Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047)

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 629 KB, PDF-dokument

  • C. C. Parker
  • P. M. Petersen
  • A. D. Cook
  • N. W. Clarke
  • C. Catton
  • W. R. Cross
  • H. Kynaston
  • W. R. Parulekar
  • R. A. Persad
  • F. Saad
  • L. Bower
  • G. C. Durkan
  • J. Logue
  • C. Maniatis
  • D. Noor
  • H. Payne
  • J. Anderson
  • A. K. Bahl
  • F. Bashir
  • D. M. Bottomley
  • K. Brasso
  • L. Capaldi
  • C. Chung
  • P. W. Cooke
  • J. F. Donohue
  • B. Eddy
  • C. M. Heath
  • A. Henderson
  • A. Henry
  • R. Jaganathan
  • H. Jakobsen
  • N. D. James
  • J. Joseph
  • K. Lees
  • J. Lester
  • H. Lindberg
  • A. Makar
  • S. L. Morris
  • N. Oommen
  • P. Ostler
  • L. Owen
  • P. Patel
  • A. Pope
  • R. Popert
  • R. Raman
  • V. Ramani
  • Røder, Andreas
  • I. Sayers
  • M. Simms
  • V. Srinivasan
  • S. Sundaram
  • K. L. Tarver
  • A. Tran
  • P. Wells
  • J. Wilson
  • A. M. Zarkar
  • M. K. B. Parmar
  • M. R. Sydes
  • RADICALS investigators
Background
The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure.

Patients and methods
RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT (‘Adjuvant-RT’) or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure (‘Salvage-RT’) defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT.

Results
Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017).

Conclusion
Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAnnals of Oncology
Vol/bind35
Udgave nummer7
Sider (fra-til)656-666
ISSN0923-7534
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2024

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
Grant funding in the UK was provided by the Clinical Trials Advisory Award Committee on behalf of Cancer Research UK (UK/C7829/A6381). Funding in Canada is provided by the Canadian Cancer Society (704970). The trial was further support at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL by a core grant from the Medical Research Council, now part of the UK Research and Innovation (MC_UU_12023/28). UK sites were supported by the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network. The research funders played no direct role in the trial.

Funding Information:
Grant funding in the UK was provided by the Clinical Trials Advisory Award Committee on behalf of Cancer Research UK (UK/C7829/A6381). Funding in Canada was provided by the Canadian Cancer Society (704970). The trial was further supported at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL by a core grant from the MRC, now part of the UK Research and Innovation (MC_UU_12023/28). UK sites were part of the Health Research Clinical Research Network. This paper represents independent research partfunded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS or the NIHR.

Funding Information:
This work was supported by: Cancer Research UK (UK/C7829/A6381); Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/28; MC_UU_00004/02); Canadian Cancer Society (704970)

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s)

ID: 395134938