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

Poster Display session

363P - Neoadjuvant hormone therapy for PCa: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Date

07 Dec 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Linghao Meng

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_4): S1531-S1543. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1690

Authors

L. Meng, X. Hu, X. Li

Author affiliations

  • Department Of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, 610041 - Chengdu/CN

Resources

This content is available to ESMO members and event participants.

Abstract 363P

Background

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) are effective treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa). The risk of biochemical recurrence and metastasis in PCa patients who received localized therapy remains high. Several clinical trials have explored the efficacy of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) in PCa, but there is still no consensus on tumor survival benefits.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases have been searched to determine the eligible clinical trials.

Results

A total of 81 clinical trials were included. NHT before RP did not increase the operation time (p=0.833), estimated bleeding loss (p=0.784), and length of hospital stay (p=0.330). The postoperative positive surgical margin rate was significantly decreased in patients who accepted NHT before RP compared with patients who accepted RP only (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.44-0.53, p<0.001). The lymph node invasion rate was also significantly decreased (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.56-0.82, p<0.001). A higher proportion of patients receiving NHT experienced pathological downstaging (RR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.37-3.48, p=0.001) and organ-confined disease (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.21-1.84, p<0.001). NHT before RP did not improve the rate of biochemical recurrence-free survival (p=0.866), overall survival (p=0.485) and metastasis-free survival (p=0.796). However, NHT before RP may improve the local recurrence-free survival rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18, p=0.040). NHT did not increase adverse events in patients (p=0.992). NHT before RT benefited PCa patients’ biochemical recurrence-free survival (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.56-0.68, p<0.001), overall survival (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94, p=0.001), disease-free survival (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.64, p<0.001), prostate cancer-specific survival (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.77, p<0.001), local recurrence-free survival (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.85, p=0.005), and metastasis-free survival (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.82, p<0.001).

Conclusions

NHT before RP may not increase the surgical difficulty of RP and adverse events. NHT appeared to benefit the pathological endpoints. NHT did not benefit survival endpoints in patients who received RP. Patients who received NHT before RT experienced survival benefits.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.