Context Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) evaluation leads to
the early detection of both prostate cancer and recurrences following
primary treatment. Prostate-specific antigen outcome information on
patients 5 or more years following treatment is limited and available
mainly as single-institution reports.
Objectives To assess the likelihood and durability of tumor
control using PSA evaluation 5 or more years after radical external
beam radiation therapy and to identify pretreatment prognostic factors
in men with early prostate cancer treated since 1988, the PSA era.
Design and Setting Retrospective, nonrandomized,
multi-institutional pooled analysis of patients treated with external
beam radiation therapy alone between 1988 and 1995 at 6 US medical
centers. Follow-up lasted up to a maximum of 9 years. Outcome data were
analyzed using Cox regression and recursive partitioning techniques.
Patients A total of 1765 men with stage T1b, T1c, and T2 tumors
treated between 1988 and 1995 with external beam radiation. The
majority (58%) of patients were older than 70 years and 24.2% had
initial PSA values of 20 ng/mL or higher. A minimum of 2 years of
subsequent follow-up was required for participation.
Main Outcome Measure Actuarial estimates of freedom from
biochemical failure.
Results The 5-year estimates of overall survival, disease-specific
survival, and the freedom from biochemical failure are 85.0% (95%
confidence interval [CI], 82.5%-87.6%), 95.1% (95% CI,
94.0%-96.2%), and 65.8% (95% CI, 62.8%-68.0%), respectively. The
PSA failure-free rates 5 and 7 years after treatment for patients
presenting with a PSA of less than 10 ng/mL were 77.8% (95% CI,
74.5%-81.3%), and 72.9% (95% CI, 67.9%-78.2%). Recursive
partitioning analysis of initial PSA level, palpation stage, and the
Gleason score groupings yielded 4 separate prognostic groups: group 1,
included patients with a PSA level of less than 9.2 ng/mL; group 2, PSA
level of at least 9.2 but less than 19.7 ng/mL; group 3, PSA level at
least 19.7 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 2 to 6; and group 4, PSA level
of at least 19.7 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 7 to 10. The estimated
rates of survival free of biochemical failure at 5 years are 81% for
group 1, 69% for group 2, 47% for group 3, and 29% for group 4. Of
the 302 patients followed up beyond 5 years who were free of
biochemical disease, 5.0% relapsed from the fifth to the eighth year.
Conclusions Estimated PSA control rates in this pooled analysis
are similar to those of single institutions. These rates indicate the
probability of success for subsets of patients with tumors of several
prognostic category groupings. These results represent a
multi-institutional benchmark for evidence-based counseling of prostate
cancer patients about radiation treatment.
Counseling patients who have been recently diagnosed as having early clinically
localized prostate cancer (stages T1 and T2) about the best curative
treatment using updated evidence-based information has been vexing and
controversial over the last decade. At the core of the debate is the
efficacy of radical radiation therapy, currently delivered to more than
60,000 men each year, in achieving total tumor eradication in
men presenting with early prostatic carcinoma.1,2
Uncontrolled series are subject to selection biases; hence, interseries
comparisons of results are usually flawed because of unequal
proportions of patients with known (and unknown) significant adverse
prognostic factors.3-7 Most large single-institution series
now report that pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA)
values, Gleason score (GS), and palpation stage are significant
independent predictors of a successful outcome following either surgery
or radiation therapy.8-16 A successful outcome now requires
that the patient
has no PSA-based evidence of relapse with
long-term follow-up.1,2,7,8,17 Long-term follow-up
for patients treated with external beam radiation in the PSA
era (since 1988 when PSA values began to direct earlier
diagnosis) is limited to fewer than 10 years; thus, most
single-institution series have only a small number of treated patients
with follow-up of more than 5 years. In an effort to define better the
cancer control rates for these patients and to maximize follow-up, the
American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology sponsored an
analysis by an independent biostatistical unit. Eight centers known to
have relatively long follow-up on their series of irradiated patients
were invited to supply their outcome data on all patients treated from
1988 to 1995, and 6 medical centers agreed to participate.
Between 1988 and 1995, 1765 men with clinically localized prostatic
cancer (stages T1b, T1c, T2, NX, M0) were treated with external beam
radiation therapy alone (no androgen deprivation therapy) at 6
institutions. These institutions submitted follow-up results for all
patients with these clinical stages treated at their respective centers
during this period with external beam radiation alone. Also required
were a known initial PSA value and at least 4 PSA measurements after
radiation treatment. The mean pretreatment PSA level was 18.9 ng/mL,
and the median was 10.1 ng/mL (range, 0.2-2028 ng/mL). Transurethral
resection of the prostate was performed within 4 months preceding the
initiation of radiation therapy in 7.5% of the patients.
The predominant method of treatment was a 4-field technique
(anterior, posterior, and right and left laterals), with the tumor
minimum dosage reported. In general, patients with T2 tumors and higher
tumor grades were treated with fields encompassing the primary tumor
target volume and the low pelvic lymph nodes to doses of 45 to 50 Gy
(median dose, 46.5 Gy) with conventional daily fractionation. All
patients were treated to the prostate target volume to total doses
ranging from 63 to 79 Gy (median dose, 69.4 Gy), using a variety of
techniques to cone-down the treatment field after 46 to 50 Gy. The
daily radiation doses ranged from 1.8 to 2.1 Gy for 5 days a week; 51%
of patients were treated using 3-dimensional conformal techniques. The
median follow-up for patients treated with 3-dimensional conformal
techniques was 3.1 years, and the median dose was 70.5 Gy. Because of
the relatively short follow-up and the similarity of median doses, no
comparisons can be safely made between conformal and more conventional
techniques or between high- and conventional-dose therapy.
Treatment outcomes were measured in terms of overall survival,
clinical recurrence-free survival, and survival free from biochemical
recurrence. The American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and
Oncology's consensus guidelines of biochemical
recurrence17 were used, as modified: 3 consecutive rises in
PSA values or any rise great enough to provoke androgen suppression
with backdating of the failure time to the midpoint between the last
nonrising and the first rising PSA value.17 Patients who
died of other causes were censored at the time of death. Only patients
whose follow-up was longer than 24 months and who had at least 4
posttreatment PSA measurements were included, except for those men who
experienced a clinical failure or whose PSA level rose and met the
criterion for biochemical recurrence prior to 2 years after treatment.
The median number of posttreatment PSA values prior to failure or
censoring was 7 (range, 4-27, with a total of 13,453 PSA value
determinations evaluated in this population of 1765 men).
The freedom from biochemical recurrence (bNED control, biochemical, no
evidence of disease) was calculated from the beginning of radiation
therapy. Estimates of rates for bNED control were calculated using the
Kaplan-Meier product limit method.18 Multivariate analysis
was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model to examine the
effect of clinical factors on outcome.19 Comparisons of
survival curves were carried out using the log-rank test or the
Mantel-Haenszel test.20 Recursive partitioning analysis was
used to identify subgroups for which the risk of treatment failure is
similar in terms of prognostic factors, such as the initial PSA level,
GS, and palpation stage.21 This is achieved by identifying
the cut points that minimize the P values between the
different groups, thus giving the best separation between prognostic
groups and checking their accuracy through cross-validation and
bootstrapping. Recursive partitioning analysis was chosen instead of
other approaches to classification problems because it handles
categorical data in a natural fashion and gives easily understood and
readily interpretable information regarding the predictive structure of
the data. Calculations were carried out using realizations of these
algorithms coded in S-Plus software.22 All P
values are 2-tailed. Because of likely differences between the
institutions in the way tumors were staged, graded, or treated, a
preliminary analysis was performed to determine the degree of
heterogeneity between the centers. This was done in 2 ways: (1) by
comparing outcome of initial PSA value, stage of tumor, and GS with and
without institution as covariate and (2) by analyzing the rankings of
GSs by institution using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Six institutions supplied information on all patients with T1b, T1c, or
T2 tumors with a known pretreatment PSA value but unknown nodal status
and who were treated with external beam radiation therapy alone between
1988 and 1995. The percentage of patients contributed by the following
6 institutions ranged from 8.2% to 26.1%: University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor; Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pa;
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston;
Washington University, St Louis, Mo; Eastern Virginia Medical School,
Norfolk; and Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif. The
median patient age was 71 years and the median follow-up interval was
4.1 years. Patients with similar tumor GS groupings from the different
centers were compared for bNED control. When stage, pretreatment PSA,
and GS were accounted for, there was a significant institutional effect
for 1 institution as judged by bNED control analyzed using the Cox
proportional hazards model. A second analysis looked at the
distribution of GS by institution, which showed that the institutions
were significantly different in terms of the rankings of GS across
institutions. The institutional effect as judged by bNED control was
insignificant when 1 institution was omitted. The same institution
stood out from the others by both of the above analyses. Subsequently,
all analyses were carried out for all patients from the 6 institutions
(n=1765) and for the statistically homogeneous group of
patients from the 5 institutions (n=1607). The results
were nearly identical whether 5 or 6 institutions were analyzed: the
recursive partitioning analysis cut points were virtually the same, and
the estimates of 5- and 7-year bNED control were within 2% absolute.
However, for all of the analyses evaluating possible prognostic factor
classifications and their possible interactions, only patients from 5
institutions were used.
The distribution of patient and tumor characteristics in the
entire population is shown in Table 1. A 52.8% majority of the treated
patients were older than 70 years, 24.2% had presenting initial PSA
values of 20 ng/mL or greater, only 25.7% had stage T1b or T1c tumors,
and 14.1% presented with initial PSA values of 4 ng/mL or less. For
the 6-institution population, the 5-year estimates of overall survival,
disease-specific survival, and the bNED control rates are 85.0% (95%
confidence interval [CI], 82.5%-87.6%), 95.1% (95% CI,
94.0%-96.2%) and 65.8% (95% CI, 62.8%-68.0%), respectively. The
PSA failure-free rates 5 and 7 years after treatment for patients
presenting with a PSA of less than 10 ng/mL were 77.8% (95% CI,
74.5%-81.3%) and 72.9% (95% CI, 67.9%-78.2%). Recursive
partitioning analysis of the data using only the initial PSA value as a
continuous variable resulted in the definition of 4 prognostic
subgroups for bNED control. These groups are patients whose PSA value
was less than 9.2 ng/mL, from 9.2 to less than 19.7 ng/mL, from 19.7 to
less than 31.7 ng/mL, and at least 31.7 ng/mL. The estimates of bNED
control at 5 years for these groups were 81%, 69%, 50%, and 29%.
Figure 1 shows the estimates of bNED
control for the conventional or convenient PSA cut points of less than
10, at least 10 to less than 20, at least 20 to less than 30, and at
least 30 ng/mL are nearly identical. There was no change in outcome at
the level of 4 ng/mL, the clinical upper limit of normal for this test (Table 2). Recursive partitioning
analysis of the data using initial PSA value as a continuous variable
plus palpation stage and GS resulted in the definition of 4
significantly distinct prognostic subgroups for bNED control. Tumor
stage by palpation did not play a role in the definition of the cut
points. The recursive partitioning analysis defined 4 prognostic
groups: group 1, patients with a PSA level of
less than 9.2 ng/mL; group 2, patients with a PSA level of at least 9.2
and less than 19.7 ng/mL; group 3, patients with a PSA level of at
least 19.7 ng/mL and a GS of 2 to 6; and group 4, patients with a PSA
level of more than 19.7 ng/mL and a GS of 7 to 10. The estimated bNED
rates for these groups at 5 years are 81% for group 1, 69% for group
2, 47% for group 3, and 29% for group 4 (Figure 2).
Table 2 compares by univariate analysis the
significance of bNED status at 5 years according to pretreatment PSA,
palpation stage, GS groupings, patient age, and posttreatment PSA nadir
levels. The recursive partitioning analysis cut points are supported by
these binary evaluations. The effect of tumor stage by palpation (T1b
and T1c vs T2) is significant in univariate analysis. When patients
were grouped by their specific GSs, a GS of 7 was not significantly
different using the bNED end point when compared with a GSs of 8 to 10
(59% vs 49% at 5 years, P=.23). Similarly,
the GSs of 6 and lower were all quite similar with 74% for patients
with a GS from 2 to 4, 75% with a GS of 5, and 71% with a GS of 6.
The bNED control at 5 years with a GS of 7 (59%) compared with these 3
groupings combined differed significantly (P<.001). The GS
groupings of 2 to 4, of 5 alone, and of 6 alone are not significantly
different even when subgrouped by initial PSA value. However, Table 2
and Figure 3 show that the GS groupings
comparing 5 and 6 vs 7 to 10 are significant (P<.001).
Patient age at presentation was not significant. The bNED control
probabilities differ significantly by the nadir value that was reached
following radiation. With the required postirradiation follow-up of at
least 2 years, only 5.7% of the patients had PSA values that were
still falling. There was no evidence that the achievement of a specific
PSA nadir value was required to achieve durable biochemical control.
Figure 4 presents the bNED survival
rates for 293 patients presenting with stage T1c tumors (those in whom
the only indication for a diagnostic biopsy was an elevated and/or
increasing PSA value). With a median follow-up of 3.4 years in this
group, the 5-year bNED rate is 76.7% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.3%). For
those with the pretreatment PSA of less than 20 ng/mL
(chosen by recursive partitioning) compared with
those of 20 ng/mL or greater, the 5-year bNED rates are 87% and 47%,
respectively (P<.001).
Table 3 shows results of multivariate
analyses for the group of 1443 patients for whom GS groupings were
available and shows, as did the recursive partitions, that a biopsy on
a GS of 6 or below compared with a GS of 7 or above was the Gleason cut
point as an independent predictor of bNED control, using estimates of
bNED control at 5 years as the end point. The multivariate analysis
demonstrates that pretreatment PSA value (P≤.001) and
GS(P≤.001) were highly significant independent predictors of
bNED control. Palpation stage was insignificant on multivariate
analysis (T1 vs T2, P=.17). However, the bNED
control for patients with stage T1c tumors was significantly higher
when compared with all other patients with T-stage tumors (T1c vs
T1b+T2, P=.01).
Of the 302 patients available for follow-up beyond 5 years and who had
bNED control, 5.0% relapsed from their bNED status from the fifth to
eighth year (Table 4). Of the 57
patients available for follow-up beyond 7 years, only 1 had recurred.
Table 5 summarizes the 5-year bNED
status by prognostic factor categories separately based on this pooled
analysis data for the 413 patients with T1 tumors and for the 1194
patients with T2 tumors.
Disease-specific end points such as disease-specific survival and
metastasis-free survival3-6,23 have been studied in other
pooled analyses. Our pooled analysis is the first to use the earlier
PSA end point. A rising PSA level precedes clinical failure with a lead
time of years24 and may never result in clinical metastases
in men with a limited life span. It is, however, justified as an end
point for this study because it rigorously assesses the true ability of
external radiation to cure the patient. Although a rising PSA value is
a valid indicator of disease activity and is the most important marker
for evaluating disease relapse following treatment, as yet, it has not
been validated as an early surrogate for progression to clinically
detectable metastatic disease nor has it been validated for death due
to prostate cancer.7 Nevertheless, a rising PSA value is
now frequently used by itself as an indication for salvage therapy
and, thus, may have as much clinical relevance to patients as an overt
clinical relapse.
Until the results of well-controlled, prospective, randomized studies
are available, caution should be used in comparing nonrandomized series
such as the present one with others since selection biases may affect
outcomes more strongly than the difference in efficacy between
treatment modalities.5-7
The absence of substantial long-term follow-up in this pooled analysis
compromises the evaluation of the durability of bNED status beyond 5
years. In this series, 448 (28%) of the group of 1607 patients have
been evaluated beyond 5 years. The PSA failure-free rates beyond 5
years out to 8 years in our report suggest that late recurrences only
occur in a small percentage of patients. This rate of loss of bNED
status beyond 5 years is similar to those that have been reported
following radical prostatectomy.8 This series and others,
however, will have to mature an additional 3 to 4 years before a
complete evaluation of the durability of the bNED status can be
determined for 10 years following primary treatment.
In the PSA era, stage T1c, impalpable, PSA-detected tumor is
becoming the most common presentation for this disease and thus
deserves special mention. These patients are presumed to have the
earliest detectable and therefore the most curable disease. This is the
disease stage that any screening program aims to detect. The work of
Catalona et al23 on a serially screened population has
shown that once the more advanced disease that is prevalent within the
population has been detected, T1c tumors in patients with a PSA value
of less than 10 ng/mL and a GS of 6 or less are the most common
subgroup found. When treated by external radiation, our analysis shows
that 87% of these men with initial PSA values of less than 20 ng/mL
are free from a serially rising PSA for at least 5 years after
treatment (Figure 4). Also interesting is that while palpation stage
was insignificant in a multivariate analysis, stage T1c became
significant when compared with all other T stages combined (Table 3).
There was a significant effect in 1 of the 6 institutions
on both treatment outcome and the distribution of GSs, which may have
resulted from a variety of factors including differences in patient
material, treatment technique, and pathologic scoring. Institutional
variation in histologic grading and Gleason scoring has been well
documented recently25,26 and yet, together with other known
and unknown forces of heterogeneity, has influenced the bNED outcome in
our pooled analysis very little.
Although the pretreatment PSA cut points of 4, 10, and 20 ng/mL
are used in most single-institution reports of treatment outcome, the
results of recursive partitioning analysis of this multiple-institution
series show cut points (9.2, 19.7, and 31.7 ng/mL) for bNED
failure-free curves to be better separated from each other than with
the PSA cut points usually reported. Our analysis showed no separation
for patients with PSA values of less than 4 ng/mL but did for those
with PSA values ranging from 19.7 to less than 31.7 ng/mL compared with
those with PSA values of more than 31.7 ng/mL. We carried out a
bootstrapping calculation,21 which showed that the cut
points of 9.2, 19.7, and 31.7 ng/mL can be replaced with 10, 20, and 30
ng/mL without any important change.
Table 5 gives an evidence-based prediction for 5-year bNED rates by
prognostic factor categories for patients treated with external beam
radiation alone in the PSA era. Similar prognostic factor categories
have been used recently to predict 5-year freedom for treatment failure
following surgery at a single institution.27 Our analysis
following radiation gives physicians new broad evidence-based
information to advise better their patients who are requesting their
counsel on the best curative treatment available. The results of
this multi-institutional pooled analysis also
provide clinicians a benchmark against which, in the absence of results
from randomized trials, newer and less well-studied radiation
treatments in patients with T1 and T2 tumors, such as brachytherapy or
radiation combined with neoadjuvant and/or concomitant androgen
deprivation therapy, may be compared.
1.Zietman AL. Radiation therapy or
prostatectomy: an old conflict revisited in the PSA era: a radiation
oncologist's viewpoint.
Semin Radiat Oncol.1998;8:81-86.Google Scholar 2.Klein EA. Radiation therapy vs. radical prostatectomy in
the PSA era: a urologist's view.
Semin Radiat Oncol.1998;8:87-94.Google Scholar 3.Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS.
et al. for the
Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel. Summary of report on the
management of clinically localized prostatic cancer.
J Urol.1995;154:2144-2148.Google Scholar 4.Gerber GS, Thisted RA, Scardino PT.
et al. Results of
radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostatic
cancer: a multi-institutional pooled analysis.
JAMA.1996;276:615-619.Google Scholar 5.Murphy GP, Mettlin C, Menck H. National patterns of
prostate treatment by radical prostatectomy: results of a survey by the
American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.
J Urol.1994;152:1817-1820.Google Scholar 6.Lu Yao GL, Potosky AL, Albertson PC, Wasson JH, Barry MJ, Wennberg JE. Follow-up cancer treatment after radical
prostatectomy: a population based study.
J Natl Cancer Inst.1996;88:166-173.Google Scholar 7.Schellhammer P, Cockett A, Boccon-Gibod L.
et al. Assessment of endpoints for clinical trials for localized prostate
cancer.
Urology.1997;49:27-38.Google Scholar 8.Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Prostatic
specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy:
patterns of recurrence and cancer control.
Urol Clin North Am.1997;24:395-405.Google Scholar 9.Catalona JW, Smith DJ. Five year tumor recurrence rates
after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
J Urol.1994;152:1837-1842.Google Scholar 10.Trapasso JG, DeKernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F. The
incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum PSA after
radical prostatectomy.
J Urol.1994;152:1821-1825.Google Scholar 11.Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML.
et al. Long-term (15
years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized
(stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer.
J Urol.1994;152:1850-1857.Google Scholar 12.Hanks GE, Lee WR, Schultheiss TE. Clinical and
biochemical evidence of control of prostate cancer at 5 years after
external beam radiation.
J Urol.1995;154:456-459.Google Scholar 13.Keyser D, Kupelian PA, Zippe CD, Levin HS, Klein EA. Stage T1-2 prostate cancer with pre-treatment prostatic specific
antigen level less than 10 ng/mL: radiation therapy or surgery?
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.1997;38:723-729.Google Scholar 14.Zagars GK, Pollack A, von Eschenback AC. Prognostic
factors for clinically localized prostate cancer.
Cancer.1997;79:1370-1380.Google Scholar 15.D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB.
et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam
radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically
localized prostate cancer.
JAMA.1998;280:969-974.Google Scholar 16.Fukunaga-Johnson N, Sandler HM, McLaughlin PW.
et al. Results of 3-D conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of localized
prostatic cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.1997;38:311-318.Google Scholar 17. ASTRO Consensus Statement. Guidelines for PSA following
radiation therapy.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.1997;37:1035-1041.Google Scholar 18.Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from
incomplete observations.
J Am Stat Assoc.1958;53:447-457.Google Scholar 19.Cox DR. Regression methods and life tables.
J R
Stat Soc.1972;34:187-220.Google Scholar 20.Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the
analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.
J Natl
Cancer Inst.1959;22:719-748.Google Scholar 21.Breiman L, Freedman JH, Olshen RA.
et al. Classification and Regression Trees. New York, NY: Chapman &
Hall; 1984.
22. S-Plus Users Manual [computer program]. Version 3.2. Seattle, Wash: Statistical Sciences; 1993.
23.Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL.
et al. Detection of
organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through PSA based
screening.
JAMA.1997;270:948-954.Google Scholar 24.Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter EJ.
et al. Longitudinal
evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without
prostate disease.
JAMA.1992;267:2215-2220.Google Scholar 25.Grignon D, Pajak T, Winter K.
et al. Central review vs. institutional Gleason grading and its impact on phase III trial
analysis: a review of RTOG protocol 95-31 [abstract].
Mod Pathol.1997;10:77.Google Scholar 26.Lessel AM, Burnett RA, Howatson SR.
et al. Observer
variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy
specimens of the prostate.
Hum Pathol.1997;28:646-649.Google Scholar 27.Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following
radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst.1998;90:766-771.Google Scholar