Short Versus Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Salvage Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer. URONCOR 0624

The optimal indication for ADT has long been a point of controversy, at least until the results of randomised trials comparing RT with and without ADT were published. NCCN guidelines and most retrospective series and left the decision to prescribe ADT in combination with RT to the discretion of the treating physician, despite a lack of clear scientific evidence to support this recommendation. The percentage of patients in those retrospective series who received hormone therapy ranged from 33% to 71%, but generally involved patients with adverse prognostic factors (Gleason score \> 7, stage pT3-T4, PSA \> 1 ng/mL in cases with biochemical recurrence \[BCR\], and PSA doubling time \[PSA-DT\] \ 1 ng/mL at recurrence. The results of two randomised trials evaluating SRT with or without ADT were published in 2017, with both trials demonstrating a benefit for ADT in this clinical setting. A follow-up study confirmed the value of ADT in combination with SRT in terms of better PFS and, in the RTOG study, an improvement in overall survival (OS). Despite the lack of data from phase III trials regarding the influence of PSA-DT, the BRFS interval, and the Gleason score in terms of their effects on the clinical course of patients who develop BCR, there is strong evidence from other studies to support the use of these variables (together with age and comorbidities). Given the available evidence, we believe that these variables should be considered when determining the indications for ADT. In line with the philosophy underlying the approach used by D'Amico to develop a risk classification system for prostate cancer patients at diagnosis, we propose three risk groups. According to Pollack et al. and Spratt et al., low-risk