Radiotherapy and Hormone Treatment in Prostate Cancer
The use of combined percutaneous radiotherapy and hormonal ablation to manage in situ and locally spread tumors
; ; ; ; ;
Background: Prostate cancer has the highest incidence of any type of cancer in Germany; an estimated 67 000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer will be made in 2016. In the current German S3 guideline for the treatment of prostate cancer, radiotherapy—sometimes in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)—is one of the two recommended options for treatment with curative intent (the other is radical prostatectomy). There have been many publications on this subject, yet it is still often unclear in routine practice how ADT should be administered, and for how long.
Methods: This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search, with special attention to controlled trials.
Results: For low risk patients, radiotherapy without ADT is indicated (evidence level 1). Patients with localized prostate cancer and an intermediate risk benefit from radiotherapy combined with a four-to-six-month course of ADT. In this situation, a higher radiation dose might be an effective substitute for ADT (evidence level 1–2). For patients at high risk, radiotherapy combined with long-term hormonal treatment is the standard therapy, as it significantly improves all oncological end points (evidence level 1). For example, in the largest randomized and controlled trial, this form of treatment reduced cancer-specific mortality from 19% to 9%. Higher radiation doses of 66–74 Gy and longer ADT can improve local control at the cost of increased urethral toxicity.
Conclusion: Androgen deprivation combined with external beam radiotherapy is a curative standard option for patients with prostate cancer who are at high risk of recurrence. The modern radiotherapeutic techniques that are now available, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, enable a further improvement of the risk/benefit ratio.
Prostate cancer is the most common malignant tumor in men in Germany. Its estimated incidence for 2016 is 66 900 men. Among all cancers, mortality due to prostate cancer in 2012 was in third place, with 12 957 patients (1).
Because of the poorer prognosis of patients with a high risk profile (Table 1) treatment remains a challenge. Radical prostatectomy (± adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy) and a combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are an option for primary therapy. The current guideline does not recommend further treatment options—such as cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound, and other procedures—outside prospective studies (2).
No data of a satisfactory evidence level are available with a view to a therapeutic recommendation for the combination of interstitial brachytherapy with ADT. A randomized trial is being conducted, but its results have not yet been published (3). Treatment with protons or heavy ions is currently available in very few centers and has not been conclusively evaluated (4). Data on ADT combined with proton or heavy-ion therapy are lacking completely. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has also confirmed that the role of these qualities of rays remains unclear in the treatment of prostate cancer (5). Furthermore, the currently available data on hypofractionation—that is, radiotherapy using higher daily individual doses and a lower total number of radiation fractions—are inconsistent (6–8). Two new randomized trials (the CHHIP Trial, including 3162 patients; and the HYPRO Trial, including 820 patients) have shown that hypofractionation is not inferior to conventional approaches and can therefore provide a treatment alternative. The study results are expected to be published in early 2016.
The multitude of publications on combined radiation and hormone therapy often prompts uncertainties when defining the indication. We aim to alleviate this situation by summarizing the results of randomized studies in this article.
The recommendations are based on studies that correspond to the highest available evidence level. The cited literature is the result of a selective search in the medical databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We used the following search terms or limitations for search terms for the time period 2000–2015 individually and in combination: “prostate cancer”, “androgen deprivation”, “hormonal therapy”, “radiotherapy”, “irradiation”, “radiation”, “randomized trial”, “review”, “evidence based medicine”.
In what follows we summarize the results of randomized trials that provide answers to the question of the indication on the basis of risk factors and the duration of ADT, as well as explaining possible side effects and their management.
External beam radiotherapy uses photons generated by a linear accelerator (LINAC) and is often referred to as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Standard treatment entails fractionated therapy using individual doses of 1.8–2.0 Gy and total dosages of 74.0–80.0 Gy. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a form of improved 3D-CRT, in which continual changes to the photon beam mediated by of thin movable leaves of lead ensure that different volumes of the irradiated area receive different doses. This approach spares the surrounding healthy tissue and optimally covers the target area. Randomized studies comparing 3D-CRT and IMRT are lacking. Several cohort studies including 6102 and 7244 patients who had received either IMRT or 3D-CRT showed a significant reduction in acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity and the rates of proctitis/hemorrhage as a result of IMRT (24 month incidence: 18.8% versus 22.5% ). Late genitourinary sequelae did not differ (9, 10). In Germany, IMRT has become widespread in the treatment of prostate cancer and can be regarded as the new standard. Table 2 compares the results of dose escalation studies with those of more recent therapeutic studies; the literature selection concentrates on studies including large numbers of participants (>100 patients).
In order to ensure the correct positioning of patients during radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) (11–13) is increasingly used in Germany. Determining the exact position of the prostate by using implanted gold markers within the prostate, ultrasound, or computed tomography immediately preceding irradiation increases the precision of the treatment.
Irradiation of the pelvic lymphatic drainage pathways in case of a risk of lymph node metastases
None of the randomized trials so far has shown that irradiating the pelvic lymphatic drainage pathways is associated with an improved oncological result. The largest randomized study (RTOG-94–13) in 1323 patients with prostate cancer and a follow-up period of 7 years did not find a clear benefit for pelvic irradiation (14).
In case of lacking lymph node staging, the risk of lymph node involvement (LN risk) was calculated by using the following formula, which Roach developed in 1994 (15): LN risk (%)=2/3 PSA + ([GS-6] × 10) (PSA, the initially measured value of prostate specific antigen; GS, Gleason score).
The calculations of Nguyen (16) and Yu (17) were also used. According to a comparative analysis, the Roach formula yielded the best results, however, and is therefore the analytic tool of choice (18).
External beam radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy
External beam radiotherapy is the only curative therapeutic option, which in randomized trials showed superior efficacy compared with sole androgen deprivation therapy. More than 2300 patients who had been randomized to ADT or a combination of irradiation and ADT were found to have significantly superior results with additional radiotherapy (Table 3):
- Biochemically no evidence of disease (bNED)
- Metastasis fee survival (MFS)
- Prostate cancer specific survival (PCSS) or
- Prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM)
- Overall survival (OS).
The rate of distant metastases for ADT only was almost three times that of combination treatment (6% versus 17%) (DART01 Study). The largest study, which included 1205 randomized patients, showed a reduction in prostate cancer specific mortality as a result of additional irradiation, from 19% to 9% (19–21).
ADT was given as neoadjuvant treatment, in parallel with and/or adjuvant to percutaneous irradiation. The medications used were androgen receptor blockers (for example, bicalutamide) or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (such as goserelin) or antagonists (for example, degarelix). The combination of radiotherapy with newer medications, such as CYP17A1 inhibitors (for example, abiraterone acetate) cannot be wholly recommended as no randomized studies exist for this drug that have shown equivalent or better efficacy.
In patients with an enlarged prostate—for example >60 mL with accompanying symptoms—neoadjuvant ADT can be used to reduce the prostate volume. Studies have shown that a reduction of up to 50% is possible (22). This results in lower dose exposures to the bowel and bladder (23).
Two randomized studies investigated the question of the duration of neoadjuvant ADT. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG 96.01) studied in 802 patients with moderate and high risk profiles the option of additional neoadjuvant ADT of two months’ or five months’ duration before they had 66 Gy radiotherapy. The second study randomized patients to three months or eight months of maximal androgen blockage in combination with 66 Gy radiotherapy. Both studies showed a significant improvement in biochemical control, MFS, and PCSS if the lowest PSA value had reached 1.0 ng/mL or 0.4 ng/mL (24–27). By contrast, the RTOG Study-9910 compared eight weeks versus 28 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. Compared with the studies cited above, the relevant oncological endpoints after 10 years of follow-up did not differ (28). This means that no generalizable advantage for a longer duration of neoadjuvant ADT can be stipulated.
In interpreting the results, it should be borne in mind that the total irradiation doses administered in the studies are not regarded as high enough from today’s perspective. A recent dose escalation study of six versus 18 months of ADT ± zoledronate and a dose of 66 Gy, 70 Gy or 74 Gy or high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy showed significantly improved local control for increasing doses and with longer ADT. Urethral toxicity increased, however (29).
In all randomized studies that compared combination treatment with radiotherapy only and adjuvant ADT, results improved especially in patients with a moderate or high risk profile. For the former, short-term ADT lead to significantly more instances of biochemical absence of recurrence and PCSM. For locally limited prostate cancer with risk factors, two studies found a benefit for short-term ADT for four to six months in addition to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for all relevant endpoints (bNED, PCSM, and OS) (30, 31). A comparison of the results of short-term ADT with the results of dose escalation shows that dose escalation improved biochemical control to at least the same degree. Accordingly, the irradiation dose can be increased to >74 Gy as an alternative to short-term ADT lasting four to six months. By contrast it was found that patients with a low risk profile did not benefit from additional ADT.
The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) have conducted studies in high-risk patients whose results substantially influenced the therapeutic standards (Table 3). The key message is the significant superiority of long term hormone treatment for 24–36 months for all oncological endpoints in patients with a high risk profile. The results of a recently presented study in which ADT was given for a total of 18 months were not inferior to ADT given for a longer period. Until the final publication of that study, however, the current standard of 24–36 months will remain valid.
With regard to overall survival, the studies’ results are not consistent. The result of the RTOG Study 86-10 is a surprise in that the overall survival was not significantly improved in the treatment arm for the combination of radiotherapy and ADT. The reason for this is likely to be the fact that most patients in this study had high risk factors and four months of ADT is not enough in this group of patients.
What deserves critical comment, however, is the fact that the selection of study endpoints is controversial. Many authors give the highest priority to overall survival, whereas other authors regard cancer-specific or metastasis-free survival as more important for the patient.
New randomized studies designed to optimize treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer investigated the role of local therapy + ADT and additional medical tumor treatment with local therapy + ADT alone. The GETUG-12 Study compared the combination of radiotherapy + ADT for three years + 4 cycles of Docetaxel/Estramustine with radiotherapy + ADT alone. 413 patients experienced significantly improved recurrence-free eight-year survival when they were additionally given chemotherapy (62% versus 50%) (32). The RADAR Study mentioned above did not find any additional benefit for zoledronate therapy with a combination of radiotherapy and ADT. After 7.4 years, 18 months of ADT and zoledronate showed a significant advantage with regard to bNED (74% versus 65.8%) and the need for secondary tumor therapy compared with six months’ ADT (15.3% versus 25.6%) (33).
Side effects of radiotherapy
The treatment of radiation induced side effects should always be undertaken in collaboration with Radiation Oncologists in order to combine experiences optimally and ensure a high effectiveness of side effect management for the patient.
Mild or moderate side effects during and after radiotherapy (acute side effects) are irritative genitourinary (dysuria, pollakiuria, nocturia, increased urge to urinate) and gastrointestinal symptoms (increased urge to defecate, passing of mucus and, more rarely, rectal bleeding). These occur depending on the data collection method (EORTC-RTOG scale or Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events [CTCAE]) at a rate of 9–49%, whereas severe acute side effects affect only 1–3% of patients. All acute side effects usually cease quickly after the therapy has been concluded. Severe late genitourinary or gastrointestinal side effects—such as higher-grade incontinence, urethral structures, or persistent hemorrhages—have become rare after modern external beam radiotherapy (0.1–6%). Patient-based risk factors for the increased risk of radiation induced acute and late side effects are older age, large rectal volume, previous abdominal surgery, diabetes mellitus, hemorrhoids, and inflammatory bowel disorders. Equally, previous genitourinary symptoms, transurethral resection of the prostate, and acute genitourinary side effects during radiotherapy are risk factors for late side effects after radiotherapy. Erectile dysfunction after sole radiotherapy is a common side effect (20–30%), which in most cases can be treated successfully by administering phosphodiesterase (PDE)-5 inhibitors (34). In 2012, Budäus et al. published a comprehensive summary of the causes and risk factors of radiation induced side effects (35).
The side effects listed here, but also milder symptoms that may concern the patient, are often easily managed by using simple conventional methods or medications. For severe side effects, hyperbaric oxygen therapy is a therapeutic option in severe proctitis that has been investigated in a randomized study (evidence level 1) (36).
Radiotherapy may increase the risk of developing secondary malignancies. This late side effect becomes clinically relevant only after more than 10–15 years. Current data do not allow any definite conclusions about the extent of this risk after localized radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A matched-pair analysis of 2120 patients each after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy found only after 10 years a significant difference in the rate of secondary malignancies (hazard ratio 4.9 for bladder cancer and lymphoproliferative disorders). If modern therapeutic techniques such as brachytherapy or IMRT were used, however, the risk did not increase significantly, even after 10 years (37). Regarding this, the interdisciplinary discussion with the patient should neither favor definitive radiotherapy nor radical prostatectomy.
Side effects of androgen deprivation therapy
The use of ADT has a substantial rate of side effects. Common side effects (>10%) include hot flashes and attacks of sweating, loss of libido, tiredness/fatigue, headache, weight gain, gynecomastia, and erectile dysfunction. Important for patients’ quality of life—in addition to the rarer (<1%) mood swings/depression, loss of muscle mass, osteoporosis, micturition problems, and impaired vision—is the even rarer (<1%) febrile neutropenia. The differences in quality of life for six or 36 months of ADT do not reach significance (38). Rare but serious cardiovascular side effects—for example, myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, and stroke—have been reported in association with long-term ADT. Cardiovascular mortality in men with congestive heart failure or myocardial infarction in their medical histories was investigated in a retrospective analysis of 591 men who had received ADT for a median of four months, in addition to brachytherapy. The study showed a significant increase in mortality (22.7% versus 11.7%) (39). Similar data have been reported after a median duration of six months of ADT combined with radiotherapy (19.5% versus 14.3%) (40). Recent meta-analyses have given rise to the suspicion that the administration of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues raises the risk of cardiovascular death particularly in patients with pre-existing severe cardiovascular disorders. Two recent meta-analyses found a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death (e22) and an increased risk for cardiac events (e23). By contrast, a meta-analysis of randomized studies of cardiovascular deaths after ADT did not ascertain any increase in cardiovascular mortality (e24). Data from RTOG studies did not show increased cardiovascular mortality either (e25). In at-risk patients, a cardiological consultation should be conducted and, if required, radiotherapy with LHRA antagonists or antiandrogens should be given.
Since androgen deprivation treatment with LHRH analogues can also increase the risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes mellitus, regular control of laboratory variables is required (e26). Because of the two risks mentioned, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDS) published a warning in 2010. This was—among others—based on a recommendation of the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Urological Association, and the support of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (e27).
Conflict of interest statement
PD Dr Böhmer has received conference delegate fees and travel expenses as well as lecture honoraria from Takeda Pharma GmbH. He is the principal investigator of an EORTC phase III study of prostate cancer that receives funding from Ferring Arzneimittel [Medicines] GmbH.
Prof Heidenreich has received consultancy fees from Astellas, Ipsen, Takeda, and Sandoz, as well as speaker fees from Ipsen and Sanofi.
Prof Wiegel has received consultancy fees from Janssen and Ipsen. He has received speaker/lecture fees from Ipsen, Janssen, and Hexal.
The remaining authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
Manuscript received on 12 October 2015, revised version accepted on
20 January 2016.
Translated from the original German by Birte Twisselmann, PhD.
PD Dr. med. Dirk Böhmer
Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie
Charité Universitätsmedizin – Campus Benjamin Franklin
For eReferences please refer to:
Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 475–87 CrossRef
Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 464–73 CrossRef
Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden: Prof. Dr. med. Wirth
Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin: Prof. Dr. med. Miller
Department of Urology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen: Prof. Dr. med. Heidenreich
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm: Prof. Dr. med. Wiegel
|1.||Krebs in Deutschland: 10th edition. Saarbrücken: Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. und das Robert-Koch-Institut 2015.|
|2.||Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (eds.): Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms. Version 3.1. 2014.|
|3.||Konaka H, Egawa S, Saito S, et al.: Tri-Modality therapy with I-125 brachytherapy, external beam radiation therapy, and short- or long-term hormone therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer (TRIP): study protocol for a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2012; 12: 110 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|4.||Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al.: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124–37 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|5.||Allen AM, Pawlicki T, Dong L, et al.: An evidence based review of proton beam therapy: the report of ASTRO’s emerging technology committee. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103: 8–11 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|6.||Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM, et al.: Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3860–8 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|7.||Norkus D, Karklelyte A, Engels B, et al.: A randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial for high risk prostate cancer patients: interim analysis of acute toxicity and quality of life in 124 patients. Radiat Oncol 2013; 8: 206.|
|8.||Arcangeli S, Strigari L, Gomellini S, et al.: Updated results and patterns of failure in a randomized hypofractionation trial for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 1172–8 CrossRef CrossRef MEDLINE|
|9.||Bekelman JE, Mitra N, Efstathiou J, et al.: Outcomes after intensity-modulated versus conformal radiotherapy in older men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: e325–e334 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|10.||Michalski JM, Yan Y, Watkins-Bruner D, et al.: Preliminary toxicity analysis of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 prostate cancer trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 87: 932–8 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|11.||Lattanzi J, McNeeley S, Pinover W, et al.: A comparison of daily CT localization to a daily ultrasound-based system in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 719–25 CrossRef|
|12.||Poulsen PR, Fokdal L, Petersen J, Hoyer M: Accuracy of image-guided radiotherapy of prostate cancer based on the BeamCath urethral catheter technique. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83: 25–30 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|13.||Sterzing F, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Flentje M, Debus J: Image-guided radiotherapy: a new dimension in radiation oncology. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108: 274–80 VOLLTEXT|
|14.||Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M 3rd, et al.: An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94–13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/ radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 646–55 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|15.||Roach M 3rd, Marquez C, Yuo HS, et al.: Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 28: 33–7 CrossRef|
|16.||Nguyen PL, Chen MH, Hoffman KE, Katz MS, D’Amico AV: Predicting the risk of pelvic node involvement among men with prostate cancer in the contemporary era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 104–9 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|17.||Yu JB, Makarov DV, Gross C: A new formula for prostate cancer lymph node risk. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 80: 69–75 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|18.||Abdollah F, Cozzarini C, Sun M, et al.: Assessing the most accurate formula to predict the risk of lymph node metastases from prostate cancer in contemporary patients treated with radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Radiother Oncol 2013; 109: 211–6 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|19.||Mottet N, Peneau M, Mazeron JJ, Molinie V, Richaud P: Addition of radiotherapy to long-term androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer: an open randomised phase 3 trial. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 213–9 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|20.||Warde P, Mason M, Ding K, et al.: Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 2104–11 CrossRef|
|21.||Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, et al.: Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 301–8 CrossRef|
|22.||Kucway R, Vicini F, Huang R, Stromberg J, Gonzalez J, Martinez A: Prostate volume reduction with androgen deprivation therapy before interstitial brachytherapy. J Urol 2002; 167: 2443–7 CrossRef|
|23.||Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Burman CM, et al.: Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves the therapeutic ratio in patients with bulky prostatic cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 29: 755–61 CrossRef|
|24.||Denham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS, et al.: Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 451–9 CrossRef|
|25.||Lamb DS, Denham JW, Joseph D, et al.: A comparison of the prognostic value of early PSA test-based variables following external beam radiotherapy, with or without preceding androgen deprivation: analysis of data from the TROG 96.01 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 385–91 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|26.||Crook J, Ludgate C, Malone S, et al.: Final report of multicenter Canadian Phase III randomized trial of 3 versus 8 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy before conventional-dose radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73: 327–33 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|27.||Alexander A, Crook J, Jones S, et al.: Is biochemical response more important than duration of neoadjuvant hormone therapy before radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer? An analysis of the 3- versus 8-month randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: 23–30 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|28.||Pisansky TM, Hunt D, Gomella LG, et al.: Duration of androgen suppression before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: radiation therapy oncology group randomized clinical trial 9910. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 332–9 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|29.||Denham JW, Steigler A, Joseph D, et al.: Radiation dose escalation or longer androgen suppression for locally advanced prostate cancer? Data from the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial. Radiother Oncol 2015; 115: 301–7 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|30.||Jones CU, Hunt D, McGowan DG, et al.: Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 107–18 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|31.||D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Kantoff PW: Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2008; 299: 289–95 CrossRef|
|32.||Fizazi K, Faivre L, Lesaunier F, et al.: Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 787–94 CrossRef|
|33.||Denham JW, Joseph D, Lamb DS, et al.: Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 factorial trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1076–89 CrossRef|
|34.||Siglin J, Kubicek GJ, Leiby B, Valicenti RK: Time of decline in sexual function after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76: 31–5 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|35.||Budäus L, Bolla M, Bossi A, et al.: Functional outcomes and complications following radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 112–27 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|36.||Clarke RE, Tenorio LM, Hussey JR, et al.: Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of chronic refractory radiation proctitis: a randomized and controlled double-blind crossover trial with long-term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 134–43 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|37.||Huang J, Kestin LL, Ye H, Wallace M, Martinez AA, Vicini FA: Analysis of second malignancies after modern radiotherapy versus prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2011; 98: 81–6 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|38.||Bolla M, de Reijke TM, van Tienhoven G, et al.: Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2516–27 CrossRefMEDLINE|
|39.||Nguyen PL, Chen MH, Beckman JA, et al.: 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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 1411–6 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|40.||Kohutek ZA, Steinberger E, Pei X, et al.: Long-term impact of androgen-deprivation therapy on cardiovascular morbidity after radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2016; 87: 146–52 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e1.||D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.: Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 168–72.|
|e2.||Kuban DA, Levy LB, Cheung MR, et al.: Long-term failure patterns and survival in a randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Who dies of disease? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79: 1310–7 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e3.||Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al.: Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 67–74 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e4.||Al-Mamgani A, van Putten WL, Heemsbergen WD, et al.: Update of Dutch multicenter dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 980–8 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e5.||Zietman AL, Bae K, Slater JD, et al.: Randomized trial comparing conventional-dose with high-dose conformal radiation therapy in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the prostate: long-term results from Proton Radiation Oncology Group/American College of Radiology 95–09. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1106–11 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|e6.||Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al.: Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 294: 1233–9 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e7.||Beckendorf V, Guerif S, Le Prise E, et al.: 70 Gy versus 80 Gy in localized prostate cancer: 5-year results of GETUG 06 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 80: 1056–63 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e8.||Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al.: Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. |
Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 475–87 CrossRef
|e9.||Dearnaley DP, Jovic G, Syndikus I, et al.: Escalated-dose versus control-dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: long-term results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. |
Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 464–73 CrossRef
|e10.||Sharma NK, Li T, Chen DY, Pollack A, Horwitz EM, Buyyounouski MK: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces gastrointestinal toxicity in patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 80: 437–44 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e11.||Zelefsky MJ, Kollmeier M, Cox B, et al.: Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012.|
|e12.||Vora SA, Wong WW, Schild SE, Ezzell GA, Halyard MY: Analysis of biochemical control and prognostic factors in patients treated with either low-dose three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 1053–8 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e13.||Vesprini D, Catton C, Jacks L, et al.: Inverse relationship between biochemical outcome and acute toxicity after image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 608–16 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e14.||Eade TN, Horwitz EM, Ruth K, et al.: A comparison of acute and chronic toxicity for men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy or (125)I permanent implant. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71: 338–45 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|e15.||Brundage M, Sydes MR, Parulekar WR, et al.: Impact of radio-|
therapy when added to androgen-deprivation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term quality-of-life outcomes from the NCIC CTG PR3/MRC PR07 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2151–7 CrossRef MEDLINE
|e16.||Zapatero A, Guerrero A, Maldonado X, et al.: High-dose radiotherapy with short-term or long-term androgen deprivation in localised prostate cancer (DART01/05 GICOR): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 320–7 CrossRef|
|e17.||D’Amico AV, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, Loffredo B, Kantoff PW: Risk of prostate cancer recurrence in men treated with radiation alone or in conjunction with combined or less than combined androgen suppression therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2979–83 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e18.||Roach M, 3rd, Bae K, Speight J, et al.: Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term results of RTOG 8610. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 585–91 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e19.||Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, et al.: Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma—|
long-term results of phase III RTOG 85–31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61: 1285–90 CrossRef MEDLINE
|e20.||Horwitz EM, Bae K, Hanks GE, et al.: Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92–02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2497–504 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e21.||Bolla M, van Tienhoven G, Warde P, et al.: External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 1066–73 CrossRef|
|e22.||Zhao J, Zhu S, Sun L, et al.: Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a meta-analysis of population-based observational studies. PloS one 2014; 9: e107516.|
|e23.||Albertsen PC, Klotz L, Tombal B, Grady J, Olesen TK, Nilsson J: Cardiovascular morbidity associated with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists and an antagonist. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 565–73 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e24.||Nguyen PL, Je Y, Schutz FA, et al.: Association of androgen deprivation therapy with cardiovascular death in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2011; 306: 2359–66 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e25.||Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al.: Cardiovascular mortality after androgen deprivation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: RTOG 85–31. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 92–9 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|e26.||Teoh JY, Chiu PK, Chan SY, et al.: Risk of new-onset diabetes after androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in the Asian population. J Diabetes 2015; 7: 672–80 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e27.||Levine GN, D’Amico AV, Berger P, et al.: Androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association: endorsed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. Circulation 2010; 121: 833–40 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international, 201610.3238/arztebl.2016.0678b
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international, 201610.3238/arztebl.2016.0678a
Research Progress for the Clinical Application of Circulating Tumor Cells in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentBioMed Research International, 202110.1155/2021/6230826
Deutsches Ärzteblatt international, 202010.3238/arztebl.2020.0243