본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Evaluation of clinical risk stratification to determine benefit from long-term versus short-term androgen deprivation in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 2026 Vol.29(1) p. 202-204

Ravi P, Xie W, Gillessen S, Tombal B, Spratt DE, Nguyen PL, Sweeney CJ

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND] Patients treated with RT and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) with 1 high-risk factor (any of Gleason ≥8, PSA > 20 ng/mL, ≥cT

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Ravi P, Xie W, et al. (2026). Evaluation of clinical risk stratification to determine benefit from long-term versus short-term androgen deprivation in high-risk localized prostate cancer.. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 29(1), 202-204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-025-00937-0
MLA Ravi P, et al.. "Evaluation of clinical risk stratification to determine benefit from long-term versus short-term androgen deprivation in high-risk localized prostate cancer.." Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, vol. 29, no. 1, 2026, pp. 202-204.
PMID 39779964

Abstract

[BACKGROUND] Patients treated with RT and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) with 1 high-risk factor (any of Gleason ≥8, PSA > 20 ng/mL, ≥cT3; "high-risk") have better outcomes than those with 2-3 factors and/or cN1 disease ("very high risk"). We evaluated whether this risk stratification could determine benefit from ltADT versus short-term (stADT).

[METHODS] The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) repository of randomized trials was queried to identify eligible patients and trials. The key outcomes of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis (TTM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Stratified Cox and Gray's regression were used to obtain the overall treatment effect for outcomes and risk groups, and the Wald interaction test to estimate whether treatment benefit differed by risk group or trial. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed by Cochran's Q and I.

[RESULTS] 2780 patients from 3 trials were included. Patients with very-high risk disease had greater benefit with ltADT compared to high-risk disease (MFS HR 0.77 [0.68-0.88] vs. 0.89 [0.76-1.03]; TTM 0.61 [0.51-0.74] vs. 0.77 [0.59-0.99]; PCSM 0.71 [0.56-0.90] vs. 0.82 [0.59-1.14]; OS 0.87 [0.76-1.00] vs. 0.93 [0.79-1.08]), but there was no statistically significant difference in treatment effect by risk group (p-interaction >0.1). Heterogeneity for treatment effect across trials was low in the very high-risk group and moderate in the high-risk group.

[CONCLUSIONS] Clinical risk stratification merits further evaluation in clinical trials to identify which patients with HRLPC may benefit from ltADT versus stADT.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Antagonists; Risk Assessment; Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)