br Pommergaard HC Gessler B Burcharth J
 Pommergaard HC, Gessler B, Burcharth J, Angenete E, Haglind E, Rosenberg J. Preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2014;16(9): 662e71.
 Guandalino M, Dupre A, Francois M, Leroy B, Antomarchi O, Buc E, et al. Previous Suramin for prostate neoplasm alters surgical and oncologic out-comes after rectal cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol 2015;112(8):802e8.
 Buscail E, Blondeau V, Adam JP, Pontallier A, Laurent C, Rullier E, et al. Surgery for rectal cancer after high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is sphincter preservation relevant? Colorectal Dis 2015;17(11):973e9.
 Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experi-ence. Ann Surg 2009;250(2):187e96.  Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Rutegard J, Simert G, Sjodahl R. Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 2007;246(2):207e14.
 Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, Wiggers T, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2005;92(2):211e6.  Joiner MC, van der Kogel A. Basic clinical radiobiology fourth edition. CRC Press; 2009. 123Library. 4 ed.  NPCR. National prostate cancer register of Sweden [cited 2018 August 12]. Available from: www.npcr.se.  Ng SC, Stupart D, Bartolo D, Watters D. Anastomotic leaks in stage IV colo-rectal cancer. ANZ J Surg 2018;88(9). E649ee53.  Rutegard M, Kverneng Hultberg D, Angenete E, Lydrup ML. Substantial underreporting of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Acta Oncol 2017;56(12): 1741e5.
Platinum Priority – Prostate Cancer
Editorial by Matthew P. Deek, Ryan M. Phillips, Michael Haffner and Phuoc T. Tran on pp. 42–43 of this issue
Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Overall Survival for Gleason 8 Versus Gleason 9–10 Prostate Cancer
a Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; b Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Boston, MA, USA; c Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/ Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA; d Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA; e Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; f Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; g Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; h Departments of Radiation Oncology, Urology & Medicine and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
Androgen deprivation therapy
Background: While the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is known to improve overall survival (OS) in Gleason 8–10 (Grade Group 4–5) prostate cancer (PCa), it has been hypothesized that Gleason 9–10 disease, which is less differentiated than Gleason 8 disease, may be less sensitive to ADT.
Objective: To examine the association between ADT and OS for Gleason 8 versus Gleason 9–10 PCa. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective cohort study of 20 139 men from the National Cancer Database with localized or locally advanced, Gleason 8–10 PCa who received EBRT. Data were collected from 2004 to 2012.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association between ADT and OS. Results and limitations: Overall, 9509 (78%) of the 12 160 men with Gleason 8 disease and 6908 (87%) of the 7979 men with Gleason 9–10 disease received ADT. On multivariable analysis, ADT was associated with a significant improvement in OS for Gleason 8 patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.70–0.87, p < 0.001) but not for Gleason 9–10 patients (adjusted hazard
Conclusions: In contrast to the significant survival advantage of ADT for Gleason 8 disease, our results suggest that Gleason 9–10 disease derives less survival benefit from ADT and that a higher Gleason score predicts lesser benefit. Consideration should be given to treatment intensification for Gleason 9–10 patients through enrollment in clinical trials or potentially adding novel antiandrogens or docetaxel, which have shown efficacy in both castration-resistant and castration-sensitive settings.