Our radiation oncologists will find this article particularly interesting – more radiation is NOT better.
To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death.
Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006).
Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
We know that combination PARP and antiandrogen is better than antiandrogen alone. I have wondered if we need antiancrogen on those patients. This shows that, YES, we do. The combination also was better than PARP inhibitor monotherapy in those patients carrying HRRm.
It might be costly to get the PET scans but helps with prognosis and directing patients to palliative care since positive lesions in all predicts shorter overall survival.
The role for immunotherapy in combination with multitargeted therapy in prostate cancer, for patients who had previous docetaxol, or had visceral disease (liver) showed more benefit from the combination vs. second novel hormonal therapy. Recall that patients who had exposure to docetaxol can be treated with pluvicto. Genomic and genetic testing is encouraged for those patients as PARP targeted mutations can be found (homologous recombination-repair mutations).
SBRT improves PFS in addition to antiandrogen therapy. The question is, with oligomets, do we need systemic therapy in all patients? Or will SBRT be sufficient?
I encourage our FCS radiation oncologists to provide their input on this study, as well.
Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve radiographic progression-free survival or overall survival versus new generation hormonal agent and was more toxic.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
