Meta-Analysis of Candidate Surrogate End Points in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) working group identified metastasis-free survival as a valid surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) for patients with localized prostate cancer. No comparably validated surrogate end points exist in advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for trials in advanced prostate cancer, defined as node-positive, metastatic castration-sensitive, nonmetastatic, or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eligible randomized trials reported OS and one or more intermediate clinical end points, including biochemical failure (BF), clinical failure, biochemical failure­free survival (BFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic PFS. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed by using the second condition of the meta-analytic approach; R2 was weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical end point hazard ratio and defined as R2>0.70. RESULTS: A total of 143 randomized trials (n=75,601 patients) were included. No candidate end points met the criteria for surrogacy (R2 BF [n=28,922], 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18 to 0.64]; BFS [n=25,741], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73]; clinical failure [n=22,616], 0.31 [95% CI, 0.075 to 0.56]; PFS [n=52,639], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63]; and radiographic PFS [n=52,548], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63]). Within preplanned subgroups according to castration-sensitive or castration-resistant disease or according to treatment type, neither BFS nor PFS consistently met criteria for surrogacy. Sensitivity analyses showed that candidacy for surrogacy of all end points tested did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our aggregate screening method for surrogate end points in advanced prostate cancer showed that commonly used clinical end points are not clear valid surrogate end points for OS. (Funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the National Cancer Institute.)

The Potential for Midtreatment Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) Score to Individualize Liver Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Our individualized functional response adaptive approach to liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with assessment of indocyanine green (ICG) retention at baseline and midtreatment to detect subclinical changes in liver function, permitting dose adjustment, has decreased toxicity while preserving efficacy. We hypothesized that assessment of the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score at baseline and midtreatment would allow for more practical identification of patients at risk for treatment-related toxicity (TRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were treated on 3 prospective institutional review board-approved trials using baseline and midtreatment ICG to deliver individualized functional response adaptive liver SBRT. Patients received 3 or 5 fractions, with fraction 3 followed by a 1-month treatment break. TRT was a ≥2-point rise in Child-Pugh score within 6 months of SBRT. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for assessment of TRT. Area under the receiver operating curve was used to compare predictive ability across models. RESULTS: In total, 151 patients underwent 166 treatments. Baseline Child-Pugh class and ALBI grade were A (66.9%), B (31.3%), or C (1.8%) and 1 (25.9%), 2 (65.7%), or 3 (8.4%), respectively. Thirty-five patients (20.3%) experienced TRT. On univariate analysis, baseline ALBI (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.24-2.62; P = .02), baseline ICG (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.17-2.35; P = .04), and change in ALBI (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.29-7.32; P = .003) were associated with increased odds of TRT. ALBI-centric models performed similarly to ICG-centric models on multivariate analyses predicting toxicity (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.79 for both). In a model incorporating baseline and midtreatment change in ALBI and ICG, both ALBI values were statistically significantly associated with toxicity, whereas ICG values were not. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of midtreatment change in ALBI in addition to baseline ALBI improves the ability to predict TRT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving SBRT. Our findings suggest that functional response adaptive treatment could be implemented in a practical manner because the ALBI score is easily obtained from standard laboratory values.

Prostate Radiotherapy With Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) Improves Metastasis-Free Survival Compared to Neoadjuvant ADT: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: There remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa. METHODS: MEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% v 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], P = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], P = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], P = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], P = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% v 3%, P = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups. CONCLUSION: The sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.

Integrated Survival Estimates for Cancer Treatment Delay Among Adults With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Cancer treatment delay has been reported to variably impact cancer-specific survival and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific mortality during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. During the pandemic, treatment delay is being recommended in a nonquantitative, nonobjective, and nonpersonalized manner, and this approach may be associated with suboptimal outcomes. Quantitative integration of cancer mortality estimates and data on the consequences of treatment delay is needed to aid treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes. Objective: To obtain quantitative integration of cancer-specific and COVID-19-specific mortality estimates that can be used to make optimal decisions for individual patients and optimize resource allocation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this decision analytical model, age-specific and stage-specific estimates of overall survival pre-COVID-19 were adjusted by the probability of COVID-19 (individualized by county, treatment-specific variables, hospital exposure frequency, and COVID-19 infectivity estimates), COVID-19 mortality (individualized by age-specific, comorbidity-specific, and treatment-specific variables), and delay of cancer treatment (impact and duration). These model estimates were integrated into a web application (OncCOVID) to calculate estimates of the cumulative overall survival and restricted mean survival time of patients who received immediate vs delayed cancer treatment. Using currently available information about COVID-19, a susceptible-infected-recovered model that accounted for the increased risk among patients at health care treatment centers was developed. This model integrated the data on cancer mortality and the consequences of treatment delay to aid treatment decisions. Age-specific and cancer stage-specific estimates of overall survival pre-COVID-19 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 691 854 individuals with 25 cancer types who received cancer diagnoses in 2005 to 2006. Data from 5 436 896 individuals in the National Cancer Database were used to estimate the independent impact of treatment delay by cancer type and stage. In addition, data from 275 patients in a nested case-control study were used to estimate the COVID-19 mortality rate by age group and number of comorbidities. Data were analyzed from March 17 to May 21, 2020. Exposures: COVID-19 and cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimates of restricted mean survival time after the receipt of immediate vs delayed cancer treatment. Results: At the time of the study, the OncCOVID web application allowed for the selection of up to 47 individualized variables to assess net survival for an individual patient with cancer. Substantial heterogeneity was found regarding the association between delayed cancer treatment and net survival among patients with a given cancer type and stage, and these 2 variables were insufficient to discriminate the net impact of immediate vs delayed treatment. Individualized overall survival estimates were associated with patient age, number of comorbidities, treatment received, and specific local community estimates of COVID-19 risk. Conclusions and Relevance: This decision analytical modeling study found that the OncCOVID web-based application can quantitatively aid in the resource allocation of individualized treatment for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Addition of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Brachytherapy Boost to External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: In men with localized prostate cancer, the addition of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or a brachytherapy boost (BT) to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have been shown to improve various oncologic end points. Practice patterns indicate that those who receive BT are significantly less likely to receive ADT, and thus we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the predicted outcomes of a randomized trial of EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review identified published randomized trials comparing EBRT with or without ADT, or EBRT (with or without ADT) with or without BT, that reported on overall survival (OS). Standard fixed-effects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjust for use and duration of ADT. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare EBRT plus ADT versus EBRT plus BT. Bayesian analyses were also performed, and a rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses to create a surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS: Six trials compared EBRT with or without ADT (n = 4,663), and 3 compared EBRT with or without BT (n = 718). The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81]), whereas the addition of BT did not significantly improve OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.36]). In a network meta-analysis, EBRT plus ADT had improved OS compared with EBRT plus BT (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]). Bayesian modeling demonstrated an 88% probability that EBRT plus ADT resulted in superior OS compared with EBRT plus BT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that current practice patterns of omitting ADT with EBRT plus BT may result in inferior OS compared with EBRT plus ADT in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. ADT for these men should remain a critical component of treatment regardless of radiotherapy delivery method until randomized evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Surrogate Endpoints in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Randomized clinical trials assessing novel therapies in men with localized prostate cancer frequently require large patient numbers and more than a decade of follow-up to demonstrate improvements in overall survival. As the landscape of treatment options for prostate cancer is rapidly changing, clinical trials requiring long follow-up threaten to impede treatment improvements and run the risk of results being obsolete by the time that they are reported in publication. To address these issues, there has been tremendous interest in identifying an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be assessed earlier in the disease course to serve as a robust surrogate for overall survival in men with localized prostate cancer. Herein we review the relevant data for surrogate endpoints in localized prostate cancer, highlighting the work performed by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate Working Group identifying metastasis-free survival as a valid surrogate for men treated for localized prostate cancer.

Association of Black Race With Prostate Cancer-Specific and Other-Cause Mortality.

Importance: Black men are more likely to die of prostate cancer than white men. In men with similar stages of disease, the contribution of biological vs nonbiological differences to this observed disparity is unclear. Objective: To quantify the association of black race with long-term survival outcomes after controlling for known prognostic variables and access to care among men with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiple-cohort study included updated individual patient-level data of men with clinical T1-4N0-1M0 prostate cancer from the following 3 cohorts: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER [n = 296 273]); 5 equal-access regional medical centers within the Veterans Affairs health system (VA [n = 3972]); and 4 pooled National Cancer Institute-sponsored Radiation Therapy Oncology Group phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs [n = 5854]). Data were collected in the 3 cohorts from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2013, and analyzed from April 27, 2017, through April 13, 2019. Exposures: In the VA and RCT cohorts, all patients received surgery and radiotherapy, respectively, with curative intent. In SEER, radical treatment, hormone therapy, or conservative management were received. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Secondary measures included other-cause mortality (OCM). To adjust for demographic-, cancer-, and treatment-related baseline differences, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed. Results: Among the 306 100 participants included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [8.9] years), black men constituted 52 840 patients (17.8%) in the SEER cohort, 1513 (38.1%) in the VA cohort, and 1129 (19.3%) in the RCT cohort. Black race was associated with an increased age-adjusted PCSM hazard (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.23-1.37; P < .001) within the SEER cohort. After IPW adjustment, black race was associated with a 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.9%) increase in PCSM at 10 years after diagnosis (sHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .001), with no significant difference for high-risk men (sHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29). No significant differences in PCSM were found in the VA IPW cohort (sHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.30; P = .46), and black men had a significantly lower hazard in the RCT IPW cohort (sHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99; P = .04). Black men had a significantly increased hazard of OCM in the SEER (sHR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27-1.34; P < .001) and RCT (sHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.29; P = .002) IPW cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, after adjustment for nonbiological differences, notably access to care and standardized treatment, black race did not appear to be associated with inferior stage-for-stage PCSM. A large disparity remained in OCM for black men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 6,000 Patients Treated On Prospective Studies.

PURPOSE: Utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of localized prostate cancer is increasing. Guidelines and payers variably support the use of prostate SBRT. We therefore sought to systematically analyze biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes after prostate SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search leveraging Medline via PubMed and EMBASE for original articles published between January 1990 and January 2018 was performed. This was supplemented by abstracts with sufficient extractable data from January 2013 to March 2018. All prospective series assessing curative-intent prostate SBRT for localized prostate cancer reporting bRFS, physician-reported toxicity, and patient-reported quality of life with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q tests. Meta-regression was performed using Hartung-Knapp methods. RESULTS: Thirty-eight unique prospective series were identified comprising 6116 patients. Median follow-up was 39 months across all patients (range, 12-115 months). Ninety-two percent, 78%, and 38% of studies included low, intermediate, and high-risk patients. Overall, 5- and 7-year bRFS rates were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-97.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI, 91.4%-95.5%), respectively. Estimated late grade ≥3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.8%) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.0%), respectively. By 2 years post-SBRT, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary and bowel domain scores returned to baseline. Increasing dose of SBRT was associated with improved biochemical control (P = .018) but worse late grade ≥3 GU toxicity (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT has substantial prospective evidence supporting its use, with favorable tumor control, patient-reported quality of life, and levels of toxicity demonstrated. SBRT has sufficient evidence to be supported as a standard treatment option for localized prostate cancer while ongoing trials assess its potential superiority.

Comparison of Population-Based Observational Studies With Randomized Trials in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Comparative efficacy research performed using population registries can be subject to significant bias. There is an absence of objective data demonstrating factors that can sufficiently reduce bias and provide accurate results. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from January 2000 to October 2016 for observational studies comparing two treatment regimens for any diagnosis of cancer, using SEER, SEER-Medicare, or the National Cancer Database. Reporting quality and statistical methods were assessed using components of the STROBE criteria. Randomized trials comparing the same treatment regimens were identified. Primary outcome was correlation between survival hazard ratio (HR) estimates provided by the observational studies and randomized trials. Secondary outcomes included agreement between matched pairs and predictors of agreement. RESULTS: Of 3,657 studies reviewed, 350 treatment comparisons met eligibility criteria and were matched to 121 randomized trials. There was no significant correlation between the HR estimates reported by observational studies and randomized trials (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.083; 95% CI, -0.068 to 0.230). Forty percent of matched studies were in agreement regarding treatment effects (κ, 0.037; 95% CI, -0.027 to 0.1), and 62% of the observational study HRs fell within the 95% CIs of the randomized trials. Cancer type, data source, reporting quality, adjustment for age, stage, or comorbidities, use of propensity weighting, instrumental variable or sensitivity analysis, and well-matched study population did not predict agreement. CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify any modifiable factor present in population-based observational studies that improved agreement with randomized trials. There was no agreement beyond what is expected by chance, regardless of reporting quality or statistical rigor of the observational study. Future work is needed to identify reliable methods for conducting population-based comparative efficacy research.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: Long Term Imaging Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To determine the natural history of imaging findings seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Although arterial hyperenhancement is a key feature of untreated HCC, our clinical experience suggested that tumors that never progressed could still show hyperenhancement. Therefore, we undertook a systematic study to test the hypothesis that persistent arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) after SBRT is an expected finding that does not suggest failure of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred forty-six patients undergoing SBRT for HCC between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, were screened retrospectively using an institutional review board-approved prospectively maintained registry. Inclusion criteria were (1) HCC treated with SBRT, (2) multiphasic MRI ≤3 months before SBRT, (3) up to 1 year of follow-up MRI post-SBRT, and (4) cirrhosis. The exclusion criterion was ≤3 months of locoregional therapy to the liver segment containing the SBRT-treated HCC. Pre- and post-SBRT MRI from up to 3 years were analyzed in consensus by independent pairs of subspecialty-trained radiologists to determine the temporal evolution of major features for HCC and imaging findings in off-target parenchyma. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with 67 HCCs (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network imaging criteria [OPTN] 5a [n = 26], OPTN 5b [n = 28], OPTN 5x [n = 7]; Liver Imaging Reporting Data System [LI-RAD]-M [n = 4] and LiRADs-4 [n = 2]) were studied. Tumor size either decreased (66% [44 of 67]) or remained unchanged (34% [23 of 67]) within the first 12 months. Post-SBRT APHE was common (58% [39 of 67]). When graded using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 3 to 6 months, 25% (17 of 67) met criteria for complete response and 75% (50 of 67) met criteria for stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is an effective locoregional treatment option for HCC. Persistent APHE is common and does not necessarily indicate viable neoplasm; thus, standard response assessment such as modified Response Evaluation Criteria should be used with caution, particularly in the early phases after SBRT therapy.

Erectile function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the functional erection rate after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to develop a comprehensive prognostic model of outcomes after treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2013, 373 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer were treated with SBRT at a single academic institution as part of a prospective clinical trial or prospective registry. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data was collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 instrument. Functional erections were strictly defined as 'firm enough for intercourse' according to EPIC-26. Detailed comorbidity data were also collected. Logistic regression models were used to predict 24- and 60-month functional erection rates. Observed erection rates after SBRT were compared with those after other radiation therapies (external beam radiation therapy [EBRT] and brachytherapy) using prospectively validated models. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 56 (37-73) months and the response rate at 2 years was 84%. For those with functional erections at baseline, 57% and 45% retained function at 24 and 60 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis for 24-month erectile function, significant variables included higher baseline sexual HRQoL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55 per 10 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.74; P < 0.001) and older age (aOR 0.66 per 10 years, 95% CI 0.43-1.00; P = 0.05). At 60 months, baseline HRQoL and age remained associated with erectile function, along with body mass index (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78; P < 0.001). The 24- and 60-month models had excellent discrimination (c-index 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). Erection rates after SBRT were not statistically different from model-predicted rates after EBRT or brachytherapy for the whole cohort and the cohort with baseline erectile function. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate- to long-term post-SBRT erectile function results are promising and not significantly different from other radiotherapy techniques. Clinicians can use our prognostic model to counsel patients regarding expected erectile function after SBRT.