Definition of lymph node areas for radiotherapy of prostate cancer: A critical literature review by the French Genito-Urinary Group and the French Association of Urology (GETUG-AFU)

International audiencePurpose Recommendations for pelvic lymph node (LN) contouring rely on relatively dated studies that defined the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) of interest proposed for radiotherapy. The aim of this article was to review these recommendations with a critical analysis of published data on prostate cancer drainage. Methods We performed a review of data on LN drainage in prostate cancer, based on anatomy texts and studies on lymphography, pelvic LN dissections, sentinel LN techniques, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and functional imaging. We also present the GETUG experts’ opinion, based on a survey on nodal CTV definition. Results For lymphatic drainage of prostate cancers, pelvic LN areas classically considered are: distal common iliac, external iliac, internal iliac and obturator regions. Recently published data allow a mapping of sites at risk of pathological LN invasion. In 10–70% of cases, these sites are not included in the pelvic LN CTVs defined in consensuses. In accordance with other cooperative groups, the GETUG experts’ survey showed that proximal common iliac, para-aortic, para-rectal and pre-sacral regions could include sites at risk of invasion in extended LN CTV, but were not considered in CTV contouring common practice. New recommendations are needed for nodal CTV in radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Conclusions The assessment of the efficacy and safety of LN radiotherapy is still the subject of several randomised studies. Whether or not meaningful results are obtained depends directly on the quality and homogeneity of the data analysed. A new consensus for delineation of LN regions appears necessar

Impact of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Cumulative Toxicity on Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Naive Prostate Cancer

International audienceBackground: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (beta) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.3 to -1.1; P<.01) and severity score (B, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7; P<.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly (P<.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient-and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred

Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) Plus Docetaxel Versus ADT Alone in Metastatic Non castrate Prostate Cancer: Impact of Metastatic Burden and Long-term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 Trial

International audienceBackground: The role of chemotherapy in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer (mNCPC) is debated. Survival benefits of docetaxel (D) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were shown in the CHAARTED trial in patients with metastatic highvolume disease (HVD). Objective: To assess the impact of metastatic burden and to update overall survival (OS) data of the GETUG-AFU15 study. Design, setting, and participants: Randomized phase 3 trial of ADT plus D versus ADT alone in 385 mNCPC patients; median follow-up of 7 yr. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Retrospective analysis was by tumor volume. Results and limitations: After a median follow-up of 83.9 mo, median OS in the overall population was 62.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.5-73.7) and 48.6 mo (95% CI, 40.9-60.6) for ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]; p = 0.3). Median OS in ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively, was for HV

Burden of Metastatic Castrate Naive Prostate Cancer Patients, to Identify Men More Likely to Benefit from Early Docetaxel: Further Analyses of CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 Studies

International audienceBACKGROUND:Docetaxel (D) at the time of starting androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic castrate naive prostate cancer shows a clear survival benefit for patients with high-volume (HV) disease. It is unclear whether patients with low-volume (LV) disease benefit from early D.OBJECTIVE:To define the overall survival (OS) of aggregate data of patient subgroups from the CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 studies, defined by metastatic burden (HV and LV) and time of metastasis occurrence (at diagnosis or after prior local treatment [PRLT]).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Data were accessed from two independent phase III trials of ADT alone or ADT+D-GETUG-AFU15 (N=385) and CHAARTED (N=790), with median follow-ups for survivors of 83.2 and 48.2 mo, respectively. The definition of HV and LV disease was harmonized.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:The primary end point was OS.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:Meta-analysis results of the aggregate data showed significant heterogeneity in ADT+D versus ADT effect sizes between HV and LV subgroups (p=0.017), and failed to detect heterogeneity in ADT+D versus ADT effect sizes between upfront and PRLT subgroups (p=0.4). Adding D in patients with HV disease has a consistent effect in improving median OS (HV-ADT: 34.4 and 35.1 mo, HV-ADT+D: 51.2 and 39.8 mo in CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15, respectively; pooled average hazard ratio or HR (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.68 ([95% CI 0.56; 0.82], p<0.001). Patients with LV disease showed much longer OS, without evidence that D improved OS (LV-ADT: not reached [NR] and 83.4; LV-ADT+D: 63.5 and NR in CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15, respectively; pooled HR (95% CI) 1.03 (95% CI 0.77; 1.38). Aggregate data showed no evidence of heterogeneity of early D in LV and HV subgroups irrespective of whether patients had PRLT or not. Post hoc subgroup analysis was based on aggregated data from two independent phase III randomized trials.CONCLUSIONS:There was no apparent survival benefit in the CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 studies with D for LV. Across both studies, early D showed consistent effect and improved OS in HV patients.PATIENT SUMMARY:Patients with a higher burden of metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have a poorer prognosis and are more likely to benefit from early docetaxel. Low-volume patients have longer overall survival with ADT alone, and the toxicity of docetaxel may outweigh its benefits

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial

International audiencePURPOSE:The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial.METHODS AND MATERIALS:Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS).RESULTS:A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity.CONCLUSIONS:This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients