Latest Evidence Guides Use of ADT with RT in Prostate Cancer

Beth Fand Incollingo @fandincollingo
Published: Thursday, Sep 04, 2014
Mack Roach III, MD

Mack Roach III, MD

Practice-changing trends in the combined use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) for the treatment of prostate cancer were highlighted recently in a review paper by Mack Roach III, MD, a professor of Radiation Oncology and Urology and chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Roach, who is also a member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, focused the paper on how best to use ADT in conjunction with RT in certain patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. He emphasized the importance of using both strategies in order to get the best results for these patients, and highlighted data on a newer ADT drug, degarelix (Firmagon), that can be administered in this population.

The article, titled “Current Trends for the Use of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Conjunction With Radiotherapy for Patients With Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk, High-Risk, Localized, and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer,”1 appeared in the journal Cancer in June.

“A number of new findings had come out that could change the way people practice medicine,” he said. “Talking about who should get hormonal therapy and for how long was an opportunity to make that sort of information readily available. At the same time, a lot of people were not familiar with the antagonists like degarelix, which give a more rapid response to castration.”

In a conversation with Urologists in Cancer Care (UCC), Roach summarized the messages at the heart of the paper.

UCC: Why was this the right time to review practices involving the administration of ADT before, during, and/or after RT for men with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, localized, and locally advanced prostate cancer? What recent findings did you want urologists to consider?

Roach: First, there was a recent study, RTOG 9910,2 presented at a national meeting by Tom Pisansky from the Mayo Clinic. The trial looked at neoadjuvant hormonal therapy either 8 weeks or 28 weeks before radiation. That is a landmark study, because there was already level 1 evidence suggesting that men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer live longer if they receive short-term hormonal therapy, but it was unclear what the optimal duration of hormonal therapy should be. This study demonstrated that these men need hormonal therapy for only 4 months. This is a big change, because it had become a standard of care, in many people’s opinions, to give 6 months of hormonal therapy. Of course, there’s an impact on quality of life for a man to be castrated medically for an additional 2 months beyond what he needs.

A related topic is that we published a paper3 evaluating PSA outcomes in the trial RTOG 94-13, a phase III randomized study of about 1300 patients. One thing we had built into the RTOG 94-13 study design as a secondary endpoint was how low PSA [prostate-specific antigen] went after 4 months of hormonal therapy, and whether that had prognostic significance. And we showed that a man’s PSA level at the period of 4 months was somewhat predictive. If it failed to go below a certain level, a man’s outcome was worse, and you could use that as an early predictor of which patients might need more aggressive treatment.

Building on that finding, I wanted people to be aware that you can use a GnRH antagonist, as opposed to an agonist, to get a more rapid response to hormonal therapy, and that you could then use this potentially lower PSA as a predictor of long-term outcome for your patient.

We also updated the fact that there was a lot of confusion about morbidity associated with hormonal therapy. There had been an idea that survival was being compromised in men taking hormonal therapy, but a meta-analysis has suggested that was overrated.4 That was important, because there were patients who were declining to take hormonal therapy because they were afraid they were going to die of a heart attack, when really they would benefit from the treatment with the hormonal therapy and the risk of heart problems was not a real concern. Finally, there are data on using hormonal therapy in the setting of recurrent disease, and I just wanted to update people on preliminary results suggesting that you still need to combine hormonal therapy and radiation, because both together are better than either alone.

In the paper, you gave an overview of current treatment options for men in this population. Please summarize those options.

Basically, for a low-risk patient, we don’t recommend hormonal therapy at all, but rather monotherapy either with active surveillance, surgery alone, or radiation alone. For intermediate- risk prostate cancer, we recommend short-term hormonal therapy with radiation, if the patient is going to have radiation. For high-risk disease, we recommend long-term hormonal therapy if the patient is going to be treated with radiotherapy.

View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Clinical Interchange™: Translating Research to Inform Changing Paradigms: Assessment of Emerging Immuno-Oncology Strategies and Combinations across Lung, Head and Neck, and Bladder CancersOct 31, 20182.0
35th Annual Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium: Innovative Cancer Therapy for Tomorrow® Clinical Vignette SeriesJan 31, 20192.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication