Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy? [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

In men undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer, erectile function is one of the most important health-related quality-of-life outcomes influencing patient choice in treatment. Penile rehabilitation has emerged as a therapeutic measure to prevent erectile dysfunction and expedite return of erectile function after radical prostatectomy. Penile rehabilitation involves a program designed to increase the likelihood of return to baseline-level erectile function, as opposed to treatment, which implies the therapeutic treatment of symptoms, a key component of post–radical prostatectomy management. Several pathological theories form the basis for rehabilitation, and a plethora of treatments are currently in widespread use. However, whilst there is some evidence supporting the concept of penile rehabilitation from animal studies, randomised controlled trials are contradictory in outcomes. Similarly, urological guidelines are conflicted in terms of recommendations. Furthermore, it is clear that in spite of the lack of evidence for the role of penile rehabilitation, many urologists continue to employ some form of rehabilitation in their patients after radical prostatectomy. This is a significant burden to health resources in public-funded health economies, and no effective cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken to support this practice. Thus, further research is warranted to provide both scientific and clinical evidence for this contemporary practice and the development of preventative strategies in treating erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy

Premature ejaculation: challenging new and the old concepts [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Premature ejaculation remains a difficult condition to manage for patients, their partners, and the clinician. Whilst prevalence rates are estimated to be 20–40%, determining a diagnosis of premature ejaculation is difficult, as the definition remains both subjective and ill-defined in the clinical context. As our understanding of the ejaculatory pathway has improved, new opportunities to treat the condition have evolved with mixed results. In this review, we explore some of these controversies surrounding the aetiology, diagnosis, and treatment of this condition and discuss potential novel therapeutic options

Management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: An eUROGEN accelerated Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES To develop an international consensus on managing penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 acute waves. A major concern for patients with penile cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is how the enforced safety measures will affect their disease management. Delays in diagnosis and treatment initiation may have an impact on the extent of the primary lesion as well as the cancer-specific survival because of the development and progression of inguinal lymph node metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS A review of the COVID-19 literature was conducted in conjunction with analysis of current international guidelines on the management of penile cancer. Results were presented to an international panel of experts on penile cancer and infection control by a virtual accelerated Delphi process using 4 survey rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as an agreement of ≥80%, which was used to reconfigure management pathways for penile cancer. RESULTS Limited evidence is available for delaying penile cancer management. The consensus rate of agreement was 100% that penile cancer pathways should be reconfigured, and measures should be developed to prevent perioperative nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. The panel also reached a consensus on several statements aimed at reconfiguring the management of penile cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS The international consensus panel proposed a framework for the diagnostic and invasive therapeutic procedures for penile cancer within a low-risk environment for COVID-19