Phase III Trial of Androgen Suppression Using Goserelin in Unfavorable-prognosis Carcinoma of the Prostate Treated with Definitive Radiotherapy: Report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 85-31
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: Although androgen suppression results in a tumor response/remission in the majority of patients with carcinoma of the prostate, its potential value as an adjuvant has not been substantiated.
Materials And Methods: In 1987, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) initiated a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant goserelin in definitively irradiated patients with carcinoma of the prostate. A total of 977 patients had been accessioned to the study. Of these, 945 remained analyzable: 477 on the adjuvant arm and 468 on the observation arm.
Results: Actuarial projections show that at 5 years, 84% of patients on the adjuvant goserelin arm and 71% on the observation arm remain without evidence of local recurrence (P < .0001). The corresponding figures for freedom from distant metastases and disease-free survival are 83% versus 70% (P < .001) and 60% and 44% (P < .0001). If prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 1.5 ng is included as a failure (after > or = 1 year), the 5-year disease-free survival rate on the adjuvant goserelin arm is 53% versus 20% on the observation arm (P < .0001). The 5-year survival rate (for the entire population) is 75% on the adjuvant arm versus 71% on the observation arm (P = .52). However, in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10, the difference in actuarial 5-year survival (66% on the adjuvant goserelin arm v 55% on the observation arm) reaches statistical significance (P = .03).
Conclusion: Application of androgen suppression as an adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control and freedom from disease progression. At this point, with a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, a significant improvement in survival has been observed only in patients with centrally reviewed tumors with a Gleason score of 8 to 10.
Khan A, Pervez N, Usmani M, Almusalhi H, Al Harthy M, Mula-Hussain L Cureus. 2024; 16(1):e51518.
PMID: 38304655 PMC: 10832942. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51518.
Franco F, Leeman J, Fedorov A, Vangel M, Fennessy F Clin Radiol. 2024; 79(4):e607-e615.
PMID: 38302377 PMC: 11348292. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2023.12.022.
The Current Trend of Radiation Therapy for Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer.
Numakura K, Kobayashi M, Muto Y, Sato H, Sekine Y, Sobu R Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(9):8092-8110.
PMID: 37754502 PMC: 10529045. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30090587.
Cartes R, Karim M, Tisseverasinghe S, Tolba M, Bahoric B, Anidjar M Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(13).
PMID: 37444473 PMC: 10340239. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15133363.
How can we best manage biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy?.
Kim W, Kim J, Kim W Investig Clin Urol. 2022; 63(6):592-601.
PMID: 36347548 PMC: 9643724. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20220294.