Evidence Hub

Impact of biochemical failure classification on clinical outcome: a secondary analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202 and 9413

Hamstra DA, Bae K, Hanks G, Hu C, Shipley WU, Pan CC, Roach M, Lawton CA et al.

Cancer, 2015

2,799 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biochemical failure (BF) after radiation therapy is defined on the basis of a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (A1 failure) or any event that prompts the initiation of salvage androgen-deprivation therapy without PSA failure (A2). It was hypothesized that A2 failure may have a different prognosis.

METHODS: Data for 2799 eligible patients from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9202 and RTOG 9413 were analyzed. BF was defined according to the 1997 American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition as A1 for PSA failure or as A2 for the start of salvage hormone therapy before 3 consecutive PSA rises.

RESULTS: Rates of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.0; P < .0001) and distant metastasis (DM; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0; P < .0001) were greater with A2 failure. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 88.2% and 74.6% for A1 and A2, respectively (P < .0001), and the DM rates were 15.7% and 29.0%, respectively (P < .0001). The DM rate was greater at 5 years for A2 patients with DM as the first sign of failure versus patients with other A2 failures (87.3% vs 11.7%, P < .001), and this also correlated with worse OS at 5 years: 81.1% for A2 failure without DM and 52.8% with DM (P < .001). After the removal of patients with DM, the difference between A1 and A2 BF persisted for OS (P = .002) but not for DM (P = .16) CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients with rising PSA…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,799 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free