Search

Background: Enzalutamide is an antiandrogen used to treat both metastatic and nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Here we present results from a phase 2 trial designed to determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of adding enzalutamide to standard androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy in high-risk localized or regional, nonmetastatic patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Enrollment criteria included at least 2 of the following: stage cT3a/b, prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥20 ng/mL, Gleason grade 8 to 10, ≥33% core involvement on biopsy, or pelvic lymph node involvement on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. All patients received 24 months of leuprolide and enzalutamide, and 5 weeks of intensity modulated radiation therapy followed by a brachytherapy boost. Adverse events (AE), PSA, testosterone, and basic laboratory tests were then followed for up to 36 months. Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability and PSA complete response rate (PSA-CR, defined as PSA ≤0.3). Secondary outcomes included time to biochemical recurrence (BCR; nadir + 2 ng/mL). Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled; 2 were ineligible and 3 withdrew before starting treatment. Median age at enrollment was 69.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 11.5). Median treatment duration was 24.0 months (IQR 11.9). Median follow-up time was 35.5 months (IQR 11.2), and 9 of 11 (81.8%) patients completed the 36 months of follow-up. One of 11 (9%) patients had grade 4 AE (seizure), and no grade 5 AE were reported. Four of 11 (36.4%) patients had grade 3 AE, such as erectile dysfunction and hot flashes. All patients achieved PSA-CR, and median time to PSA-CR was 4.2 months (IQR 1.4). At 24 months follow-up, 0 of 11 (0%) patients had a biochemical recurrence. At 36 months, 1 of 9 (11.1%) patient had a biochemical recurrence. Of note, this patient did not complete the full 24 months of enzalutamide and leuprolide due to AEs. Conclusions: Enzalutamide in combination with standard androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy was well-tolerated and effective warranting further study in a randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.