Copenhagen, Denmark
Onsite/Online

ESTRO 2022

Session Item

Sunday
May 08
09:00 - 10:00
Poster Station 2
10: Urology 1
Luca Incrocci, The Netherlands
2190
Poster Discussion
Clinical
Outcomes in pelvic versus common iliac node positive prostate cancer treated with curative RT
PRADNYA CHOPADE, India
PD-0413

Abstract

Outcomes in pelvic versus common iliac node positive prostate cancer treated with curative RT
Authors:

PRADNYA CHOPADE1, Sam David2, Gitanjali Panigrahi3, Pallavi Singh3, Priyamvada Maitre3, Vedang Murthy3

1Tata Memorial Hospital , Radiation Oncology, Mumbai, India; 2Tata memorial Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Mumbai, India; 3Tata Memorial Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Mumbai, India

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

Common iliac (CI) nodes are staged as M1a for prostate cancer. It is unclear if outcomes of pelvic node-positive (N1) differ from CI node-positive (CI-M1a) cancer after curative treatment. Present study compares outcomes in these patients treated with radical radiotherapy and ADT

Material and Methods

Patients with node-positive adenocarcinoma prostate were identified, either CI-M1a or N1, from a prospectively maintained database. Over 75% of these patients were staged with Ga68PSMA-PETCT at diagnosis. Patients received long-term ADT and moderately or extremely hypofractionated IGRT radiotherapy to the prostate and whole pelvis including CI region. At biochemical failure, restaging was with Ga68PSMA-PETCT. CI-M1a cohort was also studied by proximal or distal CI nodal location

Results


Of the 129 patients analyzed, 87 had N1 and 42 had CI-M1a stage. The median duration of ADT before RT was 7 months. The majority (65%) had Gleason grade group IV or V while 75% had >T3 disease. After a median FU of 60 months, biochemical failure in the 2 groups was similar, N1, 21/87 (24.1%) and CI-M1a, 10/42 (23.8%), p=0.96. Distant metastases were seen in 23/31 (74.2%) in the whole cohort, being higher in the CI-M1a group [(N1: 14/21 (66.7%) and CI-M1a: 9/10 (90%), p=0.16]. Five-year biochemical failure-free survival (N1 71.6% and CI-M1a 76.8%, p=0.54) and overall survival (N1 91.0% and CI-M1a 96.6%, p=0.92) were similar in the two groups. Outcomes within CI-M1a were similar for proximal versus distal CI nodal location, 5-year BFFS 76.5% vs 58% (p=0.36).

Conclusion

The outcomes in CI-M1a and N1 are similar when treated with curative RT and ADT. Although categorized as metastatic, patients with CI-M1a should be offered curative treatment. These results need prospective validation