those with N0 disease. Failure-free survival outcomes favored planned use of RT for patients with both N0M0 (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.61]) and N+M0 disease (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]).
Conclusions and relevance
Survival for men entering the cohort with high-risk M0 disease was higher than anticipated at study inception. These nonrandomized data were consistent with previous trials that support routine use of RT with HT in patients with N0M0 disease. Additionally, the data suggest that the benefits of RT extend to men with N+M0 disease.
Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN78818544.
Related Questions
How would you manage a patient with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy and found to have a single involved pelvic lymph node on final pathology and a detectable postoperative PSA?
This patient is now in the salvage setting with PSA recurrence after RP and with PSA persistence and node-positive disease. This is a grey area of medicine without level 1 evidence from RCTs but there are some sources of data to help guide optimal outcomes. This patient is at high risk for further m...
For prostate cancer patients with N+ disease, is there evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with the addition of nodal RT, as opposed to prostate RT alone plus ADT?
There is no direct evidence. In the STAMPEDE trial, which showed benefit of RT in node positive patients, RT involved prostate and nodes in a majority of patients (>80%).
How do you approach prostate cancer patients who present with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (stage M1a)?
Interesting question because I have had similar patients with differing amounts/extent of retrop-adenopathy and, as such, had to get a 'plan' in all cases:1. For me, the easiest answer and first step is tissue confirmation of the adenopathy. That is, if tumor is the rumor, then tissue is the issue, ...
How would you treat node positive (pN+) prostate cancer with undetectable post-op PSA after radical prostatectomy and pelvic LND?
The short answer is, YES I would, in general, recommend treatment. I also respectfully disagree that ADT monotherapy is the standard of care. It is an option of course, but rarely performed given it is non-curative and the data to support its use is of minimal relevance today.Some key points of reas...