Long-term Impact of Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy in pT3N0 Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Multi-institutional Series [Figure presented]

Background Three prospective randomised trials reported discordant findings regarding the impact of adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) versus observation for metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with pT3N0 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). None of these trials systematically included patients who underwent early salvage radiation therapy (esRT). Objective To test the hypothesis that aRT was associated with better cancer control and survival compared with observation followed by esRT. Design, setting, and participants Using a multi-institutional cohort from seven tertiary referral centres, we retrospectively identified 510 pT3pN0 patients with undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after RP between 1996 and 2009. Patients were stratified into two groups: aRT (group 1) versus observation followed by esRT in case of PSA relapse (group 2). Specifically, esRT was administered at a PSA level ≤0.5 ng/ml. Intervention We compared aRT versus observation followed by esRT. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The evaluated outcomes were MFS and OS. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the association between groups (aRT vs observation followed by esRT) and oncologic outcomes. Covariates consisted of pathologic stage (pT3a vs pT3b or higher), pathologic Gleason score (≤6, 7, or ≥8), surgical margin status (negative vs positive), and year of surgery. An interaction with groups and baseline patient risk was tested for the hypothesis that the impact of aRT versus observation followed by esRT was different by pathologic characteristics. The nonparametric curve fitting method was used to explore graphically the relationship between MFS and OS at 8 yr and baseline patient risk (derived from the multivariable analysis). Results and limitations Overall, 243 patients (48%) underwent aRT, and 267 (52%) underwent initial observation. Within the latter group, 141 patients experienced PSA relapse and received esRT. Median follow-up after RP was 94 mo (interquartile range [IQR]: 53–126) and 92 mo (IQR: 70–136), respectively (p = 0.2). MFS (92% vs 91%; p = 0.9) and OS (89% vs 92%; p = 0.9) at 8 yr after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis, in which observation followed by esRT was not associated with a significantly higher risk of distant metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35; p = 0.4) and overall mortality (HR: 1.39; p = 0.4) compared with aRT. Using the nonparametric curve fitting method, a comparable proportion of MFS and OS at 8 yr among groups was observed regardless of pathologic cancer features (p = 0.9 and p = 0.7, respectively). Limitations consisted of the retrospective nature of the study and the relatively small size of the patient population. Conclusions At long-term follow-up, no significant differences between aRT and esRT were observed for MFS and OS. Our study, although based on retrospective data, suggests that esRT does not compromise cancer control and potentially reduces overtreatment associated with aRT. Patient summary At long-term follow-up, no significant differences in terms of distant metastasis and mortality were observed between immediate postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) and initial observation followed by early salvage radiation therapy (esRT) in case of prostate-specific antigen relapse. Our study suggests that esRT does not compromise cancer control and potentially reduces overtreatment associated with aRT.