Adjuvant estrogen following radiation therapy for stage C adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results of a prospective randomized study. Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate. Randomized study of neoadjuvant testicular androgen ablation therapy before radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy: the Canadian experience. 4-Year follow-up results of a European prospective randomized study on neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in T2-3N0M0 prostate cancer. European Study Group on Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Neoadjuvant hormone treatment with leuprolide acetate depot 3.75 mg and cyproterone acetate, before radical prostatectomy: a randomized study. Short-term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Comparison of radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia in locally advanced pelvic tumours: a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Dutch Deep Hyperthermia Group. The efficacy and sequencing of a short course of androgen suppression on freedom from biochemical failure when administered with radiation therapy for T2-T3 prostate cancer.
Seventy-eight patients with clinical Stage C adenocarcinoma of the prostate were prospectively randomized to receive either radiation alone or radiation and adjuvant estrogen (diethylstilbestrol). No patient had received any prior definitive treatment for cancer. Forty patients were randomized to receive radiotherapy only and 38 patients to receive radiotherapy and estrogen. The median follow-up for all surviving patients was 14.5 years. Whether analyzed according to the original randomization or according to the treatment actually received, disease-free survival in the adjuvant estrogen group was strikingly and significantly higher than in the radiation-only group. At 5, 10, and 15 years patients receiving adjuvant estrogen had respective disease-free survival rates of 71%, 63%, and 63% compared with 49%, 43%, and 35% in patients having radiation only (p = 0.008). However, because of greater intercurrent disease-related mortality in patients receiving estrogen, there was no improvement in survival. This study suggests that a prospective randomized evaluation of early androgen deprivation with orchiectomy or with one of the nonestrogenic agents should be undertaken and that patients receiving early androgen deprivation should not be included in series reporting on the curative potential of radiation as a single modality. To test the hypothesis that androgen ablation before and during radiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate may, by reducing tumor bulk and enhancing tumor cell kill, improve locoregional control and ultimately survival.
                The study was conducted from 1987 to 1991. Eligible patients were those with bulky tumors (T2--T4) with or without pelvic lymph node involvement and without evidence of distant metastases. They were randomized to receive goserelin, 3.6 mg every 4 weeks; and flutamide, 250 mg t.i.d. for 2 months before radiation therapy and during radiation therapy (Arm I), or radiation therapy alone (Arm II). Of 471 randomized patients, 456 were evaluable: 226 on Arm I and 230 on Arm II.
                As of November 1999, the median follow-up has reached 6.7 years for all patients and 8.6 years for alive patients. At 8 years, androgen ablation has been associated with an improvement in local control (42% vs. 30%, p = 0.016), reduction in the incidence of distant metastases (34% vs. 45%, p = 0.04), disease-free survival (33% vs. 21%, p = 0.004), biochemical disease-free survival = PSA <1.5 (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001), and cause-specific mortality (23% vs. 31%, p = 0.05). However, subset analysis indicates that the beneficial effect of short-term androgen ablation appears preferentially in patients with Gleason score 2--6. In that population, there is a highly significant improvement in all endpoints, including survival (70% vs. 52%, p = 0.015). In patients with Gleason 7--10 tumors, the regimen has not resulted in a significant enhancement in either locoregional control or survival.
                In patients with Gleason score 2--6 carcinoma of the prostate, a short course of androgen ablation administered before and during radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control, reduction in disease progression, and overall survival. We determined whether 12 weeks of neoadjuvant testicular androgen ablation therapy using a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist could improve pathological outcomes in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized (stages T1C, T2A and T2B) prostatic carcinoma.
                A total of 56 participants was randomized to receive either monthly injections of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist at 4-week intervals followed by radical retropubic prostatectomy (28) or to undergo immediate radical retropubic prostatectomy alone (28). Operations were performed via similar technique and all prostatic specimens were processed histologically in their entirety.
                There was no improvement in pathological outcome using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist preoperatively compared to surgery alone. Of 28 men undergoing immediate radical retropubic prostatectomy 23 had organ-confined (17) or specimen-confined (6) disease versus 22 of 28 who received luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone neoadjuvant therapy for 12 weeks preoperatively (16 with organ-confined and 6 with specimen-confined disease, p = 1.00). In addition, when the study population was analyzed by pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (10 ng./ml. or less, or greater than 10 ng./ml/) there was also no difference in pathological outcome (p = 0.65 for PSA greater than 10 and p = 0.32 for PSA less than 10).
                Neoadjuvant androgen ablation therapy for 12 weeks before radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate does not result in improved pathological outcomes. To assess the effect of neoadjuvant combination therapy with the antiandrogen flutamide and a luteinizing-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist administered for 3 months before radical prostatectomy, compared with surgery alone in early stage prostate cancer on histopathologic findings at surgery and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
                A sample of 161 randomly screened patients diagnosed as having stage B (134 patients) or C (27 patients) prostate cancer were randomly assigned to radical prostatectomy alone or to 3 months of neoadjuvant combination therapy with the antiandrogen flutamide and an LHRH agonist before radical prostatectomy.
                Neoadjuvant combination therapy before radical prostatectomy decreased cancer-positive surgical margins from 33.8% in the control group to only 7.8%, thus leaving 92.2% of patients with negative margins at surgery. A net 54% improvement of staging was observed in favor of combination therapy. Organ-confined disease, on the other hand, increased from 49.3% to 77.8% of patients after 3 months of combination therapy, for a 57.8% increase in the incidence of organ-confined disease. No cancer was found in 6 (6.7%) prostatectomy specimens from the treated group. A close correlation was found between serum PSA at diagnosis and the stage of the disease at surgery. Upstaging increased from 30% at serum PSA values of 0 to 3.0 ng/mL up to 100% at serum PSA values above 15 ng/mL.
                Although long-term follow-up of these patients is required to determine the impact on survival, the marked influence of neoadjuvant combination therapy on the stage of the disease suggests the possibility of a major improvement in the morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer. To evaluate the long-term effects of 3-month neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for locally confined prostate cancer.
                We report the results of 402 patients (220 with a clinical T2 tumor and 182 with a clinical T3 tumor) of whom 192 randomly received neoadjuvant total androgen deprivation using a LHRH analogue (goserelin) plus flutamide for a period of 3 months and 210 underwent radical prostatectomy only.
                'Clinical downstaging' was seen in 30% of cases in the neoadjuvantly treated group (NEO). 'Pathological downstaging' occurred in 7 and 15% of cases in the direct radical prostatectomy (DP) group and the NEO group, respectively (p<0.01). In patients with clinical T2 as well as in patients with clinical T3 tumors, a significant difference in the number of positive margins was shown in favor of the NEO group (cT2, p<0.01; cT3, p = 0.01). This advantage, although there was a trend in favor of the NEO group, specifically in cT2 tumors, did not translate in a significantly better PSA progression rate (p = 0.18). However, when evaluating the local control rate in cT2 tumors, we observed local recurrence in 3 of 102 (3%) patients in the NEO group versus 12 of 114 (11%) patients in the DP group. The difference is statistically significant (p = 0.03). In the cT3 group, this difference was not statistically significant (NEO group: 15 of 87 (17%), and DP group: 21 of 95 (22%) patients; p = 0.41).
                In this study, the clinical revelance of pathological downstaging and the lower percentage of patients with positive margins in the neoadjuvantly treated group with a clinical T2 tumor is not confirmed by a lower PSA progression rate. However, this study indicates that there may be a trend that this advantage in favor of the NEO group directly translates into a better local control rate in clinical T2 tumors. Better local control in cT2 tumors is only going to be of relevance if subsequently you can show that there is a better survival for these patients. Unfortunately, this article reports a study which is not yet mature enough to show relevant information. Presently, neoadjuvant therapy should not be given outside clinical research settings. To assess the effect of neoadjuvant hormone treatment before radical prostatectomy on: tumor/prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and testosterone levels, surgical margin status and tumor stage, and the ease of surgery following treatment.
                Patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma were randomized to receive leuprolide acetate depot 3.75 mg once a month for 3 months and cyproterone acetate 300 mg once a week for 3 weeks prior to surgery (group A). A control group of patients had surgery without any pretreatment (group B).
                167 patients were evaluated for the efficacy parameters. In group A, 31% of patients had a reduction in tumor/prostate volume following hormone therapy. PSA and testosterone levels were significantly reduced (p = 0.0001) in patients in group A compared to basal values. Centralized histopathological data evaluated in 145 patients (group A and 75 group B) showed that more patients in group B had tumors at stages T3A and T3B than in group A; this difference was close to significance (p = 0.057). Positive surgical margins were more common in group B (60% of patients) compared to group A (39% of patients). Similarly lymph node involvement was more common in group B compared to group A (11 versus 3%). There was little difference between the 2 study groups for the other surgical parameters assessed (ease of dissection, duration of surgery, blood loss).
                Neoadjuvant hormone therapy before radical prostatectomy has some effects in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, long-term follow-up of patients is needed to assess the impact of this therapy on morbidity and mortality.
                Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel Androgen deprivation is an established treatment regimen for disseminated prostate cancer; however, its role in patients with localised cancer is less clear. We did a large randomised controlled trial to determine whether 3 months or 6 months of androgen deprivation given before and during radiotherapy improves outcomes for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.
                818 men with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly assigned to: no androgen deprivation (ie, radiotherapy alone: 66 Gy in 33 fractions of 2 Gy per day over 6.5-7.0 weeks to the prostate and seminal vesicles); 3 months' androgen deprivation with 3.6 mg goserelin given subcutaneously every month and 250 mg flutamide given orally three times a day starting 2 months before radiotherapy (same regimen as control group); or 6 months' androgen deprivation, with the same regimen, starting 5 months before radiotherapy (same regimen as control group). Primary endpoints were time to local failure and prostate-cancer-specific survival; secondary endpoints were distant failure, disease-free survival, and freedom from salvage treatment. Analyses were done by intention to treat.
                802 (98%) patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 5.9 years (range 0.1-8.5). Compared with patients assigned no androgen deprivation, those assigned 3 months' treatment had significantly improved local failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% CI 0.39-0.79], p=0.001), biochemical failure-free survival (0.70 [0.56-0.88], p=0.002), disease-free survival (0.65 [0.52-0.80], p=0.0001), and freedom from salvage treatment (0.73 [0.56-0.96], p=0.025). 6 months' androgen deprivation significantly improved local failure (0.42 [0.28-0.62], p<0.0001), biochemical failure-free survival (0.58 [0.46-0.74], p<0.0001), disease-free survival (0.56 [0.45-0.69], p<0.0001), freedom from salvage treatment (0.53 [0.40-0.71], p<0.0001), distant failure (0.67 [0.45-0.99], p=0.046) and prostate-cancer-specific survival (0.56 [0.32-0.98], p=0.04) compared with no androgen deprivation.
                6 months' androgen deprivation given before and during radiotherapy improves the outlook of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Further follow-up is needed to estimate precisely the size of survival benefits. Increased radiation doses and additional periods of androgen deprivation might lead to further benefit. Local-control rates after radiotherapy for locally advanced tumours of the bladder, cervix, and rectum are disappointing. We investigated the effect of adding hyperthermia to standard radiotherapy.
                The study was a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. 358 patients were enrolled from 1990 to 1996, in cancer centres in the Netherlands, who had bladder cancer stages T2, T3, or T4, NO, MO, cervical cancer stages IIB, IIIB, or IV, or rectal cancer stage M0-1 were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned radiotherapy (median total dose 65 Gy) alone (n=176) or radiotherapy plus hyperthermia (n=182). Our primary endpoints were complete response and duration of local control. We did the analysis by intention to treat.
                Complete-response rates were 39% after radiotherapy and 55% after radiotherapy plus hyperthermia (p<0.001). The duration of local control was significantly longer with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia than with radiotherapy alone (p=0.04). Treatment effect did not differ significantly by tumour site, but the addition of hyperthermia seemed to be most important for cervical cancer, for which the complete-response rate with radiotherapy plus hyperthermia was 83% compared with 57% after radiotherapy alone (p=0.003). 3-year overall survival was 27% in the radiotherapy group and 51% in the radiotherapy plus hyperthermia group. For bladder cancer, an initial difference in local control disappeared during follow-up.
                Hyperthermia in addition to standard radiotherapy may be especially useful in locally advanced cervical tumours. Studies of larger numbers of patients are needed for other pelvic tumour sites before practical recommendations can be made. We evaluated the benefits and sequencing of androgen suppression (AS) administered with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in T2-T3 prostate cancers.
                Between 1990 and 1999, 481 patients were entered in 2 successive, prospective, randomized studies, including 161 in the study 1 and 325 in study 2. Eligible patients had clinical stages T2-T3 prostate cancer. In the first study (L-101) subjects were randomly allocated among EBRT alone (group 1), EBRT preceded by 3 months of AS (group 2), and neoadjuvant, concomitant and adjuvant AS for a total of 10 months (group 3). In the second study (L-200) we analyzed neoadjuvant and concomitant AS (total 5 months) vs neoadjuvant, concomitant and short course adjuvant (total 10 months) AS with EBRT. In each study we used a total AS (a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus an antiandrogen) and a standard dose of radiation therapy at that time. Patient characteristics were well balanced in regard to age, stage, prostate specific antigen and Gleason score. No biochemical evidence of disease (BNED) was defined as an end point according to the Vancouver rule.
                In the study 1 at a median followup of 5 years 7-year biochemical-free survival rates were 42%, 66% and 69% in groups 1 to 3, respectively. BNED was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.009) and between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.003) but not between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.6). Multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model showed an HR of 6.1 for Gleason score (p = 0.001), 1.4 for PSA (p = 0.002), 0.5 for group 1 vs group 2 (p = 0.01) and 0.35 for group 1 vs group 3 (p = 0.008). In study 2 BNED at 4 years was 65%. There was no significant difference between arms 1 and 2 (p = 0.55).
                The analysis of study 1 shows a benefit of using a short course of neoadjuvant AS with EBRT vs EBRT alone for localized T2-T3 prostate cancers. Moreover, in each study adding a short course of adjuvant AS after neoadjuvant 1 provided no more advantage in these patients.
Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.