for urinary incontinence: national multi-institutional analysis of
ACS-NSQIP database. Int Urol Nephrol 2016;48:1571–6
.
[5]
Boone T. How to decide whether an AUS or male sling is best for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2016;196:641–2.
[6]
Rehder P, Haab F, Cornu JN, et al. Treatment of postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence with the transobturator retroluminal repositioniong sling suspension: 3 year follow-up. Eur Urol 2012; 62:140–5.[7] Hu¨ sch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen et al. Risk factors for failure of
male slings and artificial urinary sphincters: results from a large
Middle European cohort study. Urol Int. In press.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1159/000449232.
Emilio Rios
a,
*
, Luis Martinez-Pin˜eiro
b
a
Urology Unit, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofia, Madrid, Spain
b
Urology Unit, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
*Corresponding author. Urology Unit, Hospital Universitario Infanta
Sofia, Avda de Europa 34, San Sebastian de los Reyes.
Madrid 28702, Spain.
E-mail address:
erios00@hotmail.com(E. Rios).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.015#
2017 European Association of Urology.
Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Re: Radiation With or Without Antiandrogen Therapy in
Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Shipley WU, Seiferheld W, Lukka HR, et al
N Engl J Med 2017;376:417–28
Experts’ summary:
The authors conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial of 24 mo of bicalutamide in addition to 64.8 Gy salvage
radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed in patients with
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence after radical pros-
tatectomy (RTOG 9601). Between 1998 and 2003, a total of
760 eligible patients were enrolled; the primary endpoint was
overall survival.
Notably, 90
[1_TD$DIFF]
patients (11.8%) had a PSA nadir after surgery
of 0.5 ng/ml. While 405 patients (53.3%) had a PSA level at
trial entry of
<
0.7 ng/ml, the PSA level at trial entry was 0.7–
1.5 ng/ml in 237 patients (31.2%) and
>
1.5–4.0 ng/ml in
118 patients (15.5%).
The 12-yr overall survival rate was significantly im-
proved by addition of bicalutamide (76.3% vs 71.3%; hazard
ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.99;
p
= 0.04). Furthermore, the cumulative incidence of meta-
static prostate cancer was significantly reduced (14.5% vs
23.0%; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46–0.87;
p
= 0.005). However,
subgroup analyses revealed that for patients with a PSA
level at trial entry of
<
0.7 ng/ml, bicalutamide was not
superior to placebo in terms of 12-yr overall survival
(
p
= 0.53) or distant metastasis (
p
= 0.26).
Experts’ comments:
The RTOG 9601 trial provides evidence that bicalutamide
added to SRT improves overall survival in patients with PSA
0.7 ng/ml. However, these patients, together with the 11.8%
of patients who had a PSA nadir after surgery of 0.5 ng/ml,
probably harbored micrometastatic disease, which is likely to
be the reason for the increase in overall survival.
There is growing evidence that SRT should be applied
early, preferably for PSA levels
<
0.2 ng/ml
[1]
. The use of
bicalutamide appears not to be beneficial in more ‘‘early
salvage’’ patients (eg, PSA
<
0.7 ng/ml). The GETUG-16 trial
randomized 743 men, 80% of whom had PSA of
<
0.5 ng/ml,
to 66 Gy SRT alone versus SRT combined with 6 mo of a
luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist and
revealed no overall survival benefit after combined
treatment
[2]
.
Dose-intensified SRT appears to be beneficial and well
tolerated
[1,3]
and early dose-intensified SRT alone may be
a better option for patients with a recurrent PSA level of
<
0.7 ng/ml. Genomic testing may further guide identifica-
tion of patients who might benefit from androgen depriva-
tion therapy or other additional treatments
[4]
. Metformin
(as being investigated in the SAKK 08/15 PROMET trial;
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02945813) or regional hyperthermia
[5]
may be effective and less toxic strategies for improving
the effectiveness of early SRT.
Conflicts of interest:
The authors have nothing to disclose.
References
[1]
Tendulkar RD, Agrawal S, Gao T, et al. Contemporary update of a multi-institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:3648–54.[2]
Carrie C, Hasbini A, de Laroche G, et al. Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:747–56.
[3]
Ghadjar P, Hayoz S, Bernhard J, et al. Acute toxicity and quality of life after dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy for biochemi- cally recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy: first results of the randomized trial SAKK 09/10. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:4158–66.[4]
Freedland SJ, Choeurng V, Howard L, et al. Utilization of a genomic classifier for prediction of metastasis following salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2016;70:588–96.
[5]
Mu¨ ller AC, Zips D, Heinrich V, et al. Regional hyperthermia and moderately dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Protocol of a phase II trial. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10:138.Marcus Beck
a
, Stefanie Hayoz
b
, Pirus Ghadjar
a,
*
a
Charite´ Universita¨tsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
b
SAKK Coordinating Center, Bern, Switzerland
*Corresponding author. Charite´ Universita¨tsmedizin Berlin,
Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
E-mail address:
pirus.ghadjar@charite.de(P. Ghadjar).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.05.004#
2017 European Association of Urology.
Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 3 1 5 – 3 2 0
319




