Department of Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Department of Oncology, Genito-Urinary Cancer Research Group, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK; Department of Surgery, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK; Department of Urology, Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK.
Lancet. 2020 Oct 31;396(10260):1413-1421. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31553-1. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression.
We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047.
Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020).
These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.
Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.
根治性前列腺切除术后放疗的最佳时机仍不确定。我们旨在比较辅助放疗与挽救性放疗在 PSA 生化进展方面的疗效和安全性。
我们进行了一项随机对照试验,纳入了至少有一个生化进展风险因素(病理 T 期 3 或 4 期、Gleason 评分 7-10、阳性切缘或术前 PSA≥10ng/ml)的前列腺癌根治术后患者(RADICALS-RT)。该研究在加拿大、丹麦、爱尔兰和英国的试验认证中心进行。患者按 1:1 的比例随机分配至辅助放疗或挽救性放疗(PSA≥0·1ng/ml 或连续三次升高)的观察策略。未考虑进行盲法。分层因素为 Gleason 评分、切缘状态、计划放疗方案(52·5Gy/20 次或 66Gy/33 次)和中心。主要终点是远处转移无进展,有 80%的效能检测到从挽救性放疗(对照组)的 90%改善至辅助放疗的 95%。我们报告了生化无进展生存率、非方案激素治疗无进展率、安全性和患者报告的结局。采用标准生存分析方法。HR<1 表示辅助放疗更优。本研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,NCT00541047。
2007 年 11 月 22 日至 2016 年 12 月 30 日期间,共有 1396 名患者被随机分配,699 名(50%)接受挽救性放疗,697 名(50%)接受辅助放疗。两组分配均衡,中位年龄为 65 岁(IQR 60-68)。中位随访时间为 4.9 年(IQR 3.0-6.1)。辅助放疗组 697 名参与者中有 649 名(93%)报告在 6 个月内接受放疗;挽救性放疗组 699 名参与者中有 228 名(33%)在随机分组后 8 年内报告接受放疗。在 169 例事件中,辅助放疗组 5 年生化无进展生存率为 85%,挽救性放疗组为 88%(HR 1.10,95%CI 0.81-1.49;p=0.56)。辅助放疗组 5 年非方案激素治疗无进展率为 93%,挽救性放疗组为 92%(HR 0.88,95%CI 0.58-1.33;p=0.53)。辅助放疗组在 1 年时的尿失禁自评评分更差(平均评分 4.8 分 vs 4.0 分;p=0.0023)。在 2 年内,辅助放疗组有 6%的患者出现 3-4 级尿道狭窄,而挽救性放疗组为 4%(p=0.020)。
这些初步结果不支持根治性前列腺切除术后常规应用辅助放疗。辅助放疗增加了尿生殖系统不良事件的风险。在 PSA 生化进展时采用挽救性放疗的观察策略应该是根治性前列腺切除术后的当前标准。
英国癌症研究中心、MRC 临床试验单位和加拿大癌症协会。