Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials evaluating the role of adjuvant radiation after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: Implications for early salvage
Introduction: Recent reports suggest that early salvage radiation (esRT) is non-inferior to adjuvant radiation (aRT) for adverse pathological features at radical prostatectomy. However, aRT was accepted as a standard treatment primarily based on effects on biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). In order to understand the merits of esRT, the objective was to reassess if aRT vs. observation is associated with improved overall survival (OS).
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized trials evaluating aRT was performed. The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (RFS), bPFS, and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis.
Results: Four randomized trials including 2068 patients with a median followup of 8.7–12.6 years were identified. While all trials reported a bPFS benefit, only one reported an OS benefit. Upon meta-analysis, no significant OS benefit was detected with aRT vs. observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61–1.33), although consistent bPFS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.41–0.54) and local-RFS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73) benefits were noted. There is an uncertain MFS benefit with aRT (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62– 1.01), and the effect is largely driven by one trial with a notable risk of bias. There was also a risk of overtreatment, with 35–60% of patients being biochemical recurrence-free with observation alone. Adverse events risk was greater with aRT vs. observation.
Conclusions: Although aRT vs. observation provides a bPFS benefit related to local control, there is no clear OS or MFS benefit, a greater risk of adverse events, and a risk of overtreatment. By extension, these data have implications for patient selection and counselling for esRT.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.