While several clinical trials have established that adjuvant
radiation reduces the risk of biochemical recurrence, but only one looked at and
demonstrated an improvement in metastasis-free survival and prostate
cancer-specific survival. That one (see this link), only compared adjuvant radiation to “wait-and-see,” and a
third of the men with a biochemical recurrence were never given salvage
radiation. Some retrospective studies (see this link and this link) suggested that salvage radiation could improve
metastasis-free and prostate cancer-specific survival, particularly if begun
within 2 years of biochemical recurrence and when PSA doubling time (PSADT) is
long.
Stish et al. examined the records of 1,106 patients who
received salvage radiation therapy (SRT) at the Mayo Clinics between 1987 and
2013. They wanted to determine whether, with a large enough sample size and
long enough follow-up, they could show patient characteristics and treatment
variables that are associated with salvage radiation saving lives and increasing
metastasis-free survival. With a median of 9 years of follow-up, they found
that:
- · 64 percent had a second biochemical recurrence within 10 years after SRT
o Biochemical
recurrence was higher among men with higher stage, positive lymph nodes, higher
Gleason scores, and shorter PSADTs prior to SRT.
o Biochemical
recurrence was lower among men with longer time to reach detectable PSA, those
who had adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for more than a year, those
who had an SRT dose ≥ 68 Gy, and those who received SRT since 2008.
- · 20 percent had distant metastases within 10 years after SRT
o Incidence
of distant metastases was higher among men with higher stage, positive lymph
nodes, higher Gleason scores, and shorter PSADT prior to SRT.
- · 10 percent died of prostate cancer within 10 years after SRT
o Prostate
cancer mortality was higher among men with higher stage, higher Gleason scores,
and shorter PSADT prior to SRT.
- · 23 percent died of all causes within 10 years after SRT
o All-cause
mortality was higher among men who were older, and those with higher stage, higher
Gleason scores, and shorter PSADT prior to SRT.
As we’ve seen in so many radiation studies, adequate
radiation dose (of about 70 Gy) and long-term ADT (see this link) are
important for success of SRT. Outcomes are better when patients are treated
when the disease has had less time to progress.
Now that use of SRT is declining, it is particularly
important to show which patient and treatment variables may aid SRT in saving
lives. Although current AUA/ASTRO guidelines advocate adjuvant and salvage RT,
we have seen (see this link) that
utilization is declining among men with adverse pathology after prostatectomy.
The authors performed a secondary analysis to determine
whether it is safe to wait for a higher PSA prior to SRT. It is not. They
arbitrarily used a cut-off of 0.5 ng/ml. Post-SRT biochemical recurrence,
distant metastases, and prostate cancer
mortality were all worse among those who did not receive SRT until PSA was over
0.5 ng/ml.
It’s important not to misinterpret this to mean that a
patient can wait for his PSA to rise to 0.5 ng/ml before opting for SRT. This
cut-off was chosen quite arbitrarily. Many patients were not diagnosed with a
recurrence at lower PSA levels (this analysis includes patients treated as
early as 1987), and ultrasensitive PSA did not become widely available until
the 21st century. The authors clearly state,
This observation suggests that SRT at the
lowest PSA level is most beneficial for long-term therapeutic efficacy.
Dr. Stish emphasized
this point in a note to me:
We chose a PSA
cutoff of 0.5 ng/ml to allow comparison with other previously reported studies
that have cited this arbitrary point of dichotomy. As you read the paper, you
will note that our data suggest salvage radiotherapy is most efficacious when
the PSA is lowest, and in general we advocate for SRT to be considered at the
earliest detectable values following prostatectomy.
As we have seen in several analyses, early SRT should be considered when the ultrasensitive PSA reaches 0.03 ng/ml (see this link). But
“considered” doesn’t mean “chosen.” What is of critical importance is that the
patient begin meeting with a radiation
oncologist to discuss the many considerations, including positive surgical
margins -- their size and Gleason score, stage T3/4, lymph node status, PSA
stability, Decipher scores, and possible advanced PET studies to detect distant
metastases. If they mutually determine that SRT is appropriate, discussions
should include such variables as dose, hypofractionation (if any), pelvic lymph
node treatment (if any), and adjuvant ADT type and duration.
No comments:
Post a Comment