Salvage Involved-Field and Extended-Field Radiation Therapy in Positron Emission Tomography–Positive Nodal Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Patterns of Failure

Abstract

PurposeThe optimal salvage pelvic treatment for nodal recurrences in prostate cancer is not yet clearly defined. We aimed to compare outcomes of salvage involved-field radiation therapy (s-IFRT) and salvage extended-field radiation therapy (s-EFRT) for positron emission tomography/computed tomography–positive nodal-recurrent prostate cancer and to analyze patterns of progressions after salvage nodal radiation therapy. Methods and MaterialsPatients with 18F-fluorocholine or 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography–positive nodal-recurrent prostate cancer and treated with s-IFRT or s-EFRT were retrospectively selected. Time to biochemical failure, time to palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and distant metastasis–free survival were analyzed. ResultsBetween 2009 and 2019, 86 patients were treated with salvage nodal radiation therapy: 38 with s-IFRT and 48 with s-EFRT. After a median follow-up of 41.9 months (5.4-122.1 months), 47 patients presented a further relapse: 31 after s-IFRT and 16 after s-EFRT, with only 1 in-field relapse. The median time to palliative ADT was 24.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.3-93.5 months) in the s-IFRT group and not yet reached (95% CI, 40.3 months to not yet reached) in the s-EFRT group (P = .010). The 3-year biochemical failure–free rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 51.5%-82.9%) with s-IFRT and 73.9% (95% CI, 55.4%-85.7%) with s-EFRT (P = .657). The 3-year distant metastasis–free survival was 74.1% (95% CI, 56.0%-85.7%) with s-IFRT and 82.0% (95% CI, 63.0%-91.8%) with s-EFRT (P = .338). Conclusionss-EFRT and s-IFRT for positron emission tomography–positive nodal-recurrent prostate cancer provide excellent local control. Time to palliative ADT was longer following s-EFRT than following s-IFRT.