Extraprostatic disease will be manifest in a third of men after radical prostatectomy. We present the long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial of radiotherapy to reduce the risk of subsequent metastatic disease and death. A total of 431 men with pT3N0M0 prostate cancer were randomized to 60 to 64 Gy adjuvant radiotherapy or observation. The primary study end point was metastasis-free survival. Of 425 eligible men 211 were randomized to observation and 214 to adjuvant radiation. Of those men under observation 70 ultimately received radiotherapy. Metastasis-free survival was significantly greater with radiotherapy (93 of 214 events on the radiotherapy arm vs 114 of 211 events on observation; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54, 0.94; p = 0.016). Survival improved significantly with adjuvant radiation (88 deaths of 214 on the radiotherapy arm vs 110 deaths of 211 on observation; HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55, 0.96; p = 0.023). Adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for a man with pT3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces the risk of metastasis and increases survival.

Research from JAMA — Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Pathologically Advanced Prostate Cancer — A Randomized Clinical Trial — ContextDespite a stage-shift to earlier cancer stages and lower tumor volumes for prostate cancer, pathologically advanced disease is detected at radical prostatectomy in 38% to 52% of patients. However, the optimal management of these patients after radical prostatectomy is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether adjuvant radiotherapy improves metastasis-free survival in patients with stage pT3 N0 M0 prostate cancer.Design, Setting, and PatientsRandomized, prospective, multi-institutional, US clinical trial with enrollment between August 15, 1988, and January 1, 1997 (with database frozen for statistical analysis on September 21, 2005). Patients were 425 men with pathologically advanced prostate cancer who had undergone radical prostatectomy.InterventionMen were randomly assigned to receive 60 to 64 Gy of external beam radiotherapy delivered to the prostatic fossa (n = 214) or usual care plus observation (n = 211).Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcome was metastasis-free survival, defined as time to first occurrence of metastatic disease or death due to any cause. Secondary outcomes included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, freedom from hormonal therapy, and postoperative complications.ResultsAmong the 425 men, median follow-up was 10.6 years (interquartile range, 9.2-12.7 years). For metastasis-free survival, 76 (35.5%) of 214 men in the adjuvant radiotherapy group were diagnosed with metastatic disease or died (median metastasis-free estimate, 14.7 years), compared with 91 (43.1%) of 211 (median metastasis-free estimate, 13.2 years) of those in the observation group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55-1.02; P = .06). There were no significant between-group differences for overall survival (71 deaths, median survival of 14.7 years for radiotherapy vs 83 deaths, median survival of 13.8 years for observation; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.09; P = .16). PSA relapse (median PSA relapse–free survival, 10.3 years for radiotherapy vs 3.1 years for observation; HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.58; P<.001) and disease recurrence (median recurrence-free survival, 13.8 years for radiotherapy vs 9.9 years for observation; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .001) were both significantly reduced with radiotherapy. Adverse effects were more common with radiotherapy vs observation (23.8% vs 11.9%), including rectal complications (3.3% vs 0%), urethral strictures (17.8% vs 9.5%), and total urinary incontinence (6.5% vs 2.8%).ConclusionsIn men who had undergone radical prostatectomy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer, adjuvant radiotherapy resulted in significantly reduced risk of PSA relapse and disease recurrence, although the improvements in metastasis-free survival and overall survival were not statistically significant.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00394511

Optimum management of clinically localised prostate cancer presents unique challenges because of the highly variable and often indolent natural history of the disease. To predict disease aggressiveness, clinicians combine clinical variables to create prognostic models, but the models have limited accuracy. We assessed the prognostic value of a predefined cell cycle progression (CCP) score in two cohorts of patients with prostate cancer. We measured the expression of 31 genes involved in CCP with quantitative RT-PCR on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples, and created a predefined score and assessed its usefulness in the prediction of disease outcome. The signature was assessed retrospectively in a cohort of patients from the USA who had undergone radical prostatectomy, and in a cohort of randomly selected men with clinically localised prostate cancer diagnosed by use of a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the UK who were managed conservatively. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical recurrence for the cohort of patients who had radical prostatectomy, and time to death from prostate cancer for the TURP cohort. After prostatectomy, the CCP score was useful for predicting biochemical recurrence in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio for a 1-unit change [doubling] in CCP 1·89; 95% CI 1·54-2·31; p=5·6×10(-9)) and the best multivariate analysis (1·77, 1·40-2·22; p=4·3×10(-6)). In the best predictive model (final multivariate analysis), the CCP score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration were the most important variables and were more significant than any other clinical variable. In the TURP cohort, the CCP score was the most important variable for prediction of time to death from prostate cancer in both univariate analysis (2·92, 2·38-3·57, p=6·1×10(-22)) and the final multivariate analysis (2·57, 1·93-3·43; p=8·2×10(-11)), and was stronger than all other prognostic factors, although PSA concentration also added useful information. Heterogeneity in the hazard ratio for the CCP score was not noted in any case for any clinical variables. The results of this study provide strong evidence that the CCP score is a robust prognostic marker, which, after additional validation, could have an essential role in determining the appropriate treatment for patients with prostate cancer. Cancer Research UK, Queen Mary University of London, Orchid Appeal, US National Institutes of Health, and Koch Foundation.

Purpose: Conventional radiotherapy (C-RT) treatment schedules for patients with prostate cancer typically require 40 to 45 treatments that take place from > 8 to 9 weeks. Preclinical and clinical research suggest that hypofractionation—fewer treatments but at a higher dose per treatment—may produce similar outcomes. This trial was designed to assess whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated radiotherapy (H-RT) treatment schedule is no worse than a C-RT schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: A total of 1,115 men with low-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to C-RT (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to H-RT (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). This trial was designed to establish (with 90% power and an α of .05) that treatment with H-RT results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not worse than C-RT by more than 7.65% (H-RT/C-RT hazard ratio [HR] < 1.52). Results: A total of 1,092 men were protocol eligible and had follow-up information; 542 patients were assigned to C-RT and 550 to H-RT. Median follow-up was 5.8 years. Baseline characteristics were not different according to treatment assignment. The estimated 5-year DFS was 85.3% (95% CI, 81.9 to 88.1) in the C-RT arm and 86.3% (95% CI, 83.1 to 89.0) in the H-RT arm. The DFS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14), and the predefined noninferiority criterion that required that DFS outcomes be consistent with HR < 1.52 was met (P < .001). Late grade 2 and 3 GI and genitourinary adverse events were increased (HR, 1.31 to 1.59) in patients who were treated with H-RT. Conclusion: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, the efficacy of 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is not inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks, although an increase in late GI/genitourinary adverse events was observed in patients treated with H-RT.

Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65-69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633. Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4-8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70-78 vs 66%, 60-70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61-0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups). The benefits of combined modality treatment--ADT and RT--should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.

Purpose: We aimed to validate a previously described genetic risk score, denoted the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, in predicting contemporary radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes. Methods: RNA was quantified from paraffin-embedded RP specimens. The CCP score was calculated as average expression of 31 CCP genes, normalized to 15 housekeeper genes. Recurrence was defined as two prostate-specific antigen levels ≥ 0.2 ng/mL or any salvage treatment. Associations between CCP score and recurrence were examined, with adjustment for clinical and pathologic variables using Cox proportional hazards regression and partial likelihood ratio tests. The CCP score was assessed for independent prognostic utility beyond a standard postoperative risk assessment (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post-Surgical [CAPRA-S] score), and a score combining CAPRA-S and CCP was validated. Results: Eighty-two (19.9%) of 413 men experienced recurrence. The hazard ratio (HR) for each unit increase in CCP score (range, −1.62 to 2.16) was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.9); with adjustment for CAPRA-S, the HR was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.4). The score was able to substratify patients with low clinical risk as defined by CAPRA-S ≤ 2 (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.7). Combining the CCP and CAPRA-S improved the concordance index for both the overall cohort and low-risk subset; the combined CAPRA-S + CCP score consistently predicted outcomes across the range of clinical risk. This combined score outperformed both individual scores on decision curve analysis. Conclusion: The CCP score was validated to have significant prognostic accuracy after controlling for all available clinical and pathologic data. The score may improve accuracy of risk stratification for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, including those with low-risk disease.