Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use among Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy across a Statewide Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium
Recommended Citation
Dykstra MP, Regan SN, Yin H, McLaughlin PW, Boike TP, Bhatt AK, Walker EM, Zaki M, Kendrick D, Mislmani M, Paluch S, Litzenberg DW, Mietzel M, Narayana V, Smith A, Jackson WC, Heimburger DK, Schipper M, Dess RT. Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use among Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy across a Statewide Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117(2):e380-e381.
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
10-1-2023
Publication Title
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s): For men with intermediate (INT) risk prostate cancer, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces risk of PSA failure, distant metastasis, and cancer-related mortality. Moreover, the relative reduction in cancer-related adverse outcomes with ADT use appears consistent across all INT risk subgroups. The absolute benefit of ADT, however, varies by baseline risk. In contemporary practice, it is unknown which clinical factors are most strongly associated with intended ADT use. Therefore, we sought to identify such factors within the diverse practices of the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). Materials/Methods: Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy were enrolled from 6/9/20 to 11/4/22 (n = 599). Standardized patient, physician, and physicist forms were used to collect baseline and follow-up information. Intended ADT use, defined by the treating physician, was prospectively collected and is the primary outcome of this analysis. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) associations with patient (age, race, comorbidities), tumor (T stage, Gleason, percent cores positive, and PSA), and practice-related (academic vs private) factors were performed. In addition, advanced modality testing (PET, MRI, and genomic classifiers) was available as of March 2021, and subgroup analysis were performed where appropriate. Results: A total 351 patients across 26 centers were enrolled with INT risk disease. ADT use was intended for 46% of men (n = 162/351) which differed by men with NCCN favorable INT (21%, n = 22/105) vs unfavorable INT risk disease (57%, n = 140/246), p<0.001. Sixty two percent (n = 100/162) had an intended ADT duration of 4-6 months and 21% (n = 34/162) had ≥12 months. Older age was associated with ADT use (70 vs 67, p < 0.01); there were no significant differences by race or comorbidities number. MVA showed Gleason 4+3 (OR 4.61 [2.91 – 7.42]) and > = 50% positive cores (2.56 [1.52 – 4.37]) were significantly associated with ADT use. No significant differences were noted based on practice setting. Pelvic MRI was obtained for 71% of men (n = 197/279), genomic classifiers in 47% (n = 130/279), and PET in 2% (n = 6/282). In the subset with MRI (n = 197), adverse features (ECE, SVI, or equivocal LNs) were associated with intended ADT use (OR 3.0 [1.4 - 7.1]) after adjustment for NCCN favorable/unfavorable INT risk classification. Conclusion: Within a state-wide consortium, intended ADT use for intermediate prostate cancer is most strongly associated with Gleason score, ≥50% positive cores, NCCN unfavorable intermediate risk classification, and adverse features on MRI. Nearly half of men had genomic classifier testing underscoring the importance ongoing trials such as NRG/GU 010.
Volume
117
Issue
2
First Page
e380
Last Page
e381
