Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31540746›Full record

Trial reportRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2019

Gleason pattern 5 is associated with an increased risk for metastasis following androgen deprivation therapy and radiation: An analysis of RTOG 9202 and 9902.

Daniel A Hamstra, Stephanie L Pugh, Herbert Lepor, Seth A Rosenthal, Kenneth J Pienta, Leonard Gomella, Christopher Peters, David Paul D'Souza, Kenneth L Zeitzer, Christopher U Jones and 8 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Local control matters.Translational andrology and urology · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Daniel A HamstraWilliam Beaumont Oakland University Medical School, The Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health - Dearborn, USA. Electronic address: Daniel.Hamstra@beaumont.org.
Stephanie L PughNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: PughS@NRGOncology.org.
Herbert LeporNew York University, USA. Electronic address: herbert.lepor@med.nyu.edu.
Seth A RosenthalSutter General Hospital, Radiation Oncology Center, Roseville, USA; Radiation Oncology Center, Sacramenta, USA. Electronic address: rosents@sutterhealth.org.
Kenneth J PientaJohns Hopkins University/Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, USA. Electronic address: kpienta1@jhmi.edu.
Leonard GomellaThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: leonard.gomella@jefferson.edu.
Christopher PetersNortheast Radiation Oncology Center, Dunmore, USA. Electronic address: chris.peters@hmrnet.com.
David Paul D'SouzaLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, Canada. Electronic address: david.dsouza@lhsc.on.ca.
Kenneth L ZeitzerAlbert Einstein Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: zeitzerk@einstein.edu.
Christopher U JonesSutter General Hospital, Radiation Oncology Center, Roseville, USA; Radiation Oncology Center, Sacramenta, USA.
William A HallZablocki VA Medical Center-Wood, Milwaukee, USA. Electronic address: whall@mcw.edu.
Eric HorwitzFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: eric.horwitz@fccc.edu.
Thomas M PisanskyMayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Electronic address: pisansky.thomas@mayo.edu.
Luis SouhamiMcGill University, Cedars Cancer Centre Glen Site, Montreal, USA. Electronic address: luis.souhami@mcgill.ca.
Alan C HartfordDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center/Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Radiation Oncology, Lebanon, USA. Electronic address: alan.c.hartford@dartmouth.edu.
Michael DominelloWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Gershenson Radiation Oncology Center, Detroit, USA. Electronic address: mdominel@med.wayne.edu.
Felix FengUniversity of California San Francisco, USA. Electronic address: felix.feng@ucsf.edu.
Howard M SandlerCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: howard.sandler@cshs.org.

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI James J. Dignam, GREG YOTHERS · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
NRG Oncology NCORP Research Base-BIQSFPUG1CA189867 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI Deborah Watkins Bruner, Lisa A. Kachnic · 2014 to 2026
$140.5M
Tumor Biology and Microenvironment (Program 1)P30CA022453 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Julie Lynn Boerner · 1985 to 2026
$68.4M
NCI National Clinical Trials Network – Network Lead Academic Participating SiteUG1CA233163 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI FLAHERTY, LAWRENCE E, SHIELDS, ANTHONY FRANK · 2019 to 2025
$3.5M
NCI National Clinical Trials Network - Network Lead Academic Participating Site (UG1)UG1CA233323 · NCI · DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC · PI Konstantin H. Dragnev · 2019 to 2026
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA022453NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189867NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233163NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233323
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background/purposeStratification of Gleason score (GS) into three categories (2-6, 7, and 8-10) may not fully utilize its prognostic discrimination, with Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) previously identified as an independent adverse factor. MATERIALS/

methodsPatients treated on RTOG 9202 (n = 1292) or RTOG 9902 (n = 378) were pooled and assessed for association of GS and GP5 on biochemical failure (BF), local failure (LF), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS). Fine and Gray's regression and cumulative incidence methods were used for univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsWith median follow-up of 9.4 years, patients with GS 8-10 with GP5 had worse outcome than GS 4 + 4 for DM on both RTOG9202 (p = 0.038) and RTOG9902 (p < 0.001) with a trend toward worse OS (p = 0.059 and p = 0.089, respectively), but without differences in BF or LF. At 10-years DM was higher by 11% (RTOG 9202) and 18% (RTOG 9902) with GP5 compared to GS 4 + 4. On multivariate analysis restricted to long-term androgen deprivation therapy the presence of GP5 substantially increased distant metastasis (HR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.24-0.76, p = 0.0039) with a trend toward worse OS (HR:0.74, 95% CI:0.54-1.0, p = 0.052) without association with LF (HR:0.55, 95%CI:0.28-1.09, p = 0.085) or BF (HR:1.15, 95%CI:0.84-1.59, p = 0.39). We did not observed substantial differences between Gleason 3 + 5, 5 + 3, or Gleason 9-10.

conclusionsThese results validate GP5 as an independent prognostic factor which is strongest for DM. As a result GP5 should be considered when stratifying patients with GS 8 and may be a patient population in which to evaluate newly approved systemic therapies or additional local treatments.

Indexed as

AgedAndrogen AntagonistsFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRiskSurvival AnalysisAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific AntigenDistant metastasisGleason scoreProstate cancerRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID31540746
PMCPMC6912855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.