Evidence Hub

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial

L. Mell, S. Pugh, Christopher U. Jones, T. Nelson, K. Zakeri, B. Rose, K. Zeitzer, E. Gore et al.

European Urology, 2023

1,945 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background: Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks. Objective: To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT. Design, setting, and participants: An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted. Intervention: Short-term ADT. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score. Results and limitations: T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175…

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: 1,945 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