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

365P - Radical vs palliative RT in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Date

07 Dec 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Kelvin Yan

Citation

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

Authors

K.C.K. Yan1, F. Mo2, K. Wong3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Department of Clinical Oncology, 852 - Hong Kong/HK
  • 2 Clinical Oncology, CUHK - Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin/HK
  • 3 Clinical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, KOWLOON/HK

Resources

This content is available to ESMO members and event participants.

Abstract 365P

Background

The current standard of care for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is androgen deprivation + systemic therapy. Oligometastatic HSPC, however, represents a unique disease entity following the STAMPEDE trial, where de novo mHSPC patients with a CHAARTED-defined low disease burden (DN-mHSPC-LV) had a hazard ratio of death of 0.68 after prostate radiotherapy (PRT). Despite the SABR-COMET results of a survival benefit with stereotactic RT on metachronous oligometastatic sites of predominantly prostate patients, radical RT (RRT) in DN-mHSPC-LV has not been studied. This study analysed the outcomes of such patients receiving RRT to all disease sites vs PRT alone.

Methods

DN-mHSPC-LV receiving RRT to the prostate and all oligometastatic sites (Arm A) vs PRT alone (Arm B) in a Hong Kong tertiary hospital between 1st January 2018 and 31st December 2021 were reviewed. Outcomes of failure-free survival (FFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicity were analysed using the multivariable Cox-proportional hazards model.

Results

38 eligible patients (25 in Arm A & 13 in Arm B) were identified. The median numbers of oligometastatic sites were 1 in Arm A and 2 in Arm B. The median Gleason score was 8 in both arms. T/N/M staging was mostly balanced but more patients in Arm A had M1b vs M1a disease. Median presenting PSA (ng/mL) was higher in Arm A (59) than Arm B (20). Arm A received up to 76Gy/38# to the prostate + a boost of up to 67.5Gy or stereotactic RT to the oligometastatic sites. Arm B received 55-60Gy/20# to the prostate alone. Systemic treatments were balanced. Median follow up was 55.1 months and 34.8 months in Arms A and B, respectively. Median FFS was 49 months and 33.1 months in Arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.0317; HR 0.134; 95% CI 0.021-0.839). Median PFS was 49 months in Arm A vs 25.8 months in Arm B (P = 0.0228; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.037-0.781). OS data were not yet mature and there was no difference in TrT between the arms.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing RRT against PRT in DN-mHSPC-LV. RRT was well tolerated. FFS and PFS are significantly longer with radical vs palliative treatment . FFS is an established surrogate for OS in prostate cancer. This study thus justifies prospective studies on RRT for DN-mHSPC-LV.

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.