The risk of death from prostate cancer in men with Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer treated using brachytherapy with or without a short course of androgen deprivation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether intermediate-risk factors, in addition to age, were associated with risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among men with Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 1,920 men with Gleason 3+4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate who received brachytherapy (BT) or BT and a median of 4 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Separate multivariable Fine and Gray competing risks regression models among men treated with BT or BT and ADT were used to assess whether percentage of positive biopsies (PPB), cT2b-T2c stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10.1-20.0 ng/ml, and age >70 years (median) were associated with risk of PCSM after adjustment for comorbidity. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 7.8 years, 284 men (14.8%) had died (31 from prostate cancer). For BT alone, increasing PPB, PSA of 10.1-20.0 vs. 4.0-10.0 ng/mL, and age >70 vs. ≤70 were significantly associated with increased risk of PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.015, 95% confidence interval 1.000-1.031, P = 0.048; 5.55, 2.01-15.29, P<0.001; and 3.66, 1.16-11.56, P = 0.03, respectively). The respective results for BT and ADT were 1.009, 0.987-1.031, P = 0.44; 4.17, 1.29-13.50, P = 0.02; and 3.74, 0.87-16.05, P = 0.08. CONCLUSION: Among men with Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer treated with BT, the risk of PCSM was elevated in those with PSA of 10.1-20.0 ng/mL and possibly age >70 years, despite the addition of ADT. Should these findings be validated in future studies, then advanced imaging and targeted biopsy of suspicious areas should be investigated in an effort to personalize treatment and minimize the risk of PCSM in these men.

Long-term outcomes of a prospective randomized trial of 131Cs/125I permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: Iodine-125 (125I) is the most commonly used isotope for prostate brachytherapy (BT). Cesium-131 (131Cs) has a higher dose rate and shorter dose delivery time resulting in decreased duration of acute urinary morbidity. Long-term data suggest excellent oncologic outcomes; it is not known how outcomes compare. A prospective randomized trial comparing the two isotopes was initiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with low- or intermediate-risk disease were treated with a BT in a single outpatient facility. Prescription dose was 144 Gy for 125I and 115 Gy for 131Cs. Androgen deprivation or supplemental EBRT was not allowed. The primary study objective was comparison of the mean EPIC Urinary Domain Score. Secondary objective was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) comparison. Time-to-event for all outcomes of interest was measured from implant date. RESULTS: One hundred forty men were enrolled; 81.4% were low-risk and 18.6% were intermediate-risk. The median followup was 97 months. Urinary and sexual health-related quality of life did not differ between isotopes at any recorded time point. At 2 months after implantation, bowel health-related quality of life was worse with 125I; however, this difference was lost at subsequent time points. The 9-year BRFS was 87.2% and 84.0% for the 125I and 131Cs group, respectively (p = 0.897). There was no statistically significant difference in BRFS based on initial T stage, PSA, or Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: Short- and long-term urinary, sexual, and bowel quality of life, as well as long-term biochemical control were comparable between 125I and 131Cs. This report therefore supports the continued use of 131Cs as an effective and comparable alternative isotope.

Long-term outcomes analysis of low-dose-rate brachytherapy in clinically T3 high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The available data demonstrating that superiority of LDR brachytherapy (LDR-BT) boost in high-risk prostate cancer patients under represents patients with extracapsular extension (T3a) and/or seminal vesicle invasion (T3b) have been limited. We report long-term clinical outcomes data for patients with cT3a/b disease receiving LDR-BT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-nine men (median age: 69.4 years) with cT3a/bN0M0 high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma received definitive LDR-BT or LDR-BT boost after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at a single institution between 1998 and 2007. About 86% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method with the Phoenix definition used as definition of failure. Cox regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between clinical stage, initial PSA, Gleason Score, and percent core positive rate. RESULTS: With a median followup of 7 years, 7-year rate of FFBF, PCSS, and OS for the entire cohort was 65.2% (±5.6%), 90.1% (±3.6%), and 77.9% (±4.7%), respectively. LDR-BT boost patients achieved a 7-year FFBF rate of 73.5 (±6.5%). No significant difference in outcomes was present between T3a or T3b disease, Gleason score, iPSA stratification and percent core positive rates. CONCLUSIONS: LDR-BT, primarily as a boost in conjunction with ADT and EBRT, is not only feasible, but also highly effective in men with cT3a and cT3b high-risk prostate cancer resulting in excellent biochemical control and survival outcomes. LDR-BT boost implantation of patients should be strongly considered for cT3 patients given the merits of trimodality care.

Comorbidity and the Receipt of Curative Therapy for Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer Prior to and Following the Publication of PIVOT.

The publication of the randomized Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) in July 2012, in which men with favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) were not found to benefit from radical prostatectomy, had the potential to shift PCa practice patterns. Using a prospectively assembled database of 5398 men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PCa selected for curative treatment with brachytherapy in the years preceding and the year following the publication of PIVOT, we evaluated the odds of receiving curative treatment after adjusting for risk group (favorable intermediate vs low), race (black, Hispanic, or other), number of cardiometabolic comorbidities, and age. Following publication, the receipt of curative treatment was significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.99; p=0.05) among men with at least two cardiometabolic comorbidities, in contrast to the increasing trend (p=0.02) noted prior to PIVOT. Among black men, a subgroup at risk for occult high-grade disease, the odds of receiving curative treatment increased after PIVOT (AOR: 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06-2.26; p=0.02). These observations suggest that PIVOT's publication appropriately contributed to decreasing the use of curative treatment in men unlikely to benefit. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) showed that radical prostatectomy did not benefit men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Following the publication of PIVOT, the selection of men with multiple medical issues for curative treatment declined, whereas treatment of men at high risk of having aggressive prostate cancer increased.

Brachytherapy monotherapy may be sufficient for a subset of patients with unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): Brachytherapy (BT) monotherapy is a well-established treatment modality for favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) disease are often recommended trimodality therapy involving BT, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). We sought to investigate the relative benefit of supplemental therapies (ADT and/or EBRT) for FIR and UIR prostate cancer in a large dataset. MATERIALS/METHODS: We identified 3,723 patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with BT between 1997 and 2013, including 1,989 and 1,734 patients with FIR and UIR disease, respectively. For the FIR cohort, Fine and Gray's competing risks regression model was used to evaluate whether there was a difference in prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) between BT vs. BT + supplemental therapy (ADT, EBRT, or both). For the UIR cohort, this regression model was used to evaluate whether supplemental ADT, EBRT, or both decreased PCSM beyond BT alone. Both regression models were adjusted for clinical and treatment-related factors. RESULTS: The median follow-up periods were 7.7 years (interquartile range: 5.4-10.5) for the FIR cohort and 7.8 years (interquartile range: 5.3-10.6) for the UIR cohort. For the FIR cohort, there was no difference in PCSM between BT monotherapy vs. BT + supplemental therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.70; 95% CI: 0.46-6.29; P = 0.43). For the UIR cohort, supplemental EBRT (AHR = 2.66; 95% CI: 1.12-6.34; P = 0.03), ADT (AHR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.38-2.43; P = 0.93), or both (AHR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.42-5.01; P = 0.55) were not associated with improved PCSM compared with BT alone. CONCLUSION: In our analysis, supplemental therapies did not offer an improvement in PCSM compared with BT alone for FIR or UIR prostate cancers. Further prospective clinical trials are required to determine whether BT monotherapy may be sufficient for a subset of patients with UIR disease.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in the Setting of High-dose Radiation Therapy and the Risk of Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality Stratified by the Extent of Competing Mortality.

PURPOSE: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) is the standard of care for men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, whether competing mortality (CM) affects the ability of ADT to improve, survival remains unanswered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We calculated a CM risk score using a Fine-Gray semiparametric model that included age and cardiometabolic comorbidities from a cohort of 17,669 men treated with high-dose RT with or without supplemental ADT for nonmetastatic PC. Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis was used to assess whether ADT reduced the risk of PC-specific mortality for men with a low versus a high risk of CM among the 4550 patients within the intermediate- and high-risk cohort after adjustment for established PC prognostic factors, year of treatment, site, and ADT propensity score. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 8.4 years, 1065 men had died, 89 (8.36%) of PC. Among the men with a low CM score, ADT use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PC-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.87, P=.02) but was not for men with high CM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.30, P=.30). CONCLUSIONS: Adding ADT to high-dose RT appears to be associated with decreased PC-specific mortality risk in men with a low but not a high CM score. These data should serve to heighten awareness about the importance of considering competing risks when determining whether to add ADT to RT for older men with intermediate- or high-risk PC.

Race and mortality risk after radiation therapy in men treated with or without androgen-suppression therapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: African American (AA) men are more likely than non-AA men to have a comorbid illness that could interact with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and shorten survival. This study assessed the impact that race had on the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) among men definitively treated for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: Between 1997 and 2013, 7252 men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PC were treated with brachytherapy with neoadjuvant ADT (n = 1501) or without neoadjuvant ADT (n = 5751) for a 4-month median duration. Cox and Fine-Gray multivariate regressions were used to analyze whether the risk of ACM and OCM increased among AA men versus non-AA men receiving ADT; adjustments were made for the age at brachytherapy, year of brachytherapy, cardiometabolic comorbidity status, risk group, and ADT treatment propensity score. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 8.04 years, 869 men (12.0%) died: 48 (5.52%) of PC and 821 (94.48%) of other causes. There was a significant association between AA race and an increased risk of both ACM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.94; P = .028) and OCM (AHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.08-3.19; P = .024) among AA men versus non-AA men who received ADT but not among those who did not receive ADT (AHR for ACM, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.93-1.91; P = .12; AHR for OCM, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.96-2.02; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: ADT use may shorten survival in AA men with favorable-risk PC; therefore, its reservation for the treatment of higher risk PC, for which level 1 evidence supports its use, should be considered. Cancer 2016;122:3608-14. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Influence of Comorbidity on the Risk of Mortality in Men With Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing High-Dose Radiation Therapy Alone.

PURPOSE: To explore whether a subgroup of men with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PC) exists in whom high-dose radiation therapy (RT) alone is sufficient to avoid excess PC death due to competing risk from cardiometabolic comorbidity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a cohort study of 7399 men in whom comorbidity (including congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, or myocardial infarction) was assessed and recorded with T1-3NxM0 PC treated with brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant RT, October 1997 to May 2013 at a single providing institution. Cox and competing risks regression analyses were used to assess whether men with unfavorable-intermediate/high-risk versus favorable-intermediate/low-risk PC were at increased risk of PC-specific, all-cause, or other-cause mortality (PCSM, ACM, OCM), adjusting for number of comorbidities, age at and year of brachytherapy, RT use, and an RT treatment propensity score. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, 935 men died: 80 of PC and 855 of other causes. Among men with no comorbidity, PCSM risk (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-5.06], P=.001) and ACM risk (AHR 1.30 [95% CI 1.07-1.58], P=.007) were significantly increased in men with unfavorable-intermediate/high-risk PC versus favorable-intermediate/low-risk PC, with no difference in OCM (P=.07). Although PCSM risk was increased in men with 1 comorbidity (AHR 2.87 [95% CI 1.11-7.40], P=.029), ACM risk was not (AHR 1.03 [95% CI 0.78-1.36], P=.84). Neither PCSM risk (AHR 4.39 [95% CI 0.37-51.98], P=.24) or ACM risk (AHR 1.43 [95% CI 0.83-2.45], P=.20) was increased in men with 2 comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: To minimize death from PC, high-dose RT alone may be sufficient treatment in men with 2 or more cardiometabolic comorbidities and unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk PC.

Gleason Score 3 + 5 or 5 + 3 versus 4 + 4 Prostate Cancer: The Risk of Death.

UNLABELLED: The International Society of Urological Pathology recommends that Gleason score (GS) 8 prostate cancer (PC) is one prognostic category, yet heterogeneity in cancer control potentially exists amongst men with GS 3+5/5+3 versus GS 4+4 PC. We compared PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) risk among men with GS 3+5/5+3 versus GS 4+4 PC using competing-risks and Cox regression analyses, adjusting for age, known PC prognostic factors, treatment, and a treatment propensity score. Between 1998 and 2012, 462 men with GS 8 PC were treated using brachytherapy with supplemental external-beam radiation therapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center. After a median follow-up of 7.6 yr, 118 men died, 26 of PC. PCSM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-6.80; p=0.026) and ACM (AHR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06-2.87; p=0.028) were significantly higher for men with GS 3+5/5+3 PC than for men with GS 4+4 PC. Subcategorizing GS 8 into PC with or without grade 5 should be considered as a stratification factor in randomized trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Long-term success rates for men with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer vary depending on whether the most aggressive type of cancer (grade 5) is present at biopsy.

Definition and Validation of "Favorable High-Risk Prostate Cancer": Implications for Personalizing Treatment of Radiation-Managed Patients.

PURPOSE: To define and validate a classification of favorable high-risk prostate cancer that could be used to personalize therapy, given that consensus guidelines recommend similar treatments for all radiation-managed patients with high-risk disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We studied 3618 patients with cT1-T3aN0M0 high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with radiation at a single institution between 1997 and 2013. Favorable high-risk was defined as T1c disease with either Gleason 4 + 4 = 8 and prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL or Gleason 6 and prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL. Competing risks regression was used to determine differences in the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after controlling for baseline factors and treatment. Our results were validated in a cohort of 13,275 patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. RESULTS: Patients with favorable high-risk disease had significantly better PCSM than other men with high-risk disease (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.996, P=.049) and similar PCSM as men with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (AHR 1.17, 95% CI 0.50-2.75, P=.710). We observed very similar results within the SEER-Medicare cohort (favorable high-risk vs other high-risk: AHR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11-0.41, P<.001; favorable high-risk vs unfavorable intermediate-risk: AHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33-1.36, P=.268). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with favorable high-risk prostate cancer have significantly better PCSM than other patients with high-risk disease and similar PCSM as those with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, who are typically treated with shorter-course androgen deprivation therapy. This new classification system may allow for personalization of treatment within high-risk disease, such as consideration of shorter-course androgen deprivation therapy for favorable high-risk disease.

Short-course androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of death from high-risk prostate cancer in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: We estimated the risks of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy with short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (median 4 months) as compared with men with more favorable-risk PC undergoing standard of care as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The prospective study cohort comprised 6595 consecutively treated men with T1-4 N0M0 PC whose treatment included brachytherapy between October 16, 1997, and May 28, 2013. Fine and Gray competing risk regression and Cox regression analyses were used to assess the risks of PCSM and ACM in men with high, unfavorable intermediate, and favorable intermediate risk as compared with low-risk PC. RESULTS: After median followup of 7.76 years, 820 men died (12.43%): 72 of PC (8.78%). Men with favorable intermediate-risk PC did not have significantly increased PCSM risk as compared with men with low-risk PC (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56, 2.88; p-Value 0.58), whereas men with high-risk PC (AHR, 3.74; 95% CI 1.12, 12.53; p-Value 0.032) and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC (AHR, 3.10; 95% CI 1.43, 6.72; p-Value 0.004) did. Based on 10-year adjusted point estimates of PCSM and ACM for men with high-risk PC being 6.01% (95% CI 3.79%, 8.94%) and 21.30% (95% CI 17.45%, 25.42%), respectively, PCSM comprised 28% of ACM. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy, men with high-risk PC have low absolute adjusted estimates of PCSM (~6%) during the first decade after treatment despite receiving only short-course ADT. Whether long-term ADT can lower PCSM and improve survival in these men requires additional study.

Risk Group and Death From Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance in Men With Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Active surveillance (AS), per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, is considered for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) and a life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, given the grade migration following the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference, AS may be appropriate for men presenting with favorable intermediate-risk PC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the risk of PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) following brachytherapy among men with low and favorable intermediate-risk PC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 5580 consecutively treated men (median age, 68 years) with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with brachytherapy at the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Chicago between October 16, 1997, and May 28, 2013. INTERVENTION: Standard of practice per the NCCN guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Fine and Gray competing risks regression and Cox regression analyses were used to assess whether the risks of PCSM and ACM, respectively, were increased in men with favorable intermediate-risk vs low-risk PC. Analyses were adjusted for age at brachytherapy, year of treatment, and known PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 7.69 years, 605 men had died (10.84% of total cohort), 34 of PC (5.62% of total deaths). Men with favorable intermediate-risk PC did not have significantly increased risk of PCSM and ACM compared with men with low-risk PC (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 0.76-3.53; P = .21 for PCSM; adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.39; P = .38 for ACM). Eight-year adjusted point estimates for PCSM were low: 0.48% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.93%) and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.19%-0.56%) for men with favorable intermediate-risk PC and low-risk PC, respectively. The respective estimates for ACM were 10.45% (95% CI, 8.91%-12.12%) and 8.68% (95% CI, 7.80%-9.61%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Men with low-risk PC and favorable intermediate-risk PC have similarly low estimates of PCSM and ACM during the first decade following brachytherapy. While awaiting the results of ProtecT, the randomized trial of AS vs treatment, our results provide evidence to support AS as an initial approach for men with favorable intermediate-risk PC.

Androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of death from prostate cancer among men with favorable or unfavorable intermediate-risk disease.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT), short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and brachytherapy in various combinations are treatment options for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC), but the question of which combination if any is necessary to minimize PC-specific mortality (PCSM) risk in patients with favorable or unfavorable intermediate-risk PC is unknown. The authors assessed PCSM risk after commonly used treatments. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 2510 men with favorable (1902 men; 75.78%) or unfavorable (608 men; 24.22%) intermediate-risk PC who were treated from 1997 to 2013. Treatment included brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant ADT among men with favorable disease and brachytherapy with neoadjuvant RT or ADT among men with unfavorable disease. Fine and Gray's competing-risks regression model was used to assess whether ADT among men with favorable disease or RT or ADT among men with unfavorable disease decreased PCSM risk after adjusting for treatment propensity score, year of brachytherapy, and PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.78 years, 366 deaths (14.58%) were observed, 29 of which (7.92%) were from PC. There was a significant reduction in PCSM risk in men with unfavorable disease who were treated with ADT versus RT (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.91 [P = .03]), but no significant difference in PCSM risk in men with favorable disease who received ADT and brachytherapy versus brachytherapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-2.57 [P =.56]). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant ADT does not appear to reduce PCSM risk in men undergoing brachytherapy for favorable intermediate-risk PC and should not be considered a standard; however, it appears superior to neoadjuvant RT in men with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC undergoing brachytherapy, making neoadjuvant ADT and brachytherapy a preferred option in these men.

Association of androgen-deprivation therapy with excess cardiac-specific mortality in men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with excess cardiac-specific mortality (CSM) in men with prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidity, coronary artery disease risk factors, or congestive heart failure (CHF) or past myocardial infarction (MI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 5077 men (median age 69.5 years) with cT1c-T3N0M0 prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant ADT (median duration 4 months) between 1997 and 2006. Fine and Gray competing risks analysis evaluated the association of ADT with CSM, adjusting for age, year of brachytherapy, and ADT treatment propensity score among men in groups defined by cardiac comorbidity. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 4.8 years, no association was detected between ADT and CSM in men with no cardiac risk factors (1.08% at 5 years for ADT vs 1.27% at 5 years for no ADT, adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-1.78; P = 0.64; n = 2653) or in men with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolaemia (2.09% vs 1.97%, AHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.70-2.53; P = 0.39; n = 2168). However, ADT was associated with significantly increased CSM in men with CHF or MI (AHR 3.28; 95% CI 1.01-10.64; P = 0.048; n = 256). In this subgroup, the 5-year cumulative incidence of CSM was 7.01% (95% CI 2.82-13.82%) for ADT vs 2.01% (95% CI 0.38-6.45%) for no ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT was associated with a 5% absolute excess risk of CSM at 5 years in men with CHF or prior MI, suggesting that administering ADT to 20 men in this potentially vulnerable subgroup could result in one cardiac death.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy use and the risk of death in men with prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy who have no or at least a single risk factor for coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) use is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD)-induced congestive heart failure (CHF) or myocardial infarction (MI). However, its effect in men with no or at least a single risk factor for CAD stratified by prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether NHT use affects the risk of ACM in men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa treated with brachytherapy who have no or at least a single risk factor for CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective study cohort consisted of 5411 men with low-risk PCa (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <10 ng/ml, Gleason score 6, and clinical stage T1-T2a); 4365 men with intermediate-risk PCa (PSA 10-20 ng/ml or Gleason score <8 or clinical stage

Cardiovascular comorbidity and mortality in men with prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy-based radiation with or without hormonal therapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors and sequelae on the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) in men treated for prostate cancer (PC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study cohort comprised 5077 men with PC consecutively treated with curative intent between 1997 and 2006 at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center. Cox and Fine and Gray's competing risks regression multivariable analyses were performed, assessing whether cardiovascular comorbidity impacted the risk of ACM and PC-specific mortality, respectively, adjusting for CAD risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, or hypertension) and sequelae (congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction), age, year and type of treatment, and known PC prognostic factors. RESULTS: When compared with men with no comorbidity there was a significantly increased risk of ACM in men with congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.96, P<.001) and in men with diabetes mellitus (AHR 1.60, P=.03) and hypertension (AHR 1.25, P=.04). In contrast, men with hypercholesterolemia had a similar risk of ACM (AHR 0.68, P=.17) when compared with men with no comorbidity. Other factors associated with a significantly increased risk of ACM included age (AHR 1.09, P<.001), prostate-specific antigen level (AHR 1.25, P=.008), and Gleason score 8-10 disease (AHR 1.71, P=.003). Cardiovascular comorbidity did not impact the risk of PC-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to age and unfavorable PC prognostic factors, select CAD risk factors and sequelae are associated with an increased risk of ACM in men treated for PC. These comorbidity prognostic factors predict time courses of mortality from competing causes, which may be factored into the decision-making process when considering management options for PC in a given individual.

The number of high-risk factors and the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality after brachytherapy: implications for treatment selection.

PURPOSE: To determine whether an increasing number of high-risk factors is associated with higher prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) among men treated with brachytherapy (BT)-based treatment, and whether supplemental therapy has an impact on this risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed the cases of 2234 men with localized prostate cancer treated between 1991 and 2007 with low-dose rate BT monotherapy (n = 457) or BT with supplemental external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT, n = 229), androgen suppression therapy (AST, n = 424), or both (n = 1124). All men had at least one high-risk factor (prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 8-10, or clinical stage ≥T2c). Competing-risks multivariable regressions were performed to determine whether the presence of at least two high-risk factors was associated with an increased risk of PCSM, with adjustment for age, comorbidity, and the type of supplemental treatment. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 4.3 years. The number of men with at least two high-risk factors was highest in the group treated with BT, EBRT, and AST (21%), followed by BT plus EBRT or AST (13%), and BT alone (8%) (p(trend) < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for PCSM for those with at least two high-risk factors (as compared with one) was 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-8.0; p < 0.001). The use of both supplemental EBRT and AST was associated with a decreased risk of PCSM (AHR 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; p = 0.03) compared with BT alone. When the high-risk factors were analyzed separately, Gleason score 8-10 was most significantly associated with increased PCSM (AHR 6.2; 95% CI, 3.5-11.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Men with high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with BT have decreased PCSM if they receive trimodailty therapy that includes EBRT and AST. This benefit is likely most important in men with multiple determinants of high risk.

Type of diabetes mellitus and the odds of Gleason score 8 to 10 prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: It has been recently shown that diabetes mellitus (DM) is significantly associated with the likelihood of presenting with high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) or Gleason score (GS) 8 to 10; however, whether this association holds for both Type 1 and 2 DM is unknown. In this study we evaluated whether DM Type 1, 2, or both are associated with high-grade PCa after adjusting for known predictors of high-grade disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1991 and 2010, a total of 15,330 men diagnosed with PCa and treated with radiation therapy were analyzed. A polychotomous logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate whether Type 1 or 2 DM was associated with odds of GS 7 or GS 8 to 10 compared with 6 or lower PCa, adjusting for African American race, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and digital rectal examination findings. RESULTS: Men with Type 1 DM (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-3.27; p = 0.003) or Type 2 DM (AOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.26-1.99; p < 0.001) were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with GS 8 to 10 PCa compared with nondiabetic men. However this was not true for GS 7, for which these respective results were AOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.93-1.82; p = 0.12 and AOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.98-1.32; p = 0.10. CONCLUSION: Type 1 and 2 DM were associated with a higher odds of being diagnosed with Gleason score 8 to 10 but not 7 PCa. Pending validation, men who are diagnosed with Type I DM with GS 7 or lower should be considered for additional workup to rule out occult high-grade disease.

Influence of androgen deprivation therapy on all-cause mortality in men with high-risk prostate cancer and a history of congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether the excess risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) observed when androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is added to radiation for men with prostate cancer and a history of congestive heart failure (CHF) or myocardial infarction (MI) also applies to those with high-risk disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of 14,594 men with cT1c-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy-based radiation from 1991 through 2006, 1,378 (9.4%) with a history of CHF or MI comprised the study cohort. Of these, 22.6% received supplemental external beam radiation, and 42.9% received a median of 4 months of neoadjuvant ADT. Median age was 71.8 years. Median follow-up was 4.3 years. Cox multivariable analysis tested for an association between ADT use and ACM within risk groups, after adjusting for treatment factors, prognostic factors, and propensity score for ADT. RESULTS: ADT was associated with significantly increased ACM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.34; p = 0.0001), with 5-year estimates of 22.71% with ADT and 11.62% without ADT. The impact of ADT on ACM by risk group was as follows: high-risk AHR = 2.57; 95% CI, 1.17-5.67; p = 0.019; intermediate-risk AHR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.13-2.73; p = 0.012; low-risk AHR = 1.52; 95% CI, 0.96-2.43; p = 0.075). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a history of CHF or MI treated with brachytherapy-based radiation, ADT was associated with increased all-cause mortality, even for patients with high-risk disease. Although ADT has been shown in Phase III studies to improve overall survival in high-risk disease, the small subgroup of high-risk patients with a history of CHF or MI, who represented about 9% of the patients, may be harmed by ADT.

Hormonal therapy or external-beam radiation with brachytherapy and the risk of death from prostate cancer in men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) improves disease control compared with supplemental androgen suppression therapy (AST) in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are being treated with brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 807 men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (T2bNXM0, Gleason ≤7, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <20 ng/mL; or cT1c-T2bNXM0, Gleason 7) were consecutively treated with either AST and brachytherapy or EBRT and brachytherapy, between 1997 and 2007, and were followed up until September 21, 2007. A Fine and Gray competing risks multivariable regression model was used to assess whether AST or radiotherapy dose escalation reduced the risk of prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) when adjusting for age, PSA, Gleason score, and tumor category. RESULTS: Treatment with brachytherapy and with EBRT was associated with a significant increase in the risk of PCSM compared with brachytherapy and AST (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 4.027 [95% CI, 1.168-13.89]; P = .027) after adjusting for age and prostate cancer prognostic factors. A Gleason score of 4+3 and increasing PSA were associated with worse PCSM (adjusted HR 8.882 [95% CI, 1.095-72.04]; P = .041; and adjusted HR 8.029 [95% CI, 2.38-28.8]; P = .0014, respectively). CONCLUSION: Supplemental AST use compared with EBRT is associated with a lower risk of PCSM in men with intermediate-risk PC undergoing brachytherapy. Prospective validation in a randomized controlled trial is needed.