Long-term followup of a randomized trial of 0 versus 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy

[Prostate cancer surgical margin: review by the CCAFU (Oncology Committee of the French Association of Urology)]

OBJECTIVE

Literature showed the impact of surgical margin status on prognosis after radical prostatectomy (mostly on biochemical survival). Margin status is an easy self-evaluation of surgical practice to assess. The aim of this paper was to define what a positive surgical margin (PSM) is and how to prevent the occurrence, to precise the impact on survival and how to treat.

METHOD

A literature analysis with Pubmed has been performed to 2012, furthermore conclusions of the main congresses with selection committee and review publication have also been studied.

RESULTS

PSM is defined as "tumor cells touching the ink on the specimen edge". The most frequent reported incidence is between 15 to 20%. Margin status remains one of the major criteria to determine the need of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. Quality of life is not or only lightly modified by radiotherapy with the current techniques. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves biological survival but is synonymous with overtreatment in many times. Salvage radiotherapy has to be quickly performed after Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) relapse (PSA<1 ng/mL even<0.5 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

This literature review did not allow to suggest superiority of one surgical technique over another. In the same way, the kind of dissection i.e. bladder neck or neurovascular bundle preservation does no clearly modify PSM rate. However, it seems logical to "customize" dissection according to prostate cancer characteristics (D'Amico criteria for instance) guided with multiparametric MRI. Intrafascial dissection has to be applied only to low risk. Lastly, the debate between adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy is always ongoing.

Preoperative androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer: delayed biochemical recurrence in high-risk disease

BACKGROUND

The role of preoperative ADT for localized prostate cancer is controversial; prospective assessments have yielded varying results. We sought to define a subset of patients with a higher likelihood of benefit from preoperative ADT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An institutional database including consecutive patients receiving definitive surgery for localized prostate cancer was interrogated. Patients recorded as having received preoperative ADT were matched in a 1:2 fashion to patients who had not received previous ADT. Patients were matched on the basis of clinicopathologic characteristics, use of adjuvant treatment strategies, and duration of prostate-specific antigen follow-up. Time to biochemical recurrence (TTBR) was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test for the overall study population and in subsets defined according to D'Amico risk.

RESULTS

No significant differences in clinicopathologic characteristics were noted between recipients (n = 101) and matched nonrecipients (n = 196) of preoperative ADT. Although not statistically significant, positive surgical margin rates, seminal vesicle invasion, and extracapsular extension were less frequent in patients receiving preoperative ADT. Furthermore, a lesser incidence of perioperative complications was noted in this group (7.4% vs. 18.4%). No significant differences were noted in TTBR between recipients and nonrecipients of preoperative ADT in the overall study population. However, among patients with high-risk disease, TTBR was significantly longer in patients who had received preoperative ADT (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

The data presented herein suggest a potential benefit of preoperative ADT in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to enriching for this subset in preoperative studies of novel endocrine therapies.

Rationale for and review of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer

Despite state of the art local therapy, a significant portion of men with high-risk prostate cancer develop progressive disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) is an approach that can potentially maximize survival outcomes in patients with localized disease. This approach is under investigation with a wide array of agents and provides an opportunity to assess pathologic and biologic activity of novel treatments. The aim of this review is to explore the past and present role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to definitive therapy with RP in patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced disease. The results of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), including use of newer agents such as abiraterone, are promising. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel, with or without ADT has also demonstrated efficacy in men with high-risk disease. Other novel agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), clusterin, and the immune system are currently under investigation and have led to variable results in early clinical trials. Despite optimistic data, approval of neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP in patients with high-risk prostate cancer will depend on positive results from well designed phase III trials.

An economic analysis of conservative management versus active treatment for men with localized prostate cancer

Comparative effectiveness research suggests that conservative management (CM) strategies are no less effective than active initial treatment for many men with localized prostate cancer. We estimate longer-term costs of initial management strategies and potential US health expenditure savings by increased use of conservative management for men with localized prostate cancer. Five-year total health expenditures attributed to initial management strategies for localized prostate cancer were calculated using commercial claims data from 1998 to 2006, and savings were estimated from a US population health-care expenditure model. Our analysis finds that patients receiving combinations of active treatments have the highest additional costs over conservative management at $63 500, followed by $48 550 for intensity-modulated radiation therapy, $37 500 for primary androgen deprivation therapy, and $28 600 for brachytherapy. Radical prostatectomy ($15 200) and external beam radiation therapy ($18 900) were associated with the lowest costs. The population model estimated that US health expenditures could be lowered by 1) use of initial CM over all active treatment ($2.9-3.25 billion annual savings), 2) shifting patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy to CM ($680-930 million), 3) foregoing primary androgen deprivation therapy($555 million), 4) reducing the use of adjuvant androgen deprivation in addition to local therapies ($630 million), and 5) using single treatments rather than combination local treatment ($620-655 million). In conclusion, we find that all active treatments are associated with higher longer-term costs than CM. Substantial savings, representing up to 30% of total costs, could be realized by adopting CM strategies, including active surveillance, for initial management of men with localized prostate cancer.

Phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and CG1940/CG8711 followed by radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy in American men. PC, which exhibits a slow growth rate and multiple potential target epitopes, is an ideal candidate for immunotherapy. GVAX for prostate cancer is a cellular immunotherapy, composed of PC-3 cells (CG1940) and LNCaP cells (CG8711). Each of the components is a prostate adenocarcinoma cell line that has been genetically modified to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Hypothesizing that GVAX for prostate cancer could be effective in a neoadjuvant setting in patients with locally advanced disease, we initiated a phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and GVAX. For the trial, the clinical effects of GVAX were assessed in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Patients received docetaxel administered at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. GVAX was administered 2-3 days after chemotherapy preoperatively for four courses of immunotherapy. The first dose of GVAX was a prime immunotherapy of 5×10(8) cells. The subsequent boost immunotherapies consisted of 3×10(8) cells. After RP, patients received an additional six courses of immunotherapy. Pathologic complete response, toxicity, and clinical response were assessed. The primary endpoint of the trial was a pathologic state of pT0, which is defined as no evidence of cancer in the prostate.

RESULTS

Six patients completed neoadjuvant docetaxel and GVAX therapy. No serious drug-related adverse events were observed. Median change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following neoadjuvant therapy was 1.47 ng/ml. One patient did not undergo RP due to the discovery of positive lymph nodes during exploration. Of the five patients completing RP, four had a downstaging of their Gleason score. Undetectable PSA was achieved in three patients at 2 months after RP and in two patients at 3 years after RP.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant docetaxel/GVAX is safe and well tolerated in patients with high-risk locally advanced PC. No evidence of increased intraoperative hemorrhage or increased length of hospital stay postoperatively was noted. These results justify further study of neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Prostate cancer and osteoporosis

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate is one of the commonest cancers in the world. Due to a combination of earlier detection and better treatments, survival has increased dramatically. Prostate cancer itself is associated with lower bone density and increased fractures. This is compounded by the use of androgen deprivation therapy, which causes dramatic falls in circulating testosterone and estrogen, resulting in rapid falls in bone density, decreased muscle mass, and increased fracture rates. Bisphosphonates have been demonstrated to prevent and reverse this bone loss, but there are no anti-fracture data. Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody to RANKL, has recently been shown to increase bone density and reduce fracture rates. Prostate cancer also commonly metastasizes to bone where it can cause complications such as fracture and pain. Both zoledronic acid and denosumab have been demonstrated to reduce skeletal related events. Comparative studies would suggest that densosumab may have an advantage over zoledronic acid.

Preoperative therapy for localized prostate cancer: a comprehensive overview

At the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, two studies of preoperative systemic therapy for localized prostate cancer garnered significant attention. In the first, investigators evaluated various permutations of conventional hormonal therapies prior to prostatectomy, with detailed biomarker studies focused on tissue androgens. In the second, investigators assessed the novel CYP17 lyase inhibitor abiraterone prior to prostatectomy. Both studies provide a wealth of biological information, but the question remains - will preoperative systemic therapy ultimately be incorporated into clinical algorithms for prostate cancer? Herein, the existing literature for both preoperative hormonal and chemotherapeutic approaches is reviewed. We performed a MEDLINE search of published prospective and retrospective clinical studies assessing preoperative systemic therapy for prostate cancer from 1982 onwards, revealing a total of 75 publications meeting these criteria. Of these, 55 possessed a number of patients (i.e., greater than 10) deemed worth of the current analysis. Beyond outlining these datasets, we discuss the relevance of clinical and pathologic endpoints in assessing preoperative therapy.

Guideline-discordant androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer: patterns of use in the medicare population and cost implications

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in localized prostate cancer improves overall survival and is recommended by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in certain situations. However, ADT is without benefit in other situations and can actually cause harm. This study examines recent trends in the ADT use and quantifies the cost of guideline-discordant ADT. Patients and methods Patients, aged 66-80 years, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database with non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2007 were included for analysis. Prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and stage were used to define D'Amico risk categories. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with guideline-discordant ADT. Annual direct cost was estimated using 2011 Medicare reimbursement for ADT. Results Of 28 654 men included, 12.4% received guideline-discordant ADT. In low-risk patients, 14.9% received discordant ADT, mostly due to simultaneous ADT with radiation. Discordant use was seen in 7.3% of intermediate and 14.9% of high-risk patients, mostly from ADT as primary therapy. The odds of receiving guideline-discordant ADT decreased over time (2007 versus 2004; OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.76). The estimated annual direct cost from discordant ADT is $42 000 000. Conclusion Approximately one in eight patients received ADT discordant with published guidelines. Elimination of discordant use would result in substantial savings.

Safety and effectiveness of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus low-dose estramustine phosphate in high-risk prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy (RP) has limited cancer control potential for the patient with high-risk prostate cancer (Pca). We prospectively examined the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist + low-dose estramustine phosphate (EMP) (LHRH+EMP) followed by RP.

METHODS

High-risk Pca was defined by the D'Amico stratification system. A total of 142 patients with high-risk Pca were enrolled in this trial from September 2005 to March 2011. The LHRH+EMP therapy included administration of LHRH agonist and 280 mg day(-1) EMP for 6 months before RP. Pathological cancer-free (pT0) rate on the surgical specimen was the primary end point. Secondary end points were PSA-free survival and toxicity.

RESULTS

The average patient age was 67.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 72, 65) and the median initial PSA level was 14.80 ng ml(-1) (IQR 26.22, 7.13). The median Gleason score was 9 (IQR 9, 7) and 97 patients (68.3%) had clinical stage T2c or T3. All patients completed 6 months of LHRH+EMP neoadjuvant therapy with no delays in RP. Seven patients (4.9%) achieved pT0. Surgical margins were negative in 125 patients (87.0%). At a median follow-up period of 34.9 months, PSA-free survival was 84.3%. No serious adverse events were reported during the study and there were no toxicity-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Six months of LHRH+EMP neoadjuvant therapy followed by RP is safe and oncological outcomes are acceptable. Although this study was a single-arm trial with a relatively short follow-up, this treatment may have a potential to improve PSA-free survival in high-risk Pca patients. Further clinical trials are warranted.

A systematic review of the role of adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmacotherapy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Between 25 and 30% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer are classified as high risk for an adverse prognosis. A significant number of these will progress to biochemical or clinical relapse. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of these cases, a multimodal therapeutic approach, including radical prostatectomy, remains an option.

AREAS COVERED

The Pubmed/Medline database was searched to identify trials that have evaluated adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmaceutical protocols combined with radical prostatectomy and provided information regarding efficacy and safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Improvements in adverse pathological findings, following operations in patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, have been reported in the majority of the reviewed studies. Furthermore, the addition of pharmacotherapy to radical prostatectomy has produced beneficial results in survival surrogates. However, no benefits in overall survival were observed with adjuvant or neoadjuvant protocols and toxicity was a concern, especially in combination regimens. New studies on the effects of current pharmacotherapy and of new agents on overall survival and quality of life, after defining well-established criteria for patient stratification and inclusion, are required urgently.

Efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists used in the treatment of prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the most effective systemic treatment for prostate cancer. ADT has been shown to have a high rate of response and to improve overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In addition, multiple studies have shown that adding ADT to external beam radiation therapy leads to improvement in cure rates and overall survival in prostate cancer patients. The most commonly used ADT is gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy. Although GnRH agonist therapy has significant benefits for patients with prostate cancer, it has also been shown to have significant side effects, including fatigue, hot flashes, decreased libido, decreased quality of life, obesity, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, decreased bone mineral density, and increased risk of fractures. Therefore, it is crucial that the benefits of ADT be weighed against its potential adverse effects before its use.

Androgen deprivation and thromboembolic events in men with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves prostate cancer outcomes in specific clinical settings, but is associated with adverse effects, including cardiac complications and possibly thromboembolic complications. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of ADT on thromboembolic events (TEs) in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

In the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database, we identified men older than 65 who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 1999 and 2005. Medical or surgical ADT was identified by Medicare claims for gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or bilateral orchiectomy at any time following diagnosis. TEs included deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial embolism. The impact of ADT on the risk of any TE and on total number of events was estimated, controlling for patient and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 154,611 patients with prostate cancer, 58,466 (38%) received ADT. During a median follow-up of 52 months, 15,950 men had at least 1 TE, including 8829 (55%) who had ADT and 7121 (45%) with no ADT. ADT was associated with increased risk of a TE (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-1.61; P < .0001), and duration of ADT was associated with the total number of events (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort, ADT was associated with increased risk of a TE, and longer durations of ADT were associated with more TEs. Men with intermediate- and low-risk prostate cancer should be assessed for TE risk factors before starting ADT and counseled regarding the risks and benefits of this therapy.

The role of surgery in high-risk localised prostate cancer

• The optimal management of high-risk localised prostate cancer is a major challenge for urologists and oncologists. It is clear that multimodal therapy including radical local treatment is needed in these men to achieve the best outcomes. • External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an essential component of therapy either as a primary or adjuvant treatment. However, the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) is more controversial. Both methods are currently valid therapy options. • There have been many individual studies of EBRT and RP in high-risk disease, but no good quality large prospective randomized trials. • In EBRT, combination with neoadjuvant plus long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been conclusively shown to improve outcomes and is widely considered the standard of care. • However, the role of RP has achieved recent prominence with several important studies. Published data from prospective randomized trials in patients after RP have shown that in men with adverse pathological features at surgery, the addition of adjuvant RT improves biochemical-free and progression-free survival. • More recently, studies from large-volume centres comparing EBRT and RP have provided intriguing suggestions of better outcomes with RP as the primary treatment. • An important question therefore, is which of the two methods provides the best outcome in men with localised high-risk disease. Crucially, does the combination of RP and selective adjuvant EBRT provide clinically significant better outcomes compared with EBRT alone? • In this review we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP for high-risk localised prostate cancer and define the parameters and urgent need for a prospective trial to test the role of surgery for this group of patients.

Individualized decision-making for older men with prostate cancer: balancing cancer control with treatment consequences across the clinical spectrum

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent non-skin cancer among men and is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. PCa has an increased incidence and prevalence in older men. Age-associated incidence is on the rise due to increased screening in the older population. This has led to a sharp rise in the detection of early stage PCa. Given the indolent nature of many prostatic malignancies, a large proportion of older men with PCa will ultimately die from other causes. As a result, physicians and patients are faced with the challenge of identifying optimal treatment strategies for localized PCa, biochemically recurrent PCa and later-stage PCa. Age-related changes can impact tolerance of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in men with metastatic disease and shift the risk-benefit ratio of these treatments. Tools such as the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) can help estimate remaining life expectancy and can help predict treatment-related morbidity and mortality in older men. Application of CGA in older men with PCa is important to help individualize and optimize treatment strategies. Research that integrates multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment of PCa and the patient's overall health status is needed.

Contemporary radical prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates.

Hormone therapy in the management of prostate cancer: evidence-based approaches

Hormonal therapy has been the standard for advanced prostate cancer for over 60 years. Recently, the utility of androgen ablation through various means has been demonstrated for earlier stages of disease. In particular, the strongest evidence to date involves the use of hormonal therapy in combination with radiation therapy. In this article we review the basic concepts in hormonal ablation for prostate cancer and review the evidence-based studies that support the use of hormonal therapy in early stage prostate cancer.

Innovations in the systemic therapy of prostate cancer

Systemic therapy has become an increasingly important component of treatment of advanced prostate cancer. In the past decade, important innovations have been achieved in the development of novel systemic hormonal therapies for the salvage treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant disease. These improvements have been accompanied by the broadening of potential indications for chemotherapy in castrate-resistant metastatic disease and the use of chemotherapy as an adjunct to the treatment of locally extensive tumors. These changes have begun to lead to improved outcomes, but at the expense of novel patterns of late toxic effects. We review the key steps in the recent evolution of systemic therapy of prostate cancer.

Pilot trial of adjuvant paclitaxel plus androgen deprivation for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: results on toxicity, side effects and quality-of-life

Therapeutic strategy remains unclear with no clear consensus for men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy. We aimed to evaluate into a prospective randomized trial the effectiveness and feasibility of adjuvant weekly paclitaxel combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in these patients. A total of 47 patients with high-risk PCa were randomized 6 weeks after radical prostatectomy: ADT alone versus combination of ADT and weekly paclitaxel. Toxicity, quality-of-life and functional results were compared between the two arms. All 23 patients completed eight cycles of paclitaxel. Toxicity was predominantly of grade 1-2 severity. There were no differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores between the two groups and between baseline and last assessment at 24 months after surgery. Urinary continence was complete at 1 year after surgery for all patients and no significant differences were noted at each assessment between the two groups. The interim analysis of this trial confirms the feasibility of weekly paclitaxel in combination with ADT in men at high-risk PCa with curative intent. This adjuvant combined therapy does not alter quality-of-life and continence recovery after surgery plus ADT. A larger cohort is awaited to determine the oncological outcomes of this strategy.

Phase II trial of short-term neoadjuvant docetaxel and complete androgen blockade in high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The low probability of curing high-risk prostate cancer (PC) with local therapy suggests the need to study modality of therapeutic approaches. To this end, a prospective phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel (D) and complete androgen blockade (CAB) was carried out in high-risk PC patients. The primary end point was to detect at least 10% of pCRs after chemohormonal treatment.

METHODS

Patients with T1c-T2 clinical stage with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng ml(-1) and/or Gleason score >or=7 (4+3) and T3 were included. Treatment consisted of three cycles of D 36 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days concomitant with CAB, followed by radical prostatectomy (RP).

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were included. Clinical stage was T1c, 11 patients (19.3%); T2, 30 (52.6%) and T3, 16 (28%) patients. Gleason score was >or=7 (4+3) in 44 (77%) patients and PSA >20 ng ml(-1) in 15 (26%) patients. Treatment was well tolerated with 51 (89.9%) patients completing neoadjuvant therapy together with RP. The rate of pCR was 6% (three patients). Three (6%) additional patients had microscopic residual tumour (near pCR) in prostate specimen. With a median follow-up of 35 months, 18 (31.6%) patients presented PSA relapse.

CONCLUSION

Short-term neoadjuvant D and CAB induced a 6% pCR rate, which is close to what would be expected with ADT alone. The combination was generally well tolerated.

Long-term follow-up of 3-month neoadjuvant hormone therapy before radical prostatectomy in a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To report our long-term follow-up of an institutional randomized prospective trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without a 3-month course of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT), which results in pathological downstaging, but generally no reduction in biochemical recurrence (BCR) on early follow-up (at 3 years).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1992 to June 1996, 148 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized to RP only or 3 months of goserelin acetate and flutamide before RP. BCR was defined as a detectable serum prostate specific antigen level (>0.1 ng/mL) at least 6 weeks after surgery, with a confirmatory increase.

RESULTS

The median follow-up for BCR-free patients was 8 years. There was no significant difference in BCR-free probabilities between groups (P = 0.7). The BCR-free probability at 7 years was 78% for patients undergoing RP only and 80% for patients undergoing NHT and RP (difference of 2%; 95% confidence interval, CI, 12-16%). A Cox regression showed no significant relationship between NHT and BCR (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% CI, 0.56-2.39, P = 0.7). Overall, two patients had local recurrence and six developed metastases, and were evenly distributed among the RP only and NHT groups.

CONCLUSION

Although our study was not originally powered to detect differences in BCR, there was no overall benefit in BCR-free probability, local recurrence or metastasis with 3 months of NHT at 8 years of follow-up. Pending evidence of improvement in patient outcomes, NHT before RP appears to be unjustified outside of clinical trials.

[The role of surgery in locally advanced prostate cancer]

Recent retrospective monocentric studies have demonstrated favorable 15-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of up to 86% using radical prostatectomy as part of multimodal treatment in locally advanced prostate cancer (T3-4, N0, M0). Patients most likely to benefit from surgery include those with a biopsy Gleason score < or =8, a prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/ml, and cT3a cancer. Patients must be informed that additional treatment after prostatectomy might be necessary (30-70%; radiotherapy, hormonal therapy). Urinary incontinence may occur in up to 20%, and severe incontinence (more than two pads per day) is observed in up to 6%.Adjuvant radiotherapy should be considered individually and is not routinely recommended. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy should be performed, although it has only a minor impact on survival. However, even in patients with lymph node micrometastasis, 10-year CSS can be achieved in 85.6% with the use of additional hormonal therapy. Cancer progression can possibly be delayed by surgical excision of the primary tumor, even in patients with metastasis. The existing data must be checked in prospective randomized trials.

[Oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in T3 prostate cancer]

According to current literature, the gold standard treatment for T3 prostate cancer is the combination of radiotherapy and extended hormonotherapy. Clinical staging based on digital rectal examination seems useless nowadays, since 20% of T3 prostate cancer is overevaluated during physical examination. Prostatic MRI is extensively needed to evaluate extraprostatic extension during preoperative work-up. EAU guidelines recommend radical prostatecomy only in selected patients: less than or equal to cT3a, PSA less than 20 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score less than or equal to 8. Carcinologic control obtained after radical prostatectomy is variable from one series to another, with biochemical free survival rate at 5, 10 and 15 years that range from 45 to 62%, 43 to 51%, and 38 to 49%. Specific survival rates at 5, 10 and 15 years are, respectively, of 84 to 98%, 85 to 91% and 76 to 84%. Surgical margins rate differ from 22 up to 61% corresponding to several operative techniques and surgeon's own experience. Regarding urinary continence, functional outcomes are in line with those of prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Considering erectile dysfunction, rates are linked with the type of surgery, which can be extensive or not. There is no impact on overall or specific survival of neoadjuvant treatments. One current question remains the efficacy of early adjuvant treatment after prostatectomy, especially adjuvant irradiation. Radical prostatectomy can be considered in selected cases as a viable alternative first-line treatment option. However, patients have to be warned that they may undergo complementary treatments during the postoperative course of the disease.

Phase II trial of neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel in high risk patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Taxane based chemotherapy has activity in advanced prostate cancer but previous studies of neoadjuvant docetaxel demonstrated a prostate specific antigen response with no obvious antitumor activity. The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel, Abraxane), a novel nanoparticle based formulation, were assessed in patients with high risk, locally advanced prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had locally advanced prostatic adenocarcinoma, clinical stage cT2b or greater, Gleason score 8 or greater, or serum prostate specific antigen 15 ng/ml or greater without metastatic disease. Patients received 2 cycles of 150 mg/m(2) nab-paclitaxel weekly for 3 weeks during each 4-week cycle, followed by radical prostatectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy. Efficacy assessments included pathological and prostate specific antigen response.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and 18 underwent radical prostatectomy. Median pretreatment prostate specific antigen was 8.5 ng/ml and median Gleason score was 8. Despite the lack of complete pathological responses 5 of 18 patients (28%) had organ confined disease and 9 of 18 (50%) had specimen confined disease. Post-chemotherapy prostate specific antigen was decreased in 18 of 19 (95%) patients and median decrease was 2.9 ng/ml (35%, p <0.001). An initial prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy of 0.02 ng/ml or less was achieved in 17 of 18 (94%) patients. There were no significant perioperative complications. Cytoplasmic vacuolization (focal in 10 and extensive in 7) was evident in all but 1 patient (94%). Ten patients (56%) had grade 3 and 1 had grade 4 neutropenia with no febrile neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated. Similar to our experience with neoadjuvant docetaxel there were no pathological complete responses, although a possible histological antitumor effect was observed.

Role of radical prostatectomy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

Controversy remains regarding the preferred therapy for high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. High-risk prostate cancer represents a diverse disease entity for which accurate risk assessment is critical to informed counseling and clinical decision making. For men with high-risk features, electing surgery as a local definitive therapy should be based on the best available evidence rather than a surgeon's bias and experience. Patients classified with high-risk prostate cancer by common definitions do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Many cancers that are clinically categorized as high risk are actually pathologically confined to the prostate, and most of these men do not require additional long-term therapy after surgery. For some high-risk patients, an integrated approach combining local and systemic therapy may be advantageous. Available studies using adjuvant and neoadjuvant strategies have their individual strengths and weaknesses; unfortunately, none has provided persuasive evidence to dictate the standard of care in the high-risk setting. Therefore, results are eagerly anticipated from ongoing randomized trials exploring the merits of perioperative chemohormonal therapy in high-risk patients. This review discusses current limitations and challenges in accurately identifying high-risk patients and focuses on radical prostatectomy alone or as part of multimodal therapy for men with high-risk prostate cancer.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) in localised and locally advanced prostate cancer to assess the effectiveness of this therapy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS and SIGLE for randomised trials comparing NHT plus primary therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) with primary therapy alone. Data included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled for meta-analysis with intention to treat principle.

FINDINGS

NHT prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall or disease-free survival, but did significantly reduce positive margin rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.00001), organ confinement (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.37-1.95, p<0.0001) and lymph node invasion (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42-0.56, p<0.02). In one study NHT before radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for men with Gleason 2-6 (p=0.015). In addition, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.24-1.71, p<0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.55, p=0.05). Toxicities included hot flushes, gastrointestinal, hepatic and miscellaneous adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

NHT is associated with significant clinical benefit when given with radiotherapy and improves pathological outcome prior to prostatectomy but is of minimal value prior to radical prostatectomy. The decision to use hormone therapy should be discussed between the patient, the clinician and policy maker based on the benefits, toxicity and cost.

[Adjuvant and neoadjuvant drug therapy for prostate cancer]

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapeutic strategies are widely employed for a variety of cancer entities. The basic aim and the potential benefit for the patient are to eradicate micrometastases, with the downside being side effects and overtreatment. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for prostate cancer have been investigated in a number of clinical studies. Based on these studies, the following recommendations can be given: there is currently no indication for neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant therapy using LHRH analogs for patients with lymph node-positive tumors following radical prostatectomy can be considered but should be weighed against early"biochemical progression triggered" treatment. For locally advanced tumors the same is true (bicalutamide): adjuvant treatment has shown an advantage in clinically progression-free survival; however, no systematic comparison is available with early"biochemical progression triggered" treatment. Before radiotherapy 2 months of neoadjuvant LHRH analog treatment has shown a survival advantage in patients with locally advanced tumors and a low risk of systemic spread (Gleason <7). For high-risk patients, long-term (2-3 years) adjuvant LHRH analog treatment is indicated.

Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation continues to play a crucial role in the treatment of advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. In the 65 years since its use was first described, urologists and medical oncologists have developed new and innovative ways to manipulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis with the goal of alleviating symptoms and prolonging the life of men with prostate cancer. Despite the successes that androgen deprivation therapy has brought, each method and regimen possesses unique benefits and burdens, of which the clinician and patient must be cognizant. This review discusses the first-line androgen deprivation methods and regimens presently in use with special attention paid to their side effects and the management of them, as well as the question of when to initiate androgen deprivation therapy.

The benefits of early androgen blockade

Altering the effects of testosterone on prostate cancer cells by blocking androgen production or action is a critical part of treating this malignancy. The appropriate timing of androgen blockade for advanced prostate cancer is controversial. Despite many phase-III studies, gaps in clinical information still remain, and some questions are still not conclusively answered. This review concentrates on high-level evidence to address common clinical situations in advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Additionally, the side-effects of androgen blockade have become increasingly visible and relevant.

Survival in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with hormone therapy: a quantitative systematic review

PURPOSE

We aimed to describe disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in men with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving immediate hormone therapy as adjunct to radiation therapy, adjunct to radical prostatectomy, or stand-alone therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, the Cochrane Library, and Current Contents (from 1986 to September 2006) yielded 35 high-quality clinical trials (n = 11,105 patients) which formed the evidence base. Selected studies were required to address early hormone therapy in nonmetastatic prostate cancer only. Data on DFS and OS were extracted from individual trials, summarized statistically, and displayed in graphic form.

RESULTS

Survival probabilities were extracted from 16 trials (n = 5,987 patients) addressing hormone therapy as an adjunct to radiation therapy, 11 trials (n = 1,885 patients) investigating hormone therapy as an adjunct to prostatectomy, and 10 trials (n = 3,233 patients) evaluating hormone therapy alone. In men receiving hormones and radiation, estimated 5-year DFS and OS were 52% and 82%, whereas median DFS and OS were 5.4 years and more than 7 years, respectively. In men receiving hormones and surgery, 5-year DFS and OS were 64% and 90%, whereas median DFS and OS were more than 6 years and more than 7 years, respectively. In men receiving hormones alone, 5-year DFS and OS were 57% and 70%, whereas median DFS and OS were 6.0 years and more than 7 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a new baseline for expected DFS and OS in patients treated with hormone therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Survival in these men may be longer than estimated previously.