Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial
LANCET
Authors: Parker, Christopher C.; Clarke, Noel W.; Cook, Adrian D.; Kynaston, Howard G.; Petersen, Peter Meidahl; Catton, Charles; Cross, William; Logue, John; Parulekar, Wendy; Payne, Heather; Persad, Rajendra; Pickering, Holly; Saad, Fred; Anderson, Juliette; Bahl, Amit; Bottomley, David; Brasso, Klaus; Chahal, Rohit; Cooke, Peter W.; Eddy, Ben; Gibbs, Stephanie; Goh, Chee; Gujral, Sandeep; Heath, Catherine; Henderson, Alastair; Jaganathan, Ramasamy; Jakobsen, Henrik; James, Nicholas D.; Sundaram, Subramanian Kanaga; Lees, Kathryn; Lester, Jason; Lindberg, Henriette; Money-Kyrle, Julian; Morris, Stephen; O'Sullivan, Joe; Ostler, Peter; Owen, Lisa; Patel, Prashant; Pope, Alvan; Popert, Richard; Raman, Rakesh; Roder, Martin Andreas; Sayers, Ian; Simms, Matthew; Wilson, Jim; Zarkar, Anjali; Parmar, Mahesh K. B.; Sydes, Matthew R.
Abstract
Background The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. Methods We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA >= 10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA >= 0.1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52.5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4.9 years (IQR 3.0-6.1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.49; p=0.56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58-1.33; p=0.53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4.8 vs 4.0; p=0.0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0.020). Interpretation These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Measuring Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis: Comparing Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data and Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease
JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Authors: Walsh, Jessica A.; Wan, Marilyn T.; Willinger, Christine; Husni, M. Elaine; Scher, Jose U.; Reddy, Soumya M.; Ogdie, Alexis
Abstract
Objective. To examine the construct validity of Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) and Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In examining construct validity, we also addressed scores among subgroups with severe psoriasis, poly-articular disease, enthesitis, and dactylitis, and evaluated influences of sociodemographic factors and comorbidities (contextual factors) on these patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Methods. Patients with PsA were enrolled in the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Consortium (PARC) between 2014 and 2016. PARC is a longitudinal observational cohort study conducted at 4 US institutions. In this cross-sectional study, construct validity was assessed by examining Spearman correlation coefficients for RAPID3 and PsAID with physician-reported disease activity measures and other PRO [e.g., Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 physical component summary/mental component summary (SF-12 PCS/MCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale (FACIT-F)]. Contextual factors and disease subgroups were assessed in multivariable linear regression models with RAPID3 or PsAID12 as outcomes of interest and the hypothesized contextual factors as covariates. Results. Among 401 patients enrolled in PARC, 347 completed RAPID3 or PsAID12. Of these, most were white females with a mean age of 51.7 years (SD 14.02). RAPID3 and PsAID were highly correlated (r = 0.90). These measures were also correlated with the SF-12 PCS (r = -0.67) and FACIT-F (r = -0.77). Important contextual factors and disease subgroups included enthesitis, joint counts, education, insurance type, and depression. Conclusion. RAPID3 and PsAID12 have excellent construct validity in PsA and are strongly correlated despite differing items. Contextual factors (i.e., the presence of depression and obesity) should be considered when interpreting raw scores of the RAPID3 and PsAID12.