Clinton, Steven K.

PURPOSE Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression–free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, −0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.

5079 Background: Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP did not increase 3-year biochemical progression free-survival (bPFS) compared to RP alone in men with CLHRPC. However, there is evidence that bPFS and overall survival over time was improved. In the current analysis we assessed whether CHT followed by RP improved pathological specimen features compared to RP alone. Methods: CALGB 90203 (Alliance) is a Phase III study which randomly assigned, in a 1:1 fashion, men with CLHRPC [biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 4 or 5 or Kattan pre-op nomogram bPFS < 60%] to RP alone or RP plus neoadjuvant CHT [androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles)]. We conducted an exploratory analysis comparing histologic findings, determined at the treating center, in the RP specimens of men receiving CHT plus RP and men treated with RP alone. We used the Chi-square test, with P-values adjusted by the Holm method for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 788 men (median age, 62; range: 32-83 years) were randomized, with 738 ultimately undergoing RP. There was no difference in pathologic GGG (Table). Men treated with neoadjuvant CHT had a lower pathologic T-stage and lower likelihood of having seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive pelvic lymph nodes, or positive surgical margins (SM) (Table). Conclusions: Most pathologic features in the RP specimen were improved in men receiving neoadjuvant CHT compared to RP alone. The relationship between pathologic changes and the development of metastasis and survival require further analysis. RP pathologic outcomes. Summary statistics are calculated for the number of patients with non-missing data for each characteristic. Clinical trial information: NCT00430183. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE: Obesity and related factors have been linked to cancer risk and outcomes, but little information exists with regard to oncologists’ attention to these issues as a part of clinical care. METHODS: Oncology providers actively caring for patients with cancer in the United States and internationally were asked to complete an online survey about practice patterns and perceptions with regard to obesity and weight management during and after active cancer treatment. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-one practicing oncology providers completed the survey. The majority of respondents indicated a belief that the evidence linking obesity to cancer outcomes was strong and that weight and related factors should be addressed as a part of cancer treatment. The majority of respondents also reported that they frequently assessed body weight and related factors as well as counsel their patients to exercise, consume a healthy diet, and lose weight, if applicable. However, referral to providers and programs to support weight loss and increased physical activity occurred less frequently, and a number of barriers were identified for the incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs in the treatment of patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: In a survey of oncology providers, attention to weight management, physical activity, and diet in patients with cancer was high during and after cancer treatment but often did not result in referrals to support lifestyle change. Future work is needed to support education and training of oncology providers to facilitate referrals and overcome barriers to implementation of weight management and physical activity programs for patients with cancer.