Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional/moderate fractionated radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy for unfavorable risk prostate cancer

• Authors: Sagar Patel, Emory University; Jeffrey Switchenko, Emory University; Benjamin Fischer-Valuck, Emory University; Chao Zhang, Emory University; Brent S. Rose, University of California San Diego; Ronald C. Chen, University of Kansas; Ashesh Jani, Emory University; Trevor J. Royce, University of North Carolina
• Journal Title: RADIATION ONCOLOGY
• Volume: Volume 15, Number 1
• Publisher: BMC | 2020-09-15, Pages 217-217
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01658-5
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Oncology; Health Sciences, Radiology
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Oncology; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging; Ultrahypofractionation; Prostate cancer; High risk; ALPHA/BETA

Abstract

Background: Ultrahypofractionation using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an increasingly utilized technique for men with prostate cancer (PC). The comparative efficacy of SBRT plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to fractionated radiotherapy (EBRT) plus ADT in higher-risk prostate cancer is unknown. Methods: Men > 40 years old with localized PC treated with external beam radiation and concomitant ADT for curative intent between 2004 and 2016 were analyzed from the National Cancer Database. Patients who lacked ADT or risk stratification data were excluded. 558 men treated with SBRT versus 40,797 men treated with conventional or moderately hypofractionated EBRT were included. Patients were stratified by unfavorable intermediate (UIR) and high (HR) risk using NCCN criteria. Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards were used to compare overall survival (OS) between RT modality, adjusting for age, race, and comorbidity index. Results: With a median follow up of 74 months, there was no difference in estimated 6-year OS between men treated with SBRT versus EBRT regardless of risk group. On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in risk of death for men treated with SBRT compared to EBRT (UIR: adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68-1.74, p =.72; HR: adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.14, p =.51). On sensitivity analyses, when confining the cohort to men treated with NCCN-preferred dose fractionations, with no comorbidities, or < 65 years old, there remained no survival difference between treatment groups for both UIR and HR. Conclusion: Within study limitations, we found no difference in survival between SBRT+ADT and standard of care EBRT+ADT for UIR or HR PC. These results support recent NCCN guideline updates, which include SBRT as a non-preferred option for higher risk men. Prospective validation would further strengthen the evidence basis behind these recommendations.