J Clin Oncol 2021 Jan 26
Prostate-Only Versus Whole-Pelvic Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer (POP-RT): Outcomes From Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.   
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE
We report the clinical outcomes of a randomized trial comparing prophylactic whole-pelvic nodal radiotherapy to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in high-risk prostate cancer.
METHODS
This phase III, single center, randomized controlled trial enrolled eligible patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for node-negative prostate adenocarcinoma, with estimated nodal risk ≥ 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to PORT (68 Gy/25# to prostate) or whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT, 68 Gy/25# to prostate, 50 Gy/25# to pelvic nodes, including common iliac) using computerized stratified block randomization, stratified by Gleason score, type of androgen deprivation, prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis, and prior transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients received image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and minimum 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. The primary end point was 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS), and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
From November 2011 to August 2017, a total of 224 patients were randomly assigned (PORT = 114, WPRT = 110). At a median follow-up of 68 months, 36 biochemical failures (PORT = 25, WPRT = 7) and 24 deaths (PORT = 13, WPRT = 11) were recorded. Five-year BFFS was 95.0% (95% CI, 88.4 to 97.9) with WPRT versus 81.2% (95% CI, 71.6 to 87.8) with PORT, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52; < .0001). WPRT also showed higher 5-year DFS (89.5% 77.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.73; = .002), but 5-year OS did not appear to differ (92.5% 90.8%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.05; = .83). Distant metastasis-free survival was also higher with WPRT (95.9% 89.2%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.82; = .01). Benefit in BFFS and DFS was maintained across prognostic subgroups.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic pelvic irradiation for high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer improved BFFS and DFS as compared with PORT, but OS did not appear to differ.

Related Questions

Do you contour to include S3 or up to the piriformis muscle?

Is there data to suggest that omission of elective nodal coverage to the pelvis similar to the omission of elective lung nodal coverage in lung cancer...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33497252

Is inclusion up to the bifurcation worth the bowel dose? Or are you contouring up to the L5/S1 interspace? 

For the purpose of this question, please assume an initially undetectable post-prostatectomy PSA, no presence of positive margins, extracapsular exten...

For example, are PET Axumin or PSMA studies being ordered in the upfront setting? 


Is there an extent of nodal involvement in prostate cancer above which you would not offer definitive XRT? With PSMA/PET we see some patients with inc...


Would a higher Decipher score, despite low risk for nodal disease based on MSKCC nomogram or Roach formula, encourage you to treat the pelvic lymph no...