Search

Purpose: There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa., Methods: MEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: The median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% v 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], P = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], P = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], P = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], P = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% v 3%, P = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups., Conclusion: The sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.

Purpose: In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT., Materials and Methods: A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve., Results: Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Purpose: Comparative efficacy research performed using population registries can be subject to significant bias. There is an absence of objective data demonstrating factors that can sufficiently reduce bias and provide accurate results., Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 2000 to October 2016 for observational studies comparing two treatment regimens for any diagnosis of cancer, using SEER, SEER-Medicare, or the National Cancer Database. Reporting quality and statistical methods were assessed using components of the STROBE criteria. Randomized trials comparing the same treatment regimens were identified. Primary outcome was correlation between survival hazard ratio (HR) estimates provided by the observational studies and randomized trials. Secondary outcomes included agreement between matched pairs and predictors of agreement., Results: Of 3,657 studies reviewed, 350 treatment comparisons met eligibility criteria and were matched to 121 randomized trials. There was no significant correlation between the HR estimates reported by observational studies and randomized trials (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.083; 95% CI, -0.068 to 0.230). Forty percent of matched studies were in agreement regarding treatment effects (κ, 0.037; 95% CI, -0.027 to 0.1), and 62% of the observational study HRs fell within the 95% CIs of the randomized trials. Cancer type, data source, reporting quality, adjustment for age, stage, or comorbidities, use of propensity weighting, instrumental variable or sensitivity analysis, and well-matched study population did not predict agreement., Conclusion: We were unable to identify any modifiable factor present in population-based observational studies that improved agreement with randomized trials. There was no agreement beyond what is expected by chance, regardless of reporting quality or statistical rigor of the observational study. Future work is needed to identify reliable methods for conducting population-based comparative efficacy research.