Prostate radiotherapy in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer
Prostate radiotherapy in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer
Current Opinion in Urology
Shore Adnan Alia , Christopher C. Parkerb , and Noel W. Clarkea,c
Purpose of review: The aim of this article is to review the role of prostate radiotherapy in the multimodal management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.
Recent findings: Two randomized controlled trials have evaluated the role of prostate radiotherapy with systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy ± docetaxel) in newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. In a combined cohort of over 2000 patients, prostate radiotherapy with systemic therapy improved survival over systemic therapy alone in patients with low metastatic burden but not in high-burden patients. Prostate radiotherapy with systemic therapy is now a recommended first-line option for newly diagnosed men with low metastatic burden prostate cancer. The current recommended definition for low metastatic burden is based on conventional imaging (99mTc bone scans and CT/MRI). Cross-correlative studies are required to pick an appropriate threshold for sensitive-imaging modalities such as PSMA PET or whole-body MRI. Ongoing trials are evaluating prostate radiotherapy in this setting combined with abiraterone/docetaxel and metastasis-directed therapy.
Summary: Prostate radiotherapy with systemic therapy improves survival in patients with newly diagnosed, low metastatic burden prostate cancer and is a recommended first-line treatment option. Ongoing trials are evaluating combination with metastasis-directed therapy and other systemic treatments.
In newly diagnosed high-risk localized prostate cancer, a multimodal approach is recommended whereby prostate radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) results in improved survival compared with radiotherapy or ADT alone [1–3]. However, in the absence of evidence for benefit in metastatic prostate cancer, an international modus operandi was adopted wherein prostate radiotherapy was not recommended and systemic treatments alone were standard of care. Nevertheless, based on preclinical data and theories of an intermediate metastatic stage, the role of prostate radiotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer has now been evaluated in two phase III trials. In a combined cohort of over 2000 patients, the HORRAD and the STAMPEDE ‘M1|RT comparison’ trials have evaluated the therapeutic advantage associated with adopting a multimodal approach in men with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) [4▪▪,5▪▪]. In this review, we summarize the data from these trials to guide and expand the use of multimodal treatment in metastatic prostate cancer.
Evidence from randomized controlled trials
The HORRAD and the STAMPEDE ‘M1|RT comparison’ trials have evaluated the role of prostate radiotherapy in de-novo mHNPC (Table 1). HORRAD enrolled men with newly diagnosed mHNPC with bone metastasis on bone scintigraphy between 2004 and 2014. Overall, 432 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive prostate radiotherapy and ADT or ADT alone [5▪▪]. At a median follow-up of 47 months, there was no evidence of improvement in overall survival associated with the radiotherapy intervention (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–1.14). However, in a subgroup of 160 patients with less than 5 bone metastases, prostate radiotherapy and ADT showed some evidence of overall survival benefit over ADT alone (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% CI 0.42–1.10), although statistical significance was not reached. A similar trend was not seen in patients with at least 5 bone metastases (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% CI 0.80–1.39). However, both subgroups were inadequately powered to reach definitive conclusions. Furthermore, the presence of concomitant nonregional lymph node or visceral metastasis was not known. Therefore a contemporary metastatic burden definition could not be considered.
The STAMPEDE trial's M1|radiotherapy comparison (arm H) also assessed the role of prostate radiotherapy with ADT (±docetaxel) in newly diagnosed mHNPC [4▪▪]. Between, 2013 and 2016, 2061 patients underwent stratified 1:1 randomization to receive ADT (±docetaxel) or prostate radiotherapy and ADT (±docetaxel). At a median follow-up of 37 months, prostate radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (FFS) (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68–0.84; P < 0.001) but not overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% CI 0.80–1.06; P = 0.266). However, in a prespecified, directionally hypothesized, subgroup analysis by metastatic burden based on the CHAARTED definition , a significant heterogeneity was noted between the low and high-burden subgroups for overall survival (interaction P = 0.0098) and FFS (interaction P = 0.002). As hypothesized in the M1|radiotherapy comparison's prespecified statistical analysis plan, overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.90; P = 0.007) and FFS (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.72; P < 0.0001) were significantly improved in the low metastatic burden subgroup (n = 819) with prostate radiotherapy and ADT (±docetaxel) over ADT (±docetaxel) alone. No such benefit was noted in the high metastatic burden subgroup (n = 1120) for overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.07, 95% CI 0.90–1.28; P = 0.420) or FFS (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01; P = 0.059). An interaction was also noted for prostate cancer-specific survival (interaction P = 0.007) with a statistically significant benefit associated with prostate radiotherapy and ADT (±docetaxel) in the low metastatic burden subgroup (hazard ratio = 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.90) but not in the high-volume subgroup (hazard ratio = 1.10, 95% CI 0.92–1.32). Based on the results of these trials, the 2019 NCCN, EAU and ESMO guidelines recommend prostate radiotherapy and ADT as a first-line option for newly diagnosed patients with low metastatic burden disease [2,3,7].
Prostate radiotherapy schedules
In both trials, the clinical target volume incorporated the prostate gland alone (±seminal vesicles if involved). Pelvic lymph nodes were not included in target volumes. In the HORRAD trial, treatment arm patients received a conventionally fractionated dose of 70 Gy in 2 Gy fractions over 7 weeks. During the study, a schedule of 57.76 Gy in 19 fractions of 3.04 Gy, three times a week for 6 weeks was also added, but outcomes by radiotherapy schedule were not evaluated. In the STAMPEDE trial's M1|radiotherapy comparison, the treatment arm patients were nominated for one of two schedules. A weekly schedule of 36 Gy in six consecutive weekly fractions of 6 Gy was designated for 48% (n = 497) and a daily schedule of 55 Gy in 20 daily fractions of 2.75 Gy over 4 weeks was chosen for 52% (n = 535) of the patients. No heterogeneity of effect on overall survival was noted between the weekly and daily schedules (interaction P = 0.27).
The radiotherapy schedules used in these trials differ from the ones currently used in localized prostate cancer. In 2012, when the STAMPEDE M1|radiotherapy comparison was designed, the standard radiotherapy schedule (74 Gy in 37 fractions over 7.5 weeks) used at the time for localized disease was felt to be too burdensome for patients with metastatic disease. Based on an investigator survey, the two more convenient schedules were chosen. Now, with evidence of benefit from prostate radiotherapy in low metastatic burden patients, the contemporary hypofractionation schedule of 60 Gy in 20 fractions, as used for high-risk localized prostate cancer, might be preferred . Further studies will be required to explore the role of dose escalation and optimization.
Safety and adverse events
There have been concerns that hypofractionation may increase the risk of late treatment-related toxicity [9,10]. In the STAMPEDE trial, grade 3 or 4 adverse events on the RTOG scale were modest in the prostate radiotherapy arm (5%); 5% patients reported their worst acute bladder toxic effect as grade 3 or 4, and 1% reported their worst acute bowel toxic effect as grade 3 or 4; grade 5 toxic effects were not observed. Furthermore, a low incidence of grade 3 and 4 late effects was reported by patients in both control and prostate radiotherapy arms (1% control versus 4% prostate radiotherapy). No difference was seen in CTCAE grade 3 or worse in between the control group (38%) and the prostate radiotherapy group (39%); with no evidence of a difference in time to first grade 3 or worse event (hazard ratio = 1.01, 95% CI 0.87–1.16; P = 0.941). Adverse events and toxicity outcomes were not reported in the HORRAD trial.
The M1|radiotherapy comparison also evaluated symptomatic local events (SLE). This was defined as a composite endpoint evaluating urinary tract infection, new urinary catheterization, acute kidney injury, transurethral resection of the prostate, urinary tract obstruction, ureteric stent, nephrostomy, colostomy or surgery for bowel obstruction. There was no difference in the frequency of SLE between the control and prostate radiotherapy arms and no evidence of a difference in time to first SLE by treatment allocation (hazard ratio = 1.07, 95% CI 0.93–1.22; P = 0.349). However, at current follow up it is too early to rule out a beneficial effect of prostate radiotherapy for preventing SLE as these tend to occur late during disease progression [4▪▪,11].
Sequencing of systemic therapies with prostate radiotherapy
In both the trials, patients started lifelong ADT prior to radiotherapy. In the HORRAD trial, patients were started on ADT within 2 weeks of randomization and received radiotherapy within 12 weeks of starting ADT. This trial enrolled between 2004 and 2014, well before the introduction of therapies such as abiraterone, enzalutamide and radium-223. A breakdown of subsequent life-prolonging treatments received in the trial's deceased population showed no significant difference between the arms. In the prostate radiotherapy arm, the majority of patients received docetaxel (46%), whereas other life-prolonging therapies such as abiraterone (18%), cabazitaxel (9%), enzalutamide (8%) and radium-223 (3%) were used less frequently.
In the STAMPEDE arm H, patients were randomised within 12 weeks of starting ADT and commenced radiotherapy as soon as possible thereafter. Docetaxel was also permitted following its approval in the United Kingdom in December 2015: 18% of the patients received ADT and docetaxel in both arms. It was administered as six 3 weekly cycles of 75 mg/m2, with or without prednisolone 10 mg daily. In the prostate radiotherapy arm, patients received docetaxel first followed by prostate radiotherapy within 4 weeks of the last docetaxel cycle. No significant heterogeneity in outcomes was noted based on docetaxel use (interaction P = 0.63). Furthermore, there was no difference in the use of subsequent life-prolonging therapies between the two arms. In the prostate radiotherapy arm, the majority of the patients received docetaxel (33%), enzalutamide (36%) or abiraterone (20%) at progression. Optimal sequencing of systemic therapies after failure of first-line therapy remains an ongoing area of research.
Currently, an incongruity exists between the NCCN, EAU and ESMO guidelines regarding the use of early docetaxel with prostate radiotherapy. The NCCN and EAU recommend prostate radiotherapy and ADT as a first-line option, whereas ESMO has made no such distinction, recommending prostate radiotherapy and systemic therapy (ADT + docetaxel) [2,3,7]. In the STAMPEDE M1|radiotherapy comparison, 18% of the patients received prostate radiotherapy and ADT and docetaxel and no evidence of heterogeneity was found based on docetaxel use [4▪▪]. However, patients receiving docetaxel were enrolled at a later stage of the trial (post-Dec-2015) and therefore had a shorter follow-up. Emerging data from phase 3 trials evaluating prostate radiotherapy and ADT and docetaxel in high-risk localized prostate cancer suggests that the triple combination improves relapse-free survival, but the results for overall survival are immature [12–15]. The GETUG-12 and the STAMPEDE trials have demonstrated statistically significantly improved relapse-free survival but no improvement in overall survival. By contrast, the RTOG-05201 trial has reported that prostate radiotherapy and ADT and docetaxel improved both overall (hazard ratio = 0.69, 90% CI 0.49–0.97) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% CI 0.58–0.99) over prostate radiotherapy and ADT alone . Therefore, a combination of prostate radiotherapy with ADT and early docetaxel can be the preferred first-line option in low metastatic burden if patients are fit enough for it.
The imaging modality used to evaluate M stage in both HORRAD and STAMPEDE was standard CT/MRI and 99mTc bone scan. The STAMPEDE results show that the bone metastasis number on bone scan was predictive of treatment outcome regarding radiotherapy to the prostate using CHAARTED based criteria. This raises the question of which imaging modality should be used for staging in the modern era. Use of other imaging modalities, such as68Ga-PSMA PET or whole-body MRI, to evaluate metastatic burden has become widespread in some countries but it has not been validated in large-scale randomized studies and it is not currently recommended outside a clinical trial [2,18,19]. As these modalities have a higher sensitivity, they are likely to detect more metastases than those detected by conventional imaging [20–22]. Therefore, the threshold for low metastatic burden might differ substantially depending on the imaging modality used. Further study of the clinical utility of modern imaging and its influence on the natural history of disease and treatment outcome will require validation in properly conducted studies if this uncertainty is to be overcome. Additionally, future trials could and should evaluate quantitative measures of metastatic burden. Methods currently available include the automated bone scan index or maximum standardized uptake values as predictive biomarkers to select patients for multimodal treatment. These are currently underutilized despite their proven utility [23–25]. In future, the metastatic burden criteria are likely to require further optimization as our understanding of disease burden and metastatic distribution in relation to treatment benefit improves.
Biological rationale for impact of metastatic burden on efficacy of prostate radiotherapy
The section discusses plausible biological rationale by which metastatic progression could be reduced by using multimodal strategies in patients with low metastatic burden [26–28].
Disruption of metastatic dissemination
The metastatic cascade involves a number of steps, wherein cancer cells within the prostate acquire characteristics enabling invasion and migration to distant sites through haematogenous or lymphatic routes [27–29]. In the metastatic process, cancer cells within the primary and the metastatic sites undergo spatiotemporal evolution dictated by the tumour microenvironment and systemic treatment pressures. A number of studies have used whole genome or exome sequencing to infer metastatic phylogeny in prostate cancer [30–34]. Although all clones can be traced to the primary, complex modes of progression have been demonstrated in advanced disease with primary to metastasis, metastasis to metastasis and metastasis to primary all being possible [30,31]. Furthermore, metastatic dissemination can occur in temporally separated waves during disease progression . In patients with low metastatic burden, the prostate could be the predominant source of metastatic clones, whereas in high burden, metastasis to metastasis progression may be the dominant mode of spread. In this circumstance, treating the primary would have a limited effect on metastatic progression. Therefore, treatment of the primary in mHNPC could disrupt metastatic progression in low-burden patients but not in high-burden patients. This hypothesis is supported by the observed heterogeneity in metastasis progression-free survival in the STAMPEDE trial. In the low-burden subgroup, metastatic progression was delayed in patients treated with prostate radiotherapy and systemic therapy compared with systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.01; restricted means survival time [RMST] difference = 3.1 months, 95% CI 0.2–6 months). No such effect was observed in the high-burden subgroup (hazard ratio = 1.10, 95% CI 0.95–1.28). Similar heterogeneity in progression-free survival between low and high metastatic burden subgroups was also observed in the HORRAD trial .
Primary derived molecular components
A number of other primary-derived components such as exosomes, cytokines and other molecules have been shown to have a tropic action ‘preparing’ distant metastatic niches [36–39]. It may be hypothesized that prostate radiotherapy disrupts release of primary derived molecular components which have been shown to work in this way. In low metastatic burden patients, it is possible that the predominant source of such cytokines may be the prostate, whereas in high metastatic burden patients, distant metastases may become the major source as disease load increases beyond a biological threshold. In such circumstances, treating the primary might lower the circulating levels of such molecules significantly in low-burden patients but not in high burden. This notion can be further interrogated using FFS, which was largely driven by PSA failure. In the low metastatic burden subgroup, a statistically significant improvement in FFS was noted (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.72; RMST difference = 8.6 months). This suggests that the major source of PSA was the primary tumour. However, in the high metastatic burden subgroup, no significant difference was noted (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77–1.01; RMST difference = 1.5 months), suggesting that the main source of PSA was the metastatic sites and not the primary tumour. Similar heterogeneity in FFS between low and high metastatic burden subgroups was also seen in the HORRAD trial . PSA through its serine protease activity been shown to promote cell invasion and induce an osteoblastic phenotype in vitro and in vivo[40–42]. It might therefore be speculated that reducing absolute PSA levels might limit the development of new bone metastases.
Radiotherapy induces cell death and secondary release of proinflammatory cytokines, tumour associated antigens (TAA), damage-associated molecular patterns and other chemokines [43,44]. Radiotherapy also upregulates MHC-I on cancer cells, leading to the recognition of TAAs by cytotoxic T cells, enabling them to mount an antitumour response [45,46]. Therefore, prostate radiotherapy can potentially initiate a systemic, or ‘abscopal’ immune response, resulting in antitumorigenic responses in distant metastases. Whilst this is possible, there might also be a threshold beyond which the immune system is unable to cope with a high burden of disease. This might explain the ‘threshold effect’ seen with metastasis number on bone scan and response to primary radiotherapy [4▪▪].
Future trials evaluating prostate radiotherapy with checkpoint blockade may demonstrate augmented immune-mediated antitumour effects . Again, this might be ‘burden’ related: a phase III trial in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) evaluating metastasis-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy for at least one or up to five bone fields) followed by ipilimumab suggested that the combination was only beneficial in a subgroup of patients with lower disease burden (hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.89) [48,49]. Another phase III trial evaluating ipilimumab monotherapy without radiotherapy did not demonstrate any such effect . This suggests that radiotherapy might be required to unmask the beneficial effect of immunotherapy. Two additional case reports of mCRPC patients from these trials reported long-term complete remission of disease in patients who received combined radiotherapy and Ipilimumab . However, identification of specific patients of this type remains investigational. Currently, a phase II study is evaluating ADT in combination with SBRT and pembrolizumab with or without a TLR9 agonist in newly diagnosed oligometastatic HNPC (NCT03007732) .
Prevention of systemic treatment-induced lineage plasticity in the primary
A number of genomic studies based on prostatectomy specimens have demonstrated multifocality and intratumour heterogeneity in prostate cancer [53–56]. This heterogeneity provides an environment where specifically directed systemic therapies such as ADT/docetaxel/abiraterone can act to invoke a ‘lineage crisis’, wherein cancer cells undergo transdifferentiation or dedifferentiation to a lethal phenotype which then develops as the dominant and progressive cell type . Prostate radiotherapy could prevent such crisis from occurring in the primary, thereby preventing spatiotemporally separated waves of lethal clones emerging from the primary to propagate new metastatic sites.
Genomic and transcriptomic deifferences based on metastatic burden
A recent study conducted single-cell transcriptomic profiling of metastatic cells obtained from low and high metastatic burden breast cancer xenografts has shown that metastatic cells from low-burden tissues were different from those arising from high-burden tissues and that they had increased expression of stem cell, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, prosurvival, and dormancy-associated genes . On the other hand, high metastatic burden was found to be associated with increased proliferation and MYC expression. Further in-vivo evaluation showed that progression to high burden could be attenuated by treatment with dinaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor. These findings support a hierarchical model for metastasis, in which burden directed systemic treatment could delay progression. Currently, genomic analysis of primary prostate cancer samples allied to systemic genomic sampling, linked to accurate and quantified image analysis is ongoing within the STAMPEDE trial. It is hoped that this will also inform whether the metastatic burden criteria can be better understood with the use of genomic markers .
Ongoing phase III trials are evaluating prostate radiotherapy linked to additional systemic treatments (docetaxel/abiraterone) and/or metastasis-directed therapy in newly diagnosed mHNPC (Table 2). The PEACE-1 trial (NCT01957436) has completed its enrolment and the primary analysis is expected to be conducted in 2019 . It has randomized de-novo mHNPC patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to arm A (ADT + docetaxel), arm B (ADT + docetaxel + abiraterone), arm C (ADT + docetaxel + prostate radiotherapy) or arm D (ADT + docetaxel + abiraterone + prostate radiotherapy). This trial will provide new data regarding the benefit of adding abiraterone plus-minus docetaxel to prostate radiotherapy and ADT. Another trial, the SWOG 1802 (NCT03678025) is evaluating the efficacy of local treatment in de-novo mHNPC . It is a two-stage trial; in the first step, patients who are eligible to undergo radical prostatectomy are registered to receive best systemic therapy (BST) for at least 28 weeks. In the second step, patients who do not progress on BST for at least 28 weeks undergo a stratified randomization in a 1:1 ratio to BST or BST and radical prostatectomy/radiotherapy. Data from the phase 2 suggests that this approach enriches patients with low metastatic burden (78% low burden) . However, one could reason that patients who do not respond to systemic therapy alone would be the ones who would require treatment of the primary as well. Therefore, excluding patients with low-burden disease from treatment of the primary based on response to systemic therapy is investigational.
The planned arm M comparison within the STAMPEDE multiarm multistage trial will also evaluate the added value of metastasis-directed therapy and prostate radiotherapy in low-burden metastatic patients. This study has a recruitment target of approximately 2200 patients and it will combine standard treatment including radiotherapy to the prostate, with a randomization to receive SABR for men with metastases in extrapelvic lymph nodes and/or bone metastases up to a maximum of five lesions. It is expected that the arm M comparison of the STAMPEDE trial will commence in early 2020.
Prostate radiotherapy with ADT improves survival and is a recommended first-line option for men presenting with low metastatic burden prostate cancer. Currently, the recommended criteria to characterize metastatic burden is based on conventional imaging (99mTc bone scans and CT/MRI) and low burden can be defined as patients with only nonregional lymph nodes or less than 4 bone metastasis based (±lymph node) and no visceral metastasis on conventional imaging. Defining metastatic burden based on newer imaging modalities such as PSMA PET or whole body-MRI is currently investigational. Emerging data suggest that heterogeneity in metastatic disease and progression demands a multimodal approach which integrates local, systemic and possibly metastasis-directed therapy to achieve effective oncological control. On-going trials evaluating prostate radiotherapy with metastasis-directed therapy plus-minus other systemic agents will provide further data in the future which will establish the utility of this approach.
Financial support and sponsorship
The project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as: & of special interest && of outstanding interest
1. Schmidt-Hansen M, Hoskin P, Kirkbride P, et al. Hormone and radiotherapy versus hormone or radiotherapy alone for nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014; 26:e21–e46.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in oncology – prostate cancer Version 2.2019, 2019. Available from: https:// www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
3. European Association of urology guidelines: prostate cancer, 2019. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
4. && Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD, et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2018; 392:2353–2366. This phase 3 randomized controlled trial provided the evidence that prostate radiotherapy is beneficial in patients with low metastatic burden.
5. && Boeve LM, Hulshof M, Vis AN, et al. Effect on survival of androgen deprivation therapy alone compared to androgen deprivation therapy combined with concurrent radiation therapy to the prostate in patients with primary bone metastatic prostate cancer in a prospective randomised clinical trial: data from the HORRAD trial. Eur Urol 2019; 75:410–418. This trial suggested that prostate radiotherapy is beneficial in patients with less than 5 bone metastasis.
6. Sweeney CJ, Chen YH, Carducci M, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:737–746.
7. European Society for Medical Oncology. Treatment recommendations for cancer of the prostate, 2019. Available from: https://www.esmo.org/Guidelines/Genitourinary-Cancers/Cancer-of-the-Prostate/eUpdate-Treatment-Recommendations.
8. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, noninferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:1047–1060.
9. Thames HD, Bentzen SM, Turesson I, et al. Time-dose factors in radiotherapy: a review of the human data. Radiother Oncol 1990; 19:219–235.
10. Wortel RC, Oomen-de Hoop E, Heemsbergen WD, et al. Moderate hypofractionation in intermediate- and high-risk, localized prostate cancer: healthrelated quality of life from the randomized, phase 3 HYPRO trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 103:823–833.
11. Khafagy R, Shackley D, Samuel J, et al. Complications arising in the final year of life in men dying from advanced prostate cancer. J Palliat Med 2007; 10:705–711.
12. Tosco L, Briganti A, D’Amico AV, et al. Systematic review of systemic therapies and therapeutic combinations with local treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2019; 75:44–60.
13. Rosenthal SA, Hu C, Sartor O, et al. Effect of chemotherapy with docetaxel with androgen suppression and radiotherapy for localized high-risk prostate cancer: the randomized phase III NRG oncology RTOG 0521 trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1159–1168.
14. Fizazi K, Faivre L, Lesaunier F, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:787–794.
15. James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387:1163–1177.
16. Eisenberger MA, Blumenstein BA, Crawford ED, et al. Bilateral orchiectomy with or without flutamide for metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:1036–1042.
17. Ali A, Hoyle A, James N, et al. 850PD 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 ‘‘M1jRT comparison’’. European Society of Oncology 2019 Annual Congress.
18. Lecouvet FE, Oprea-Lager DE, Liu Y, et al. Use of modern imaging methods to facilitate trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging Group. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:e534–e545.
19. Fanti S, Minozzi S, Antoch G, et al. Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:e696–e708.
20. Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and (68)Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43:2114–2121.
21. Lindenberg ML, Turkbey B, Mena E, Choyke PL. Imaging locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer: a review. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3:1415–1422.
22. Liu LP, Cui LB, Zhang XX, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in bone malignancy: evidence from a metaanalysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94:e1998.
23. Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2013; 54:1195–1201.
24. Komek H, Can C, Yilmaz U, Altindag S. Prognostic value of 68 Ga PSMA I&T PET/CT SUV parameters on survival outcome in advanced prostat cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2018; 32:542–552.
25. Ali A, Hoyle A, Parker C, et al. Evaluating the predictive role of automated bone scan index in selecting newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer patients for prostate radiotherapy: a STAMPEDE trial exploratory analysis. Eur Urol Suppl 2019; 18:.
27. Fidler IJ. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: the ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3:453–458.
28. Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Lancet 1889; 133:571–573.
29. Poste G, Fidler IJ. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Nature 1980; 283:139–146.
30. Gundem G, Van Loo P, Kremeyer B, et al. The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 2015; 520:353–357.
31. Hong MK, Macintyre G, Wedge DC, et al. Tracking the origins and drivers of subclonalmetastaticexpansion inprostatecancer.NatCommun2015;6:6605.
32. Lindberg J, Kristiansen A, Wiklund P, et al. Tracking the origin of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67:819–822.
33. Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S, et al. Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med 2009; 15:559–565.
34. Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM, et al. Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 2013; 123:4918–4922.
35. Burdett S, Boeve LM, Ingleby FC, et al. Prostate radiotherapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a STOPCAP systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur Urol 2019; 76:115–124.
36. Kaplan RN, Riba RD, Zacharoulis S, et al. VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the premetastatic niche. Nature 2005; 438:820–827.
37. Psaila B, Lyden D. The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nat Rev Cancer 2009; 9:285–293.
38. Fu Q, Zhang Q, Lou Y, et al. Primary tumor-derived exosomes facilitate metastasis by regulating adhesion of circulating tumor cells via SMAD3 in liver cancer. Oncogene 2018; 37:6105.
39. Liu Y, Cao X. Characteristics and significance of the premetastatic niche. Cancer Cell 2016; 30:668–681.
40. Roodman GD. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1655–1664.
41. Williams SA, Jelinek CA, Litvinov I, et al. Enzymatically active prostate-specific antigen promotes growth of human prostate cancers. Prostate 2011; 71:1595–1607.
42. Clarke NW, Hart CA, Brown MD. Molecular mechanisms of metastasis in prostate cancer. Asian J Androl 2009; 11:57–67.
43. Golden EB, Apetoh L. Radiotherapy and immunogenic cell death. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015; 25:11–17.
44. Garg AD, Nowis D, Golab J, et al. Immunogenic cell death, DAMPs and anticancer therapeutics: an emerging amalgamation. Biochim Biophys Acta 2010; 1805:53–71.
45. Reits EA, Hodge JW, Herberts CA, et al. Radiation modulates the peptide repertoire, enhances MHC class I expression, and induces successful antitumor immunotherapy. J Exp Med 2006; 203:1259–1271.
46. Harris TJ, Hipkiss EL, Borzillary S, et al. Radiotherapy augments the immune response to prostate cancer in a time-dependent manner. Prostate 2008; 68:1319–1329.
47. Brooks ED, Chang JY. Time to abandon single-site irradiation for inducing abscopal effects. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018; 16:123.
48. Kwon ED, Drake CG, Scher HI, et al. Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:700–712.
49. Fizazi K, Drake CG, Kwon ED, et al. 763PD Updated overall survival (OS) from the phase 3 trial, CA184-043: ipilimumab (IPI) vs placebo (PBO) in patients with post-docetaxel metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Ann Oncol 2019; 25(suppl_4).
50. Beer TM, Kwon ED, Drake CG, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial of ipilimumab versus placebo in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with metastatic chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:40–47.
51. Cabel L, Loir E, Gravis G, et al. Long-term complete remission with Ipilimumab in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: case report of two patients. J Immunother Cancer 2017; 5:31.
52. Pembrolizumab in combination with intratumoral SD-101 therapy, 2019. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03007732.
53. Cooper CS, Eeles R, Wedge DC, et al. Analysis of the genetic phylogeny of multifocal prostate cancer identifies multiple independent clonal expansions in neoplastic and morphologically normal prostate tissue. Nat Genet 2015; 47:367–372.
54. Boutros PC, Fraser M, Harding NJ, et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat Genet 2015; 47:736–745.
55. Wei L, Wang J, Lampert E, et al. Intratumoral and intertumoral genomic heterogeneity of multifocal localized prostate cancer impacts molecular classifications and genomic prognosticators. Eur Urol 2016; 71:183–192.
56. Parry MA, Srivastava S, Ali A, et al. Genomic evaluation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-visible and -nonvisible lesions in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2:1–11.
57. Davies AH, Beltran H, Zoubeidi A. Cellular plasticity and the neuroendocrine phenotype in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2018; 15:271–286.
58. Lawson DA, Bhakta NR, Kessenbrock K, et al. Single-cell analysis reveals a stem-cell program in human metastatic breast cancer cells. Nature 2015; 526:131–135.
59. Clare Gilson FI, Gilbert DC, Parry M, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) of metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (M1 CSPC): a pilot molecular analysis in the STAMPEDE multicenter clinical trial, 2019. Available from: https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/175008/abstract.
60. A phase III study for patients with metastatic hormone-naı¨ve prostate cancer, 2019. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01957436.
61. Standard systemic therapy with or without definitive treatment in treating participants with metastatic prostate cancer, 2019. Available from: https:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03678025.
62. Chapin BF, Wang X, Zhang M, et al. Complex biologic heterogeneity of de novo hormone naı¨ve metastatic prostate cancer (HNPCa): comparison of early progressors and prolonged responders to initial systemic treatment. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(15_suppl):5055.
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate Progression
Median time to FACT-P progression in patients younger than 75 years was 14.0 (95% CI 11.1–not yet reached) and 8.3 months (95% CI 5.7–11.3) for enzalutamide and bicalutamide, respectively. Although median time to FACT-P progression in patients 75 years old or older was 8.5 (95% CI 8.1–19.8) vs 10.9 months (95% CI 5.6–14.2), the difference was not statistically significant, probably due to the limited sample size and the small number of events.
The safety profile of enzalutamide and bicalutamide was generally similar in the 2 age groups ( table 2). The incidence of atrial fibrillation (0.8% vs 12.1%), urinary tract infection (2.4% vs 20.7%), falls (4.0% vs 12.1%) and decreased appetite (6.4% vs 15.5%) was higher (5% or greater difference) in patients on enzalutamide who were 75 years old or older vs younger than 75 years. The incidence of extremity pain (13.6% vs 5.2%) and hot flushes (17.6% vs 8.6%) was lower in patients on enzalutamide who were 75 years old or older vs younger than 75 years. The incidence of back pain (20.3% vs 14.1%) and hot flushes (13.6% vs 7.0%) was lower in patients on bicalutamide who were 75 years old or older vs younger than 75 years ( table 2).
A grade 3 or greater AE was experienced by 44 (35.2%) and 29 patients (50.0%) on enzalutamide who were younger than 75 years or 75 years old or older, and by 48 (40.7%) and 24 (33.8%) on bicalutamide who were younger than 75 or 75 years old or older, respectively. Overall the rate of grade 3 or greater AEs was low with hypertension predominant across each age group and treatment. Of the most common grade 3 or greater AEs only back pain occurred in a higher proportion (5% or greater difference) of enzalutamide treated patients who were 75 years old or older vs younger than 75 years (6.9% vs 0.8%). The corresponding incidence of grade 3 or greater AEs was broadly similar in bicalutamide treated patients who were 75 years old or older vs younger than 75 years ( table 2). A lower incidence of grade 3 or greater cardiac AEs was noted in enzalutamide and bicalutamide treated patients who were younger than 75 years (2.4% and 0.8%) vs 75 years old or older (12.1% and 4.2%, respectively, table 1).
In the enzalutamide arm 8 patients, including 2 younger than 75 years and 6 who were 75 years old or older, reported a total of 10 grade 3 or greater cardiac AEs. One of the 2 enzalutamide treated patients who were younger than 75 years experienced myocardial infarction, which was diagnosed based on elevated serum creatine phosphokinase in the context of traumatic rib fractures after a motor vehicle accident. The other patient, who had a history of atrial fibrillation and hypertension, experienced cardiac failure and atrial fibrillation.
Two of the 6 enzalutamide treated patients who were 75 years old or older experienced multiple events. One man with a history of cardiac failure and atrial fibrillation experienced myocardial infarction and cardiac failure. The other with a history of hypertension experienced myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation. The other 4 enzalutamide treated patients who were 75 years old or older experienced a single event of myocardial infarction or cardiac failure. They reported a history of rheumatoid arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, cardiac failure and hypertension, hypertension and cardiac failure, and hypertension, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the grade 3 or greater cardiac AEs stratified by age and treatment, including medical history and treatment duration. An increased incidence of grade 3 or greater cardiac AEs occurred in enzalutamide treated patients who were 75 years old or older vs those younger than 75 years (12.1% vs 2.4%).
Drug related AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 7 (5.6%) and 7 patients (12.1%) younger than 75 years and 75 years old or older who were receiving enzalutamide, and 5 (4.2%) and 5 (7.0%), respectively, who were receiving bicalutamide ( table 3). Similar rates of fatigue and depression were reported as enzalutamide related in patients younger than 75 years and 75 years old or older, including fatigue in 27.2% vs 29.3% and depression in 4.0% vs 1.7%.
One enzalutamide treated patient in each age group experienced a seizure and neither event was reported to be treatment related. One of the 2 patients had a previously undisclosed history of seizures and experienced the event after a traumatic head injury. The other patient was subsequently diagnosed with a brain tumor. A hypoglycemic seizure was reported in 1 bicalutamide treated patient who was younger than 75 years. One enzalutamide treated patient in each age group experienced a fall which was reported to be treatment related.
There were 9 deaths in the enzalutamide arm, including 1 reported to be treatment related (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) in a patient younger than 75 years. None of the 3 deaths in the bicalutamide arm was treatment related.
In this age subgroup analysis of the TERRAIN study PFS and TTPP were comparable in younger and older (age less than 75 and 75 years or greater, respectively) chemotherapy naïve patients with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide and bicalutamide. PFS and TTPP in the enzalutamide arm were improved vs bicalutamide in each age subgroup. Enzalutamide treatment resulted in prolonged quality of life maintenance vs bicalutamide with longer time to FACT-P progression across the 2 age groups. However, the small number of events did not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn in the older patient group.
Treatment duration was longer for enzalutamide and similar in the age subgroups. The increased enzalutamide treatment duration did not appear to affect the safety profile compared with bicalutamide. In each age group enzalutamide showed safety consistent with its known safety profile 5,6with no increased rate of most AEs observed in older patients 75 years or older. A higher proportion of enzalutamide treated patients 75 years old or older reported grade 3 or greater cardiac AEs vs those younger than 75 years (12.1% vs 2.4%). This may have been due to the greater number of older patients with a history of cardiac disorders at baseline, including 18 (31.1%) vs 12 (9.6%) for enzalutamide and 19 (26.4%) vs 6 (5.0%) for bicalutamide.
The results of this analysis are concordant with those of similar analyses performed for AFFIRM (post-chemotherapy patients with mCRPC) 10and PREVAIL (chemotherapy naïve patients with mCRPC). 11These analyses also showed that all efficacy outcomes were independent of age with comparable AEs except for fatigue (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) and falls (PREVAIL).
These data suggest that the favorable risk-to-benefit ratio of enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide is maintained across the age spectrum, supporting the idea that treatment decisions should depend on the overall health of the individual and the treatment benefit received rather than on age. 1,12,13These findings suggest that enzalutamide may be a preferred treatment option in older patients in whom frailty precludes chemotherapy. 2
The greater number of older patients with a history of cardiac disorders at baseline in the current study confounded the interpretation of cardiac event data. Nonetheless, attention to such a history may be prudent when prescribing enzalutamide to elderly patients.
Limitations of the TERRAIN study, which were fully described in the original publication, 7include the chosen 50 mg per day dose of bicalutamide, which was selected based on regional practices and most international guidelines. This dose is only used in combination with gonadotrophin releasing hormone modulator therapy in certain regions. Therefore, the results are not generalizable to patient populations receiving treatment in all geographic areas where a different bicalutamide dose is used in combination with gonadotrophin releasing hormone modulator therapy or in a monotherapy (noncastrate) setting.
Furthermore, although the primary end point of PFS included death, overall survival alone was not investigated due to the large number of life extending therapies that became available.
The beneficial effect of enzalutamide vs bicalutamide was independent of age, with enzalutamide demonstrating prolonged PFS and TTPP. An increased frequency of falls and cardiac events in older patients who also had a significant history of cardiovascular disorders warrants caution in this patient subset. With appropriate physician-patient shared decision making, enzalutamide is an effective treatment option across the age spectrum of patients with mCRPC.
Stephanie Rippon and Lauren Smith, Complete HealthVizion, assisted with manuscript writing and editing.
1. Flaig TW, Potluri RC, Ng Y et al: Treatment evolution for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with recent introduction of novel agents: retrospective analysis of realworld data. Cancer Med 2016; 5: 182.
2. Horgan AM, Seruga B, Pond GR et al: Tolerability and efficacy of docetaxel in older men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the TAX 327 trial. J Geriatr Oncol 2014; 5: 119.
3. Wong HL, Lok SW, Wong S et al: Docetaxel in very elderly men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2015; 3: 42.
4. Basch E, Loblaw DA, Oliver TK et al: Systemic therapy in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3436.
5. Beer TM, Armstrong AJ, Rathkopf DE et al: Enzalutamide in metastatic prostate cancer before chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 424.
6. Scher HI, Fizazi K, Saad F et al: Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1187.
7. Shore ND, Chowdhury S, Villers A et al: Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide versus bicalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (TERRAIN): a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 153.
8. Heidenreich A, Chowdhury S, Klotz L et al: Impact of enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: additional analyses from the TERRAIN Randomised Clinical Trial. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 534.
9. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for Industry E7 Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics Questions and Answers. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/UCM189544.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2017.
10. Sternberg CN, de Bono JS, Chi KN et al: Improved outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide: results from the phase III AFFIRM trial. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 429.
11. Graff JN, Baciarello G, Armstrong AJ et al: Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in patients 75 years or older with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from PREVAIL. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 286.
12. de Bono JS, Smith MR, Saad F et al: Subsequent chemotherapy and treatment patterns after abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Post hoc analysis of COU-AA-302. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 656.
13. Lissbrant IF, Garmo H, Widmark A et al: Population-based study on use of chemotherapy in men with castration resistant prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 1593.