Now a meta-analysis has reaffirmed that finding. The two studies were probably submitted for publication at about the same time, which explains why the meta-analysis doesn't include data from RTOG 01.03 RADAR. In the Jackson et al. meta-analysis (and Medpage summary), there were:
- 6 randomized trials of EBRT with or without ADT comprising 4,663 patients.
- 3 randomized trials of EBRT with or without a BBT comprising 718 patients.
- One of those trials included ADT, the other two did not
Their analysis found that ten-year overall survival was:
- improved by 30% by the addition of ADT to EBRT
- not improved by the addition of BBT to EBRT (at least when ADT was not included)
- The addition of ADT had a bigger impact than the addition of BBT
- The trial that included both ADT and BBT had the best results
Because this meta-analysis included trials with men from different risk levels, it gives no direction about which therapy is best for favorable- vs unfavorable-risk men. DART 01/03 GICOR proved that adjuvant ADT only provides an added benefit to EBRT in high-risk men (vs intermediate risk men). Furthermore, BBT did not benefit and did add toxicity to favorable-risk patients (see this link).
Some of the trials did not include radiation doses now considered curative. It also did not look at ADT duration.