895 resultados para prostate cancer treatment
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION There is a need to assess risk of second primary cancers in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, especially since PCa treatment may be associated with increased risk of second primary tumours. METHODS We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for second primary tumours comparing men diagnosed with PCa between 1980 and 2010 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (n = 20,559), and the general male population in the Canton. RESULTS A total of 1,718 men developed a second primary tumour after PCa diagnosis, with lung and colon cancer being the most common (15 and 13% respectively). The SIR for overall second primary cancer was 1.11 (95%CI: 1.06-1.17). Site-specific SIRs varied from 1.19 (1.05-1.34) to 2.89 (2.62-4.77) for lung and thyroid cancer, respectively. When stratified by treatment, the highest SIR was observed for thyroid cancer (3.57 (1.30-7.76)) when undergoing surgery, whereas liver cancer was common when treated with radiotherapy (3.21 (1.54-5.90)) and kidney bladder was most prevalent for those on hormonal treatment (3.15 (1.93-4.87)). Stratification by time since PCa diagnosis showed a lower risk of cancer for men with PCa compared to the general population for the first four years, but then a steep increase in risk was observed. CONCLUSION In the Canton of Zurich, there was an increased risk of second primary cancers among men with PCa compared to the general population. Increased diagnostic activity after PCa diagnosis may partly explain increased risks within the first years of diagnosis, but time-stratified analyses indicated that increased risks remained and even increased over time.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Clinical prognostic groupings for localised prostate cancers are imprecise, with 30-50% of patients recurring after image-guided radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. We aimed to test combined genomic and microenvironmental indices in prostate cancer to improve risk stratification and complement clinical prognostic factors. METHODS We used DNA-based indices alone or in combination with intra-prostatic hypoxia measurements to develop four prognostic indices in 126 low-risk to intermediate-risk patients (Toronto cohort) who will receive image-guided radiotherapy. We validated these indices in two independent cohorts of 154 (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center cohort [MSKCC] cohort) and 117 (Cambridge cohort) radical prostatectomy specimens from low-risk to high-risk patients. We applied unsupervised and supervised machine learning techniques to the copy-number profiles of 126 pre-image-guided radiotherapy diagnostic biopsies to develop prognostic signatures. Our primary endpoint was the development of a set of prognostic measures capable of stratifying patients for risk of biochemical relapse 5 years after primary treatment. FINDINGS Biochemical relapse was associated with indices of tumour hypoxia, genomic instability, and genomic subtypes based on multivariate analyses. We identified four genomic subtypes for prostate cancer, which had different 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival. Genomic instability is prognostic for relapse in both image-guided radiotherapy (multivariate analysis hazard ratio [HR] 4·5 [95% CI 2·1-9·8]; p=0·00013; area under the receiver operator curve [AUC] 0·70 [95% CI 0·65-0·76]) and radical prostatectomy (4·0 [1·6-9·7]; p=0·0024; AUC 0·57 [0·52-0·61]) patients with prostate cancer, and its effect is magnified by intratumoral hypoxia (3·8 [1·2-12]; p=0·019; AUC 0·67 [0·61-0·73]). A novel 100-loci DNA signature accurately classified treatment outcome in the MSKCC low-risk to intermediate-risk cohort (multivariate analysis HR 6·1 [95% CI 2·0-19]; p=0·0015; AUC 0·74 [95% CI 0·65-0·83]). In the independent MSKCC and Cambridge cohorts, this signature identified low-risk to high-risk patients who were most likely to fail treatment within 18 months (combined cohorts multivariate analysis HR 2·9 [95% CI 1·4-6·0]; p=0·0039; AUC 0·68 [95% CI 0·63-0·73]), and was better at predicting biochemical relapse than 23 previously published RNA signatures. INTERPRETATION This is the first study of cancer outcome to integrate DNA-based and microenvironment-based failure indices to predict patient outcome. Patients exhibiting these aggressive features after biopsy should be entered into treatment intensification trials. FUNDING Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Canada, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Canadian Institute for Health Research, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Cancer Charity, Prostate Cancer UK, Hutchison Whampoa Limited, Terry Fox Research Institute, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation, PMH-Radiation Medicine Program Academic Enrichment Fund, Motorcycle Ride for Dad (Durham), Canadian Cancer Society.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common disease among men worldwide. It is important to know survival outcomes and prognostic factors for this disease. Recruitment for the largest therapeutic randomised controlled trial in PCa-the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy: A Multi-Stage Multi-Arm Randomised Controlled Trial (STAMPEDE)-includes men with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa who are commencing long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); the control arm provides valuable data for a prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE Describe survival outcomes, along with current treatment standards and factors associated with prognosis, to inform future trial design in this patient group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS STAMPEDE trial control arm comprising men newly diagnosed with M1 disease who were recruited between October 2005 and January 2014. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) were reported by primary disease characteristics using Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from multivariate Cox models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A cohort of 917 men with newly diagnosed M1 disease was recruited to the control arm in the specified interval. Median follow-up was 20 mo. Median age at randomisation was 66 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71), and median prostate-specific antigen level was 112 ng/ml (IQR: 34-373). Most men (n=574; 62%) had bone-only metastases, whereas 237 (26%) had both bone and soft tissue metastases; soft tissue metastasis was found mainly in distant lymph nodes. There were 238 deaths, 202 (85%) from PCa. Median FFS was 11 mo; 2-yr FFS was 29% (95% CI, 25-33). Median OS was 42 mo; 2-yr OS was 72% (95% CI, 68-76). Survival time was influenced by performance status, age, Gleason score, and metastases distribution. Median survival after FFS event was 22 mo. Trial eligibility criteria meant men were younger and fitter than general PCa population. CONCLUSIONS Survival remains disappointing in men presenting with M1 disease who are started on only long-term ADT, despite active treatments being available at first failure of ADT. Importantly, men with M1 disease now spend the majority of their remaining life in a state of castration-resistant relapse. PATIENT SUMMARY Results from this control arm cohort found survival is relatively short and highly influenced by patient age, fitness, and where prostate cancer has spread in the body.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND The value of radical prostatectomy (RP) as an approach for very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients is controversial. To examine the risk of 10-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) according to clinical and pathological characteristics of very high-risk cT3b/4 PCa patients treated with RP as the primary treatment option. METHODS In a multi-institutional cohort, 266 patients with very high-risk cT3b/4 PCa treated with RP were identified. All patients underwent RP and pelvic lymph-node dissection. Competing-risk analyses assessed 10-year CSM and OCM before and after stratification for age and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). RESULTS Overall, 34 (13%) patients died from PCa and 73 (28%) from OCM. Ten-year CSM and OCM rates ranged from 5.6% to 12.9% and from 10% to 38%, respectively. OCM was the leading cause of death in all subgroups. Age and comorbidities were the main determinants of OCM. In healthy men, CSM rate did not differ among age groups (10-year CSM rate for ⩽64, 65-69 and ⩾70 years: 16.2%, 11.5% and 17.1%, respectively). Men with a CCI ⩾1 showed a very low risk of CSM irrespective of age (10-year CSM: 5.6-6.1%), whereas the 10-year OCM rates increased with age up to 38% in men ⩾70 years. CONCLUSION Very high-risk cT3b/4 PCa represents a heterogeneous group. We revealed overall low CSM rates despite the highly unfavorable clinical disease. For healthy men, CSM was independent of age, supporting RP even for older men. Conversely, less healthy patients had the highest risk of dying from OCM while sharing very low risk of CSM, indicating that this group might not benefit from an aggressive surgical treatment. Outcome after RP as the primary treatment option in cT3b/4 PCa patients is related to age and comorbidity status.
Resumo:
PURPOSE We prospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a prospective study of 111 consecutive men with prostate and/or bladder cancer who underwent 3 Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis without an endorectal coil before radical prostatectomy (78) or cystoprostatectomy (33). Three independent readers blinded to clinical and pathological data assigned a prostate cancer suspicion grade based on qualitative imaging analysis. Final pathology results of prostates with and without cancer served as the reference standard. Primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting significant prostate cancer with significance defined as a largest diameter of the index lesion of 1 cm or greater, extraprostatic extension, or Gleason score 7 or greater on final pathology assessment. Secondary outcomes were interreader agreement assessed by the Fleiss κ coefficient and image reading time. RESULTS Of the 111 patients 93 had prostate cancer, which was significant in 80 and insignificant in 13, and 18 had no prostate cancer on final pathology results. The sensitivity and specificity of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting significant PCa was 89% to 91% and 77% to 81%, respectively, for the 3 readers. Interreader agreement was good (Fleiss κ 0.65 to 0.74). Median reading time was between 13 and 18 minutes. CONCLUSIONS Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (3 Tesla) is a noninvasive technique that allows for the detection of significant prostate cancer with high probability without contrast medium or an endorectal coil, and with good interreader agreement and a short reading time. This technique should be further evaluated as a tool to stratify patients with prostate cancer for individualized treatment options.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Pretreatment tables for the prediction of pathologic stage have been published and validated for localized prostate cancer (PCa). No such tables are available for locally advanced (cT3a) PCa. OBJECTIVE To construct tables predicting pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with cT3a PCa with the aim to help guide treatment decisions in clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 759 consecutive patients with cT3a PCa treated with RP between 1987 and 2010. INTERVENTION Retropubic RP and pelvic lymphadenectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Patients were divided into pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) subgroups. These parameters were used to construct tables predicting pathologic outcome and the presence of positive lymph nodes (LNs) after RP for cT3a PCa using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In the model predicting pathologic outcome, the main effects of biopsy GS and pretreatment PSA were significant. A higher GS and/or higher PSA level was associated with a more unfavorable pathologic outcome. The validation procedure, using a repeated split-sample method, showed good predictive ability. Regression analysis also showed an increasing probability of positive LNs with increasing PSA levels and/or higher GS. Limitations of the study are the retrospective design and the long study period. CONCLUSIONS These novel tables predict pathologic stage after RP for patients with cT3a PCa based on pretreatment PSA level and biopsy GS. They can be used to guide decision making in men with locally advanced PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY Our study might provide physicians with a useful tool to predict pathologic stage in locally advanced prostate cancer that might help select patients who may need multimodal treatment.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer. METHODS Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study. RESULTS Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.
Resumo:
Prostate cancer (CaP) is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in males in the Western world with one in six males diagnosed in their lifetime. Current clinical prognostication groupings use pathologic Gleason score, pre-treatment prostatic-specific antigen and Union for International Cancer Control-TNM staging to place patients with localized CaP into low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories. These categories represent an increasing risk of biochemical failure and CaP-specific mortality rates, they also reflect the need for increasing treatment intensity and justification for increased side effects. In this article, we point out that 30-50% of patients will still fail image-guided radiotherapy or surgery despite the judicious use of clinical risk categories owing to interpatient heterogeneity in treatment response. To improve treatment individualization, better predictors of prognosis and radiotherapy treatment response are needed to triage patients to bespoke and intensified CaP treatment protocols. These should include the use of pre-treatment genomic tests based on DNA or RNA indices and/or assays that reflect cancer metabolism, such as hypoxia assays, to define patient-specific CaP progression and aggression. More importantly, it is argued that these novel prognostic assays could be even more useful if combined together to drive forward precision cancer medicine for localized CaP.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Detecting prostate cancer before spreading or predicting a favorable therapy are challenging issues for impacting patient's survival. Presently, 2-[(18) F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ((18) F-FDG) and/or (18) F-fluorocholine ((18) F-FCH) are the generally used PET-tracers in oncology yet do not emphasize the T877A androgen receptor (AR) mutation being exclusively present in cancerous tissue and escaping androgen deprivation treatment. METHODS We designed and synthesized fluorinated 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) derivatives to target T877A-AR. We performed binding assays to select suitable candidates using COS-7 cells transfected with wild-type or T877A AR (WT-AR, T877A-AR) expressing plasmids and investigated cellular uptake of candidate (18) F-RB390. Stability, biodistribution analyses and PET-Imaging were assessed by injecting (18) F-RB390 (10MBq), with and without co-injection of an excess of unlabeled DHT in C4-2 and PC-3 tumor bearing male SCID mice (n = 12). RESULTS RB390 presented a higher relative binding affinity (RBA) (28.1%, IC50 = 32 nM) for T877A-AR than for WT-AR (1.7%, IC50 = 357 nM) related to DHT (RBA = 100%). A small fraction of (18) F-RB390 was metabolized when incubated with murine liver homogenate or human blood for 3 hr. The metabolite of RB390, 3-hydroxysteroid RB448, presented similar binding characteristics as RB390. (18) F-RB390 but not (18) F-FDG or (18) F-FCH accumulated 2.5× more in COS-7 cells transfected with pSG5AR-T877A than with control plasmid. Accumulation was reduced with an excess of DHT. PET/CT imaging and biodistribution studies revealed a significantly higher uptake of (18) F-RB390 in T877A mutation positive xenografts compared to PC-3 control tumors. This effect was blunted with DHT. CONCLUSION Given the differential binding capacity and the favorable radioactivity pattern, (18) F-RB390 represents the portrayal of the first imaging ligand with predictive potential for mutant T877A-AR in prostate cancer for guiding therapy. Prostate 75:348-359, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Resumo:
UNLABELLED Ex vivo studies have shown that the gastrin releasing peptide receptor (GRPr) is overexpressed on almost all primary prostate cancers, making it a promising target for prostate cancer imaging and targeted radiotherapy. METHODS Biodistribution, dosimetry and tumor uptake of the GRPr antagonist ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 [(⁶⁴Cu-4,11-bis(carboxymethyl)-1,4,8,11-tetraazabicyclo(6.6.2)hexadecane)-PEG₄-D-Phe-Gln-Trp-Ala-Val-Gly-His-Sta-LeuNH₂] were studied by PET/CT in four patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (T1c-T2b, Gleason 6-7). RESULTS No adverse events were observed after injection of ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06. Three of four tumors were visualized with high contrast [tumor-to-prostate ratio > 4 at 4 hours (h) post injection (p.i.)], one small tumor (T1c, < 5% tumor on biopsy specimens) showed moderate contrast (tumor-to-prostate ratio at 4 h: 1.9). Radioactivity was cleared by the kidneys and only the pancreas demonstrated significant accumulation of radioactivity, which rapidly decreased over time. CONCLUSION ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 shows very favorable characteristics for imaging prostate cancer. Future studies evaluating ⁶⁴Cu-CB-TE2A-AR06 PET/CT for prostate cancer detection, staging, active surveillance, and radiation treatment planning are necessary.
Resumo:
PURPOSE Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed. We performed a randomized phase III trial assessing dose intensification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BF but without evidence of macroscopic disease were randomly assigned to either 64 or 70 Gy. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy/rotational techniques were used. The primary end point was freedom from BF. Secondary end points were acute toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and PR25. RESULTS Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2011 and April 2014. Three patients withdrew informed consent, and three patients were not eligible, resulting in 344 patients age 48 to 75 years in the safety population. Thirty patients (8.7%) had grade 2 and two patients (0.6%) had grade 3 genitourinary (GU) baseline symptoms. Acute grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity was observed in 22 patients (13.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy and in 29 patients (16.6%) and three patients (1.7%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .2). Baseline grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in one patient (0.6%). Acute grade 2 and 3 GI toxicity was observed in 27 patients (16.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy, and in 27 patients (15.4%) and four patients (2.3%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .8). Changes in early QoL were minor. Patients receiving 70 Gy reported a more pronounced and clinically relevant worsening in urinary symptoms (mean difference in change score between arms, 3.6; P = .02). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified SRT was associated with low rates of acute grade 2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity. The impact of dose-intensified SRT on QoL was minor, except for a significantly greater worsening in urinary symptoms.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.
Resumo:
Discriminating patients with a low risk of progression from those with lethal prostate cancer is one of the main challenges in prostate cancer management. Indeed, such discrimination is essential if we aim to avoid overtreatment in men with indolent disease and to improve survival in those men with lethal disease. We are reporting on the current literature on such prognostic tools that are now available, their clinical role and their limitations in individualizing care. There is an urgent need to incorporate such genomic tools into new platform-based clinical trial structures to further develop and validate prognostic and predictive biomarkers and provide prostate cancer patients with an effective and cost-efficient access to new drugs in the setting of personalized treatment.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed. RESULTS The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers. CONCLUSION Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines.
Resumo:
AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.