Prostate Cancer

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

            Kishan et al conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects of the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) on metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer in the following three settings: 1) RT alone versus RT plus adjuvant ADT, 2) extension of ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting before RT, and 3) extension of adjuvant ADT duration. MFS was increased in the adjuvant ADT setting, and prolongation of ADT duration was associated with a higher MFS than shorter duration. However, extension of neoadjuvant ADT was not associated with a higher MFS compared to a shorter duration. The meta-analysis further supports a longer versus shorter ADT duration, but it does not support a longer neoadjuvant ADT duration.

            To determine the effects of salvage RT on outcomes in the setting of biochemical relapse, Tilki et al conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a multi-institutional database of patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). MFS at 15 years post-RP was 84.3% in the RT group and 76.9% in the non-RT group, while overall survival (OS), also at 15 years post-RP, was 85.3% in the RT group versus 74.4% in the non-RT group (both analyses were statistically significant). While supportive of salvage RT, there was no data on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling times, nor was it possible to control for imaging modality. It is possible that newer prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography imaging may affect MFS in studies such as these.

            Prostatectomy (with or without lymph node dissection), external beam RT (EBRT) with  ADT, or EBRT with brachytherapy (BT) with or without ADT are options in unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The optimal use of BT in localized prostate cancer is somewhat uncertain, especially across the risk spectrum. Andruska et al conducted an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate whether EBRT plus BT with or without ADT results in an improvement in overall survival (OS) compared with BT with or without ADT. OS was higher for the EBRT plus BT groups; however, when the ADT + EBRT + BT group was compared with EBRT + BT without ADT group, the improvement in OS was not statistically significant. Overall, the analysis favored EBRT + BT over BT alone, further supporting current guidelines.

            Kishan et al conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects of the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) on metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer in the following three settings: 1) RT alone versus RT plus adjuvant ADT, 2) extension of ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting before RT, and 3) extension of adjuvant ADT duration. MFS was increased in the adjuvant ADT setting, and prolongation of ADT duration was associated with a higher MFS than shorter duration. However, extension of neoadjuvant ADT was not associated with a higher MFS compared to a shorter duration. The meta-analysis further supports a longer versus shorter ADT duration, but it does not support a longer neoadjuvant ADT duration.

            To determine the effects of salvage RT on outcomes in the setting of biochemical relapse, Tilki et al conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a multi-institutional database of patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). MFS at 15 years post-RP was 84.3% in the RT group and 76.9% in the non-RT group, while overall survival (OS), also at 15 years post-RP, was 85.3% in the RT group versus 74.4% in the non-RT group (both analyses were statistically significant). While supportive of salvage RT, there was no data on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling times, nor was it possible to control for imaging modality. It is possible that newer prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography imaging may affect MFS in studies such as these.

            Prostatectomy (with or without lymph node dissection), external beam RT (EBRT) with  ADT, or EBRT with brachytherapy (BT) with or without ADT are options in unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The optimal use of BT in localized prostate cancer is somewhat uncertain, especially across the risk spectrum. Andruska et al conducted an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate whether EBRT plus BT with or without ADT results in an improvement in overall survival (OS) compared with BT with or without ADT. OS was higher for the EBRT plus BT groups; however, when the ADT + EBRT + BT group was compared with EBRT + BT without ADT group, the improvement in OS was not statistically significant. Overall, the analysis favored EBRT + BT over BT alone, further supporting current guidelines.

            Kishan et al conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative effects of the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) on metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with localized prostate cancer in the following three settings: 1) RT alone versus RT plus adjuvant ADT, 2) extension of ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting before RT, and 3) extension of adjuvant ADT duration. MFS was increased in the adjuvant ADT setting, and prolongation of ADT duration was associated with a higher MFS than shorter duration. However, extension of neoadjuvant ADT was not associated with a higher MFS compared to a shorter duration. The meta-analysis further supports a longer versus shorter ADT duration, but it does not support a longer neoadjuvant ADT duration.

            To determine the effects of salvage RT on outcomes in the setting of biochemical relapse, Tilki et al conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a multi-institutional database of patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). MFS at 15 years post-RP was 84.3% in the RT group and 76.9% in the non-RT group, while overall survival (OS), also at 15 years post-RP, was 85.3% in the RT group versus 74.4% in the non-RT group (both analyses were statistically significant). While supportive of salvage RT, there was no data on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling times, nor was it possible to control for imaging modality. It is possible that newer prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography imaging may affect MFS in studies such as these.

            Prostatectomy (with or without lymph node dissection), external beam RT (EBRT) with  ADT, or EBRT with brachytherapy (BT) with or without ADT are options in unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The optimal use of BT in localized prostate cancer is somewhat uncertain, especially across the risk spectrum. Andruska et al conducted an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate whether EBRT plus BT with or without ADT results in an improvement in overall survival (OS) compared with BT with or without ADT. OS was higher for the EBRT plus BT groups; however, when the ADT + EBRT + BT group was compared with EBRT + BT without ADT group, the improvement in OS was not statistically significant. Overall, the analysis favored EBRT + BT over BT alone, further supporting current guidelines.

Key clinical point: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus brachytherapy (BT) boost improves survival in patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer vs. brachytherapy alone.

Major finding: The median follow-up was 68 months. In weight-adjusted analysis, EBRT plus BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .000005) vs. BT alone significantly improves overall survival (OS). At 10 years, the OS rate was 62.4% and 69.3% in the BT alone and EBRT plus BT groups, respectively (P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 11,721 patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. The patients received either definitive BT without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), BT with ADT, EBRT with ADT, or EBRT with BT and ADT.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Washington University in St. Louis Medical School and Barnes Jewish Hospital. The authors received advisory/consulting/scientific fees and honoraria outside this work.

Source: Andruska N et al. Brachytherapy. 2022 (Feb 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.12.008.

Key clinical point: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus brachytherapy (BT) boost improves survival in patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer vs. brachytherapy alone.

Major finding: The median follow-up was 68 months. In weight-adjusted analysis, EBRT plus BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .000005) vs. BT alone significantly improves overall survival (OS). At 10 years, the OS rate was 62.4% and 69.3% in the BT alone and EBRT plus BT groups, respectively (P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 11,721 patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. The patients received either definitive BT without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), BT with ADT, EBRT with ADT, or EBRT with BT and ADT.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Washington University in St. Louis Medical School and Barnes Jewish Hospital. The authors received advisory/consulting/scientific fees and honoraria outside this work.

Source: Andruska N et al. Brachytherapy. 2022 (Feb 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.12.008.

Key clinical point: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus brachytherapy (BT) boost improves survival in patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer vs. brachytherapy alone.

Major finding: The median follow-up was 68 months. In weight-adjusted analysis, EBRT plus BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P = .000005) vs. BT alone significantly improves overall survival (OS). At 10 years, the OS rate was 62.4% and 69.3% in the BT alone and EBRT plus BT groups, respectively (P < .0001).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 11,721 patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. The patients received either definitive BT without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), BT with ADT, EBRT with ADT, or EBRT with BT and ADT.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Washington University in St. Louis Medical School and Barnes Jewish Hospital. The authors received advisory/consulting/scientific fees and honoraria outside this work.

Source: Andruska N et al. Brachytherapy. 2022 (Feb 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.12.008.

Key clinical point: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) shows good cancer control in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Major finding: At 7 years, failure-free survival was 69% (95% CI 64%-74%). In patients with intermediate- and high-risk cancers, failure-free survival at 7 years was 68% (95% CI 62%-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56%-74%), respectively.

Study details: This was a study of 1,379 patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer including intermediate- (65%) and high-risk (28%) categories from a prospective registry who received focal therapy using HIFU during 2005-2020.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Sonacare Inc. The authors received research funding, consulting/advisory fees, and travel grants. Some of the authors were paid proctors to give training on the procedures.

Source: Reddy D et al. Eur Urol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.005.

Key clinical point: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) shows good cancer control in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Major finding: At 7 years, failure-free survival was 69% (95% CI 64%-74%). In patients with intermediate- and high-risk cancers, failure-free survival at 7 years was 68% (95% CI 62%-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56%-74%), respectively.

Study details: This was a study of 1,379 patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer including intermediate- (65%) and high-risk (28%) categories from a prospective registry who received focal therapy using HIFU during 2005-2020.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Sonacare Inc. The authors received research funding, consulting/advisory fees, and travel grants. Some of the authors were paid proctors to give training on the procedures.

Source: Reddy D et al. Eur Urol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.005.

Key clinical point: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) shows good cancer control in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Major finding: At 7 years, failure-free survival was 69% (95% CI 64%-74%). In patients with intermediate- and high-risk cancers, failure-free survival at 7 years was 68% (95% CI 62%-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56%-74%), respectively.

Study details: This was a study of 1,379 patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer including intermediate- (65%) and high-risk (28%) categories from a prospective registry who received focal therapy using HIFU during 2005-2020.

Disclosures: This work was supported by Sonacare Inc. The authors received research funding, consulting/advisory fees, and travel grants. Some of the authors were paid proctors to give training on the procedures.

Source: Reddy D et al. Eur Urol. 2022 (Feb 3). Doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.005.

Key clinical point: Use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of radical prostatectomy is associated with a lower odds of treatment initiation for recurrence in patients with prostate cancer.

Major finding: The use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of surgery was associated with a significantly lower odds of treatment for cancer recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64; P = .03). The most common nonselective beta-blockers used were carvedilol (56.9%) and propranolol (25.4%).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,117 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2008 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Norwegian Cancer Society. The authors received grants from the Norwegian Cancer Society during this work.

Source: Sivanesan S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 (Jan 26). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45230.

Key clinical point: Use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of radical prostatectomy is associated with a lower odds of treatment initiation for recurrence in patients with prostate cancer.

Major finding: The use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of surgery was associated with a significantly lower odds of treatment for cancer recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64; P = .03). The most common nonselective beta-blockers used were carvedilol (56.9%) and propranolol (25.4%).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,117 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2008 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Norwegian Cancer Society. The authors received grants from the Norwegian Cancer Society during this work.

Source: Sivanesan S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 (Jan 26). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45230.

Key clinical point: Use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of radical prostatectomy is associated with a lower odds of treatment initiation for recurrence in patients with prostate cancer.

Major finding: The use of nonselective beta-blockers at the time of surgery was associated with a significantly lower odds of treatment for cancer recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64; P = .03). The most common nonselective beta-blockers used were carvedilol (56.9%) and propranolol (25.4%).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,117 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2008 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Norwegian Cancer Society. The authors received grants from the Norwegian Cancer Society during this work.

Source: Sivanesan S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 (Jan 26). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45230.

Key clinical point: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) use during radiotherapy is associated with a lower risk for hematuria in patients with prostate cancer. The effect was independent of clinical factors associated with late hematuria.

Major finding: The cumulative probability of hematuria at 4 years in patients receiving ACEi during radiotherapy was significantly lower vs. nonusers (4.8% vs. 16.5%). The risk for hematuria was significantly lower in patients receiving ACEi (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; P = .030) after adjusting for clinical factors associated with hematuria.

Study details: This article reported on two multicenter observational studies, URWCI (n = 256) and REQUITE (n = 1,437), of patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Wilmot Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, and others. The authors reported no competing interests.

Source: Kerns SL et al. Radiother Oncol. 2022;168:P75-82 (Jan 22). Doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.014.

Key clinical point: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) use during radiotherapy is associated with a lower risk for hematuria in patients with prostate cancer. The effect was independent of clinical factors associated with late hematuria.

Major finding: The cumulative probability of hematuria at 4 years in patients receiving ACEi during radiotherapy was significantly lower vs. nonusers (4.8% vs. 16.5%). The risk for hematuria was significantly lower in patients receiving ACEi (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; P = .030) after adjusting for clinical factors associated with hematuria.

Study details: This article reported on two multicenter observational studies, URWCI (n = 256) and REQUITE (n = 1,437), of patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Wilmot Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, and others. The authors reported no competing interests.

Source: Kerns SL et al. Radiother Oncol. 2022;168:P75-82 (Jan 22). Doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.014.

Key clinical point: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) use during radiotherapy is associated with a lower risk for hematuria in patients with prostate cancer. The effect was independent of clinical factors associated with late hematuria.

Major finding: The cumulative probability of hematuria at 4 years in patients receiving ACEi during radiotherapy was significantly lower vs. nonusers (4.8% vs. 16.5%). The risk for hematuria was significantly lower in patients receiving ACEi (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; P = .030) after adjusting for clinical factors associated with hematuria.

Study details: This article reported on two multicenter observational studies, URWCI (n = 256) and REQUITE (n = 1,437), of patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Wilmot Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK, and others. The authors reported no competing interests.

Source: Kerns SL et al. Radiother Oncol. 2022;168:P75-82 (Jan 22). Doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.01.014.

Key clinical point: Obesity (body mass index of ≥30 kg/m²) is associated with high-risk prostate cancer in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic men.

Major finding: Obesity showed an independent association with high-risk prostate cancer (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; 95% CI 1.28-3.81). Compared with nonobese men without diabetes mellitus (DM), those with obesity and DM showed a higher risk for intermediate- (OR 1.93; P = .013) and high-risk prostate cancer (OR 2.40; P = .011).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 1,303 patients with prostate cancer. The prevalence of obesity and DM was 29.3% and 28.3%, respectively. Most of the patients were of NHB (38%) or Hispanic ethnicity (31%).

Disclosures: This work was funded by the American Cancer Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhu D et al. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.016.

Key clinical point: Obesity (body mass index of ≥30 kg/m²) is associated with high-risk prostate cancer in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic men.

Major finding: Obesity showed an independent association with high-risk prostate cancer (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; 95% CI 1.28-3.81). Compared with nonobese men without diabetes mellitus (DM), those with obesity and DM showed a higher risk for intermediate- (OR 1.93; P = .013) and high-risk prostate cancer (OR 2.40; P = .011).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 1,303 patients with prostate cancer. The prevalence of obesity and DM was 29.3% and 28.3%, respectively. Most of the patients were of NHB (38%) or Hispanic ethnicity (31%).

Disclosures: This work was funded by the American Cancer Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhu D et al. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.016.

Key clinical point: Obesity (body mass index of ≥30 kg/m²) is associated with high-risk prostate cancer in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic men.

Major finding: Obesity showed an independent association with high-risk prostate cancer (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; 95% CI 1.28-3.81). Compared with nonobese men without diabetes mellitus (DM), those with obesity and DM showed a higher risk for intermediate- (OR 1.93; P = .013) and high-risk prostate cancer (OR 2.40; P = .011).

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 1,303 patients with prostate cancer. The prevalence of obesity and DM was 29.3% and 28.3%, respectively. Most of the patients were of NHB (38%) or Hispanic ethnicity (31%).

Disclosures: This work was funded by the American Cancer Society. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhu D et al. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.01.016.

Key clinical point: The risk for metastasis and cancer-specific mortality is significantly higher in patients with favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk vs. low-risk patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Major finding: The risk for metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher in patients with favorable (subdistribution hazard ratios [SHR] 6.49 and 2.94, respectively; both P < .001) and unfavorable (SHR 14.45 and 7.90, respectively; P < .001) intermediate-risk disease vs. those with low-risk disease.

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 9,733 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance between 2001 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Defense. Several of the authors received consulting/speaker fees, honoraria, travel support, and other financial and nonfinancial interests, served on advisory boards, or were employed by pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no conflicts of interest.

Source: Courtney PT et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(2):151-159 (Feb 1). Doi:  10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065.

Key clinical point: The risk for metastasis and cancer-specific mortality is significantly higher in patients with favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk vs. low-risk patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Major finding: The risk for metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher in patients with favorable (subdistribution hazard ratios [SHR] 6.49 and 2.94, respectively; both P < .001) and unfavorable (SHR 14.45 and 7.90, respectively; P < .001) intermediate-risk disease vs. those with low-risk disease.

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 9,733 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance between 2001 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Defense. Several of the authors received consulting/speaker fees, honoraria, travel support, and other financial and nonfinancial interests, served on advisory boards, or were employed by pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no conflicts of interest.

Source: Courtney PT et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(2):151-159 (Feb 1). Doi:  10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065.

Key clinical point: The risk for metastasis and cancer-specific mortality is significantly higher in patients with favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk vs. low-risk patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

Major finding: The risk for metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality was significantly higher in patients with favorable (subdistribution hazard ratios [SHR] 6.49 and 2.94, respectively; both P < .001) and unfavorable (SHR 14.45 and 7.90, respectively; P < .001) intermediate-risk disease vs. those with low-risk disease.

Study details: This was a retrospective study of 9,733 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance between 2001 and 2015.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Defense. Several of the authors received consulting/speaker fees, honoraria, travel support, and other financial and nonfinancial interests, served on advisory boards, or were employed by pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no conflicts of interest.

Source: Courtney PT et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(2):151-159 (Feb 1). Doi:  10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065.

Key clinical point: In patients with prostate cancer, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy is associated with improved survival in the long term.

Major finding: The median follow up was 95.9 months. At 15 years, SRT was associated with a significantly higher metastasis-free survival (84.3% vs. 76.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.37; P < .001) and overall survival (85.3% vs. 74.4%; aHR 0.64; P = .03).

Study details: A propensity score-matched analysis of 874 patients with prostate cancer who experienced biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and underwent SRT or observation between 1989 and 2016.

Disclosures: No external funding source was identified for this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tilki D et al. Cancers. 2022;14(3):740 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14030740.

Key clinical point: In patients with prostate cancer, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy is associated with improved survival in the long term.

Major finding: The median follow up was 95.9 months. At 15 years, SRT was associated with a significantly higher metastasis-free survival (84.3% vs. 76.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.37; P < .001) and overall survival (85.3% vs. 74.4%; aHR 0.64; P = .03).

Study details: A propensity score-matched analysis of 874 patients with prostate cancer who experienced biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and underwent SRT or observation between 1989 and 2016.

Disclosures: No external funding source was identified for this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tilki D et al. Cancers. 2022;14(3):740 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14030740.

Key clinical point: In patients with prostate cancer, salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy is associated with improved survival in the long term.

Major finding: The median follow up was 95.9 months. At 15 years, SRT was associated with a significantly higher metastasis-free survival (84.3% vs. 76.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.37; P < .001) and overall survival (85.3% vs. 74.4%; aHR 0.64; P = .03).

Study details: A propensity score-matched analysis of 874 patients with prostate cancer who experienced biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and underwent SRT or observation between 1989 and 2016.

Disclosures: No external funding source was identified for this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tilki D et al. Cancers. 2022;14(3):740 (Jan 31). Doi: 10.3390/cancers14030740.

Key clinical point: Adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy in men with intermediate-/high-risk localized prostate cancer improves metastasis-free survival (MFS).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.4 years, the addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved MFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; P < .0001). Prolonged adjuvant ADT also improved MFS (HR 0.84; P < .0001).

Study details: This was an individual patient data meta-analysis of 10,853 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 randomized trials.

Disclosures: This work was funded by the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology. The authors received personal/consulting/advisory fees and research support or reported being a member of the clinical trial steering committee and holding stocks outside this work.

Source: Kishan AU et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(2):P304-16 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(21)00705-1.

Key clinical point: Adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy in men with intermediate-/high-risk localized prostate cancer improves metastasis-free survival (MFS).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.4 years, the addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved MFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; P < .0001). Prolonged adjuvant ADT also improved MFS (HR 0.84; P < .0001).

Study details: This was an individual patient data meta-analysis of 10,853 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 randomized trials.

Disclosures: This work was funded by the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology. The authors received personal/consulting/advisory fees and research support or reported being a member of the clinical trial steering committee and holding stocks outside this work.

Source: Kishan AU et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(2):P304-16 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(21)00705-1.

Key clinical point: Adding androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiotherapy in men with intermediate-/high-risk localized prostate cancer improves metastasis-free survival (MFS).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 11.4 years, the addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved MFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; P < .0001). Prolonged adjuvant ADT also improved MFS (HR 0.84; P < .0001).

Study details: This was an individual patient data meta-analysis of 10,853 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 randomized trials.

Disclosures: This work was funded by the University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology. The authors received personal/consulting/advisory fees and research support or reported being a member of the clinical trial steering committee and holding stocks outside this work.

Source: Kishan AU et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(2):P304-16 (Jan 17). Doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(21)00705-1.