Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 900–909 | Cite as

Outcomes and prognostic factors in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: multi-institutional analysis of the Spanish RECAP database

  • A. HervásEmail author
  • J. Pastor
  • C. González
  • J. Jové
  • A. Gómez
  • M. Casaña
  • E. Villafranca
  • J. L. Mengual
  • V. Muñoz
  • I. Henriquez
  • J. Muñoz
  • E. Collado
  • J. Clemente
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively assess outcomes and to identify prognostic factors in patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) treated with primary external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from the multi-institutional Spanish RECAP database, a population-based prostate cancer registry in Spain. All IR patients (NCCN criteria) who underwent primary EBRT were included. The following variables were assessed: age; prostate-specific antigen (PSA); Gleason score; clinical T stage; percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC); androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); and radiotherapy dose. The patients were stratified into one of three risk subcategories: (1) favourable IR (FIR; GS 6, ≤ T2b or GS 3 + 4, ≤ T1c), (2) marginal IR (MIR; GS 3 + 4, T2a–b), and (3) unfavourable IR (UIR; GS 4 + 3 or T2c). Biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

Results

A total of 1754 patients from the RECAP database were included and stratified by risk group: FIR, n = 781 (44.5%); MIR, n = 252 (14.4%); and UIR, n = 721 (41.1%). Mean age was 71 years (range 47–86). Mean PSA was 10.4 ng/ml (range 6–20). The median radiotherapy dose was 74 Gy, with mean doses of 72.5 Gy (FIR), 73.4 Gy (MIR), and 72.8 Gy (UIR). Most patients (88%) received ADT for a median of 7.1 months. By risk group (FIR, MIR, UIR), ADT rates were, respectively, 88.9, 86.5, and 86.9%. Only patients with ≥ 24 months of follow-up post-EBRT were included in the survival analysis (n = 1294). At a median follow-up of 52 months (range 24–173), respective 5- and 10-year outcomes were: OS 93.6% and 79%; BRFS 88.9% and 71.4%; DFS 96.1% and 89%; CSS 98.9% and 94.6%. Complication rates (≥ grade 3) were: acute genitourinary (GU) 2%; late GU 1%; acute gastrointestinal (GI) 2%; late GI 1%. There was no significant association between risk group and BRFS or OS. However, patients with favourable-risk disease had significantly better 5- and 10-year DFS than patients with UIR: 98.7% vs. 92.4% and 92% vs. 85.8% (p = 0.0005). CSS was significantly higher (p = 0.0057) in the FIR group at 5 (99.7% vs. 97.3%) and 10 years (96.1% vs. 93.4%). On the multivariate analyses, the following were significant predictors of survival: ADT (BRFS and DFS); dose ≥ 74 Gy (BRFS); age (OS).

Conclusions

This is the first nationwide study in Spain to report long-term outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk PCa treated with EBRT. Survival outcomes were good, with a low incidence of both acute and late toxicity. Patients with unfavourable risk characteristics had significantly lower 5- and 10-year disease-free survival rates. ADT and radiotherapy dose ≥ 74 Gy were both significant predictors of treatment outcomes.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Intermediate risk Radiotherapy Androgen-deprivation therapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors state that they have no relationships, conditions or circumstances that present potential conflicts of interest with this study.

Ethical approval

The retrospective review of medical records was approved by the local ethics committees.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all live individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Cohen M, D’Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2014;12:686–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Amico AV. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I, Zhang Z, Yamada Y, Kollmeier M, et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:895–902.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castle KO, Hoffman KE, Levy LB, Lee AK, Choi S, Nguyen QN, et al. Is androgen deprivation therapy necessary in all intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated in the dose escalation era? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:693–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.06.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung J-W, Lee JK, Hong SK, Byun S-S, Lee SE. Stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115:907–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keane FK, Chen M-H, Zhang D, Loffredo MJ, Kantoff PW, Renshaw AA, et al. The likelihood of death from prostate cancer in men with favorable or unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Cancer. 2014;120:1787–93.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NCCN (2018) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer, v. 4. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#prostate.
  9. 9.
    Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boladeras A, Martinez E, Ferrer F, Gutierrez C, Villa S, Pera J, et al. Localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy: long-term outcomes at a European comprehensive cancer centre. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21:181–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, Cowan RA, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD, Shipley WU, Efstathiou JA, Coen JJ, et al. Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from proton radiation oncology group/american college of radiology 95-09. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1106–11.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8475.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raldow AC, Zhang D, Chen M-H, Braccioforte MH, Moran BJ, D’amico AV. Risk Group and death from prostate cancer implications for active surveillance in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. http://www.prostatecancerreports.org/fulltext/2015/Raldow_AC150600.pdf (2017)
  14. 14.
    Bracci S, Osti MF, Agolli L, Bertaccini L, De Sanctis V, Valeriani M. Different outcomes among favourable and unfavourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:78.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zumsteg ZS, Chen Z, Howard LE, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Cooperberg MR, et al. Number of unfavorable intermediate-risk factors predicts pathologic upstaging and prostate cancer-specific mortality following radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. Prostate. 2017;77:154–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zumsteg ZS, Zelefsky MJ. Short-term androgen deprivation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing dose-escalated radiotherapy: the standard of care? Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serrano NA, Fastro MSAF, Anscher MS. Favorable vs unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a review of the new classification system and its impact on treatment recommendations. Oncology. 2016;30:1–11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zumsteg ZS, Zelefsky MJ, Woo KM, Spratt DE, Kollmeier MA, McBride S, et al. Unification of favourable intermediate-, unfavourable intermediate-, and very high-risk stratification criteria for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:E87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zapatero A, Guerrero A, Maldonado X, Alvarez A, Gonzalez San Segundo C, Cabeza Rodríguez MA, et al. High-dose radiotherapy with short-term or long-term androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer (DART01/05 GICOR): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. Oncol. 2015;16:320–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10 year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zelefsky MJ, Pei X, Chou JF, Schechter M, Kollmeier M, Cox B, et al. Dose escalation for prostate cancer radiotherapy: predictors of long-term biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hjälm-Eriksson M, Ullén A, Johansson H, Levitt S, Nilsson S, Kälkner K-M. Comorbidity as a predictor of overall survival in prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy combined with HDR brachytherapy boosts. Acta Oncol. 2017;56:21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jeldres C, Suardi N, Perrotte P, Capitanio U, Walz J, Hutterer GC, et al. Survival after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3:13–21.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Hervás
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Pastor
    • 2
  • C. González
    • 3
  • J. Jové
    • 4
  • A. Gómez
    • 5
  • M. Casaña
    • 6
  • E. Villafranca
    • 7
  • J. L. Mengual
    • 6
  • V. Muñoz
    • 8
  • I. Henriquez
    • 9
  • J. Muñoz
    • 10
  • E. Collado
    • 11
  • J. Clemente
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital General de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Gregorio MarañónMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Germans Trias i PujolBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Clínico UniversitarioSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  6. 6.Department of Radiation OncologyInstituto Valenciano de OncologiaValenciaSpain
  7. 7.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Clínico UniversitarioPamplonaSpain
  8. 8.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital do MixoeiroVigoSpain
  9. 9.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Universitario Sant JoanReusSpain
  10. 10.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Infanta CristinaBadajozSpain
  11. 11.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital Uiversitario La FeValenciaSpain
  12. 12.Department of Radiation OncologyInstituto Valenciano de OncologiaAlcoySpain

Personalised recommendations