Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Benefit of prostate radiotherapy for patients with lymph node only or < 4 bone metastasis and no visceral metastases: Exploratory analyses of metastatic site and number in the STAMPEDE “M1_RT comparison”

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Discussion – Genitourinary tumours, prostate

Presenters

Syed Adnan Ali

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v325-v355. 10.1093/annonc/mdz248

Authors

S.A. Ali1, A. Hoyle2, N.D. James3, C. Parker4, C. Brawley5, G. Attard6, H. Douis7, M.D. Mason8, M.K.B. Parmar5, M.R. Sydes5, N.W. Clarke2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Genito-urinary Cancer Research Group, Genito-Urinary Cancer Research Group Manchester Cancer Research Centre The University of Manchester, M20 4GJ - Manchester/GB
  • 2 The Departments Of Surgery And Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester/GB
  • 3 Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Elizabeth-University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 2TH - Birmingham/GB
  • 4 Urology, The Institute of Cancer Research/Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, SM2 5PT - Sutton/GB
  • 5 Institute Of Clinical Trials & Methodology, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, WC1V 6LJ - London/GB
  • 6 Research Department Of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute/Paul O'Gorman Building, WC1E 6JD - London/GB
  • 7 Department Of Radiology, University Hospital Birmingham, B15 2TH - Birmingham/GB
  • 8 Division Of Cancer & Genetics, Cardiff University, CF103AT - Cardiff/GB
More

Resources

Background

Prostate radiotherapy (PRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is now recommended as a first line option for de-novo low burden metastatic prostate cancer. In the STAMPEDE “M1|RT comparison” metastatic burden was a determinant of benefit, based on pre-specified prognostic criteria. We have now performed exploratory analyses of metastases as defined by site and number to improve prediction of treatment benefit from PRT.

Methods

Patients (pts) randomized to the ADT (± docetaxel) vs PRT + ADT (± docetaxel) were studied. Metastatic site, distribution and number were evaluated based on conventional imaging and used to explore treatment effects to refine the metastatic burden definition. Results focused on the trial’s key outcome measures: overall (OS) & failure-free survival (FFS), analysed using standard survival analysis methods. HR < 1 indicates benefit associated with PRT + ADT (±docetaxel) over ADT (±docetaxel).

Results

Following exclusions (imaging unavailable for central review, n = 122), 1939 pts randomized in “M1|RT comparison” were included. Of these, 181 pts had only lymph node (LN) mets, 1587 had bone (±LN) mets and 171 had other visceral mets (±bone/LN). Baseline characteristics such as age (median 68 years), PSA (median 98 ng/ml) were balanced between the arms. In LN only pts, PRT improved OS (HR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.35-1.09) & FFS (HR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.43-0.96). In bone (±LN) pts with <4 bone mets regardless of bone met location, PRT improved OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47 – 0.92) & FFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 – 0.73). No such evidence of benefit was found in pts with visceral mets (OS: HR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.58 – 1.45) or bone (±LN) pts with ≥4 bone mets (OS: HR = 1.11, 95%CI 0.92 – 1.33). In the refined low met burden subgroup of pts with only LN or < 4 bone mets (±LN), PRT improved OS (HR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.46 – 0.83) & FFS (HR = 0.57, 95%CI 0.47 – 0.70). Within the low met burden subgroup there was no evidence of heterogeneity in OS & FFS (all interaction p-value >0.1) for baseline factors such as age, N stage, Gleason score, RT schedule or docetaxel use.

Conclusions

Prostate RT + ADT (± docetaxel) improved OS & FFS in pts with only LN or < 4 bone mets (±LN) regardless of location.

Clinical trial identification

NCT00268476.

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Medical Research Council-Clinical Trials Unit and University of Manchester.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings