Reconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era
Abstract
Aim: We developed a decision analysis framework to simulate the clinical choice of early adjuvant versus delayed salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Materials & methods: We designed a Markov decision analysis model to represent two alternative treatment approaches for prostate cancer after prostatectomy over a 10-year time horizon. The model contained individualized inputs including genomic classifier score. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model results. Results: Observation with delayed salvage radiation is preferred according to the base case, with greater average length and quality of life. However, adjuvant therapy is preferred over observation with salvage when genomics-based estimates of recurrence are high. Conclusion: Model results were sensitive to genomics-based estimates of cancer recurrence and to nonprostate cancer mortality.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_figures.pdf)
- Download
- 92.91 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J. Clin. 64, 9–29 (2014).
2.
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1117–1123 (2010).
3.
Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol. Clin. North Am. 28, 555–565 (2001).
4.
Swanson GP, Riggs M, Hermans M. Pathologic findings at radical prostatectomy: risk factors for failure and death. Urol. Oncol. 25, 110–114 (2007).
• Defines high risk of recurrence after prostatectomy based on the presence of adverse pathological features.
5.
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J. Urol. 181, 956–962 (2009).
• Prospective trial that showed improved clinical outcomes after adjuvant radiation therapy (vs. observation) for patients at high risk of recurrence after prostatectomy.
6.
Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 299, 2760–2769 (2008).
7.
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, van Cangh P, Vekemans K, Pozzo LD. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 366, 572–578 (2005).
8.
Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: Aro 96-02/auo ap 09/95. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 2924–2930 (2009).
9.
Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29, 1805–1811 (2010).
10.
Elliott SP, Wilt TJ, Kuntz KM. Projecting the clinical benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation and selective salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a decision analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 14(3), 270–277 (2011).
•• This decision analysis study demonstrated that observation with salvage radiation therapy is preferred over adjuvant radiation therapy on average, using group level estimates of inputs.
11.
Cowen ME, Miles BJ, Cahill DF, Giesler RB, Beck JR, Kattan MW. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med. Decis. Making 18, 376–380 (1998).
•• This report showed that patient-specific inputs for utilities resulted in different model outcomes than group level averages for a decision analysis model of prostate cancer treatment alternatives.
12.
Garraway LA. Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1806–1814 (2013).
13.
Garraway LA, Verweij J, Ballman KV. Precision oncology: an overview. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1803–1805 (2013).
14.
Karnes RJ, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J. Urol. 190, 2047–2053 (2013).
•• Validation study for the genomic classifier assay developed to inform treatment decisions after radical prostatectomy.
15.
Erho N, Crisan A, Vergara IA et al. Discovery and validation of a prostate cancer genomic classifier that predicts early metastasis following radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE 8, e66855 (2013).
16.
Badani K, Thompson DJS, Buerki C et al. Impact of a genomic classifier of metastatic risk on postoperative treatment recommendations for prostate cancer patients: a report from the decide study group. Oncotarget 4, 600–609 (2013).
17.
Badani KK, Thompson DJ, Brown G et al. Effect of a genomic classifier test on clinical practice decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after surgery. BJU Int. 115(3), 419–429 (2015).
18.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med. Decis. Making 13, 322–328 (1993).
•• Describes standard approach for Markov model studies.
19.
Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 2035–2041 (2007).
20.
Lobo JM, Dicker AP, Buerki C et al. Evaluating the clinical impact of a genomic classifier in prostate cancer using individualized decision analysis. PLoS ONE 10(3), e0116866 (2015).
•• Prior report from our group that evaluated estimated quality-adjusted life years in the presence and absence of genomic classifier testing.
21.
Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD. Death: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat. Rep. 61, 1–118 (2013).
22.
Stewart ST, Lenert L, Bhatnagar V, Kaplan RM. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med. Care 43, 347–355 (2005).
23.
Den RB, Feng FY, Showalter TN et al. Genomic prostate cancer classifier predicts biochemical failure and metastases in patients after postoperative radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 89, 1038–1046 (2014).
24.
Boorjian SA, Tollefson MK, Thompson RH, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Karnes RJ. Natural history of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with adjuvant radiation therapy. J. Urol. 188, 1761–1766 (2012).
25.
Konski A. Cost, quality, and value in healthcare: a new paradigm. Oncology (Willston Park) 24, 542–543 (2010).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© Timothy N Showalter.
History
Published online: 13 June 2016
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Reconsidering adjuvant versus salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the genomics era. (2016) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2015-0015
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Lucas B McCullum, Aysenur Karagoz, Cem Dede, Raul Garcia, Fatemeh Nosrat, Mehdi Hemmati, Seyedmohammadhossein Hosseinian, Andrew J Schaefer, Clifton D Fuller, Markov models for clinical decision‐making in radiation oncology: A systematic review, Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 10.1111/1754-9485.13656, 68, 5, (610-623), (2024).
- Simon K.B. Spohn, Cédric Draulans, Amar U. Kishan, Daniel Spratt, Ashley Ross, Tobias Maurer, Derya Tilki, Alejandro Berlin, Pierre Blanchard, Sean Collins, Peter Bronsert, Ronald Chen, Alan Dal Pra, Gert de Meerleer, Thomas Eade, Karin Haustermans, Tobias Hölscher, Stefan Höcht, Pirus Ghadjar, Elai Davicioni, Matthias Heck, Linda G.W. Kerkmeijer, Simon Kirste, Nikolaos Tselis, Phuoc T. Tran, Michael Pinkawa, Pascal Pommier, Constantinos Deltas, Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann, Thomas Wiegel, Thomas Zilli, Alison C. Tree, Xuefeng Qiu, Vedang Murthy, Jonathan I. Epstein, Christian Graztke, Xin Gao, Anca L. Grosu, Sophia C. Kamran, Constantinos Zamboglou, Genomic Classifiers in Personalized Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Approaches: A Systematic Review and Future Perspectives Based on International Consensus, International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.038, 116, 3, (503-520), (2023).
- Gregory J. Nason, Clare O'Connell, Paul K. Hegarty, Adjuvant Therapy Options for Urological Neoplasms, Surgical Management of Advanced Pelvic Cancer, 10.1002/9781119518495.ch23, (214-222), (2021).
- John P. Corradi, Christine White Cumarasamy, Ilene Staff, Joseph Tortora, Andrew Salner, Tara McLaughlin, Joseph Wagner, Identification of a five gene signature to predict time to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, The Prostate, 10.1002/pros.24150, 81, 10, (694-702), (2021).
- Thomas M. Pisansky, Ian M. Thompson, Richard K. Valicenti, Anthony V. D'Amico, Shalini Selvarajah, Adjuvant and Salvage Radiation Therapy After Prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA Guideline Amendment, Executive Summary 2018, Practical Radiation Oncology, 10.1016/j.prro.2019.04.008, 9, 4, (208-213), (2019).
- James Abe, Jennifer M. Lobo, Daniel M. Trifiletti, Timothy N. Showalter, Providing guidance for genomics-based cancer treatment decisions: insights from stakeholder engagement for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10.1186/s12911-017-0526-1, 17, 1, (2017).
- Christopher J. D. Wallis, Gerard Morton, Angela Jerath, Raj Satkunasviam, Ewa Szumacher, Sender Herschorn, Ronald T. Kodama, Girish S. Kulkarni, David Naimark, Robert K. Nam, Adjuvant Versus Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Adverse Pathological Findings Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Decision Analysis, MDM Policy & Practice, 10.1177/2381468317709476, 2, 1, (2017).