TY - JOUR AU - Bhindi, Bimal AU - Lokeshwar, Soum D. AU - Klaassen, Zachary AU - Klotz, Laurence AU - Wallis, Christopher J.D. PY - 2020/05/12 Y2 - 2024/03/28 TI - Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials evaluating the role of adjuvant radiation after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: Implications for early salvage JF - Canadian Urological Association Journal JA - CUAJ VL - 14 IS - 10 SE - Original Research DO - 10.5489/cuaj.6440 UR - https://cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/6440 SP - 330-6 AB - <p><strong>Introduction:</strong> 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).</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> 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.</p> ER -