Effects of complete androgen blockade for 12 and 24 weeks on the pathological stage and resection margin status of prostate cancer

Morphologic characterization of preoperatively treated prostate cancer: toward a post-therapy histologic classification

BACKGROUND

Preoperative treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) changes morphology of residual tumors so that the Gleason score is no longer valid.

OBJECTIVE

To codify morphologic features of preoperatively treated PCa and identify potential classifiers predictive of outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a detailed morphologic evaluation of specimens obtained from 115 patients with high-risk PCa who had preoperative androgen ablation, alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

MEASUREMENTS

Included hierarchical clustering analysis of morphologic characteristics, associations with other pathologic parameters, and univariate and multivariate analyses in search for associations with disease outcome.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Based on hierarchical clustering analysis, we categorized pretreated prostate cancer in three morphologically distinct groups: group A, characterized by a predominance of cell clusters, cell cords, and isolated cells; group B tumors, by intact and fused small glands; and group C tumors by any degree of cribriform growth pattern or intraductal tumor spread. Univariate analysis identified associations between this grouping, pathologic tumor stage (p<0.01) and residual tumor volume (p<0.001). Presence of intraductal spread or cribriform pattern in biopsies was associated with group C tumors. The presence of cribriform or intraductal spread morphology and positive surgical margins were stronger predictors of biochemical relapse than pathologic stage on multivariate analysis. The number of specimens evaluated in this study was limited, and a prospective validation is warranted along with molecular studies to validate the proposed morphologic classifier.

CONCLUSIONS

If validated, this classification will introduce uniformity in the selection of tissue samples for biomarker studies, facilitate the comparison of trials among different institutions, and may provide a new prognostic tool for preoperatively treated PCa.

Comparison of proliferating cell nuclear antigen immunostaining in lymph node metastases and primary prostate adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) on the cellular proliferative activity in primary prostate cancer and lymph node metastases using proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) immunostaining.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Metastatic pelvic lymph nodes and tumoral prostatic tissue were obtained from 21 patients after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Sixteen patients received NADT for 3 months prior to surgery; five patients did not and were evaluated as a control group. Histopathologic analysis was performed using PCNA immunostaining. and histopathologic findings of primary tumors and lymph node metastases after NADT were reported. Clinical follow-up was performed for a mean of 43.7 months.

RESULTS

Evaluation of PCNA immunostaining of lymph node metastases in the 16 treated patients revealed a mean positivity for metastatic tumor of 4.5% (SD 3.1%); the corresponding value for the five patients who were not treated with NADT was 19.6% (SD 0.94%) (p < 0.05). In four of the treated cases the proliferative activity in the lymph node metastases was greater than that in the other 12 (9.3% and 3.0%, respectively) and no histopathologic regressive changes were observed in these four cases. The residual tumoral proliferative activity in lymph nodes was greater than that in primary tumors (4.5% and 1.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the nodal metastases were responsive to hormonal therapy, as assessed by PCNA staining, although a greater residual proliferative activity was observed after NADT in lymph node metastases in comparison with the primary prostatic tumor. This can be attributed to a metastatic phenotype less responsive to hormonal therapy compared to the primary tumor.

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

The results of this assessment of the literature indicated that neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy may improve long-term outcomes for patients with high-risk localized disease. In addition, this approach provides a paradigm for evaluating the activity and mechanism of action of new agents as correlative studies are facilitated by the availability of tumor tissue before and after therapy. The authors determined that a multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, urologists, and pathologists is critical to the success of this model. Recent and ongoing studies of neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy were reviewed.

Pitfalls with MRI Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Detection

INTRODUCTION

To assess differences between MRI findings and histopathologically defined prostate cancer localization, we compared clinical results with mapping of radical prostatectomy specimens, and conducted a retrospective MRI cancer localization re-assessment by a urologist-technician after surgery.

METHODS

We performed MRI for a total of 37 suspected prostate cancer patients. Subsequently, all underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy after prostate biopsy for confirmation of the diagnosis. All the specimens were studied histopathologically with serial sectioning using a whole organ approach.

RESULTS

Of the 37 patients, 26 had positive MRI findings. All the surgical specimens contained cancerous lesions, and 23 had multiple foci. Twenty-four of the MRI-positive cases (92.3%) demonstrated coincidence of both MRI and histopathologically defined lesions. In the single focus cases, 78.6% (11/14) demonstrated exact coincidence, but in the multifocal cases there were no cases with exact coincidence of MRI and histopathological findings (0/23).

CONCLUSION

MRI evaluation cannot be considered an effective diagnostic tool in itself for detection of prostate cancers because sensitivity is far from satisfactory, especially in multi-focal cases.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

[Regressive changes after short-term neoadjuvant antihormonal therapy in prostatic carcinoma: the value of Gleason grading]

Although neoadjuvant, antihormonal therapy does not lead to an improvement in the outcome of prostatic carcinoma it is still used in the short-term in a subset of patients. Here we report the regressive changes due to this short-term treatment and analyse the impact on Gleason grading. The most frequent regressive changes in 82 tumors treated short-term were determined and quantified. The results were compared to a matched control group and also to the preoperative needle biopsies.A steep increase in regressive changes was observed within the first 4 weeks. After this point, changes increased only mildly. Within the first 2 weeks of treatment no significant changes compared to control tissue were present. Compared to the preoperative needle biopsies, pretreated tumors showed a significant upgrading. After 2 weeks of neoadjuvant antihormonal therapy, regressive changes are so great, that Gleason grading can no longer be recommended.

Role of bladder neck preservation in urinary continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience of the influence of bladder neck preservation on patient continence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Radical retropubic prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation was performed in 131 patients (age range 48-73 years; mean 64.5 years). Urinary continence was evaluated using a validated questionnaire at follow-up visits and telephone interviews. All patients reporting incontinence were studied using a pad test and urodynamics.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 21.7 months (range 4-47 months), 115 patients were continent (87%) and 16 incontinent. According to the International Continence Society criteria, three had severe, three moderate and 10 mild incontinence. Urodynamics revealed sphincter deficiency in 15 cases, which was associated with decreased bladder compliance in four, while decreased compliance was the only abnormality in one. Continence was recovered 0-27 months after surgery (mean 3.2 months): 40% of men were continent within the first month and 74% within the third. Histopathology revealed positive margins in 30/131 patients (22%), but exclusively at the bladder neck level in only seven (5%), and two also had positive nodes. Six patients (4.5%) presented bladder neck stenosis requiring transurethral incision. No statistically significant differences were found between the ages of continent and incontinent men or between the time to continence recovery with two different techniques of retropubic hemostasis; however, use of a nerve-sparing technique significantly reduced the time to continence recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy does not improve the long-term results of urinary continence but does contribute substantially to its earlier recovery, thus improving the quality of life. With proper patient selection the risk of positive margins at the bladder neck level only is reasonably low.

Radical prostatectomy and adjuvant endocrine therapy for prostate cancer with or without preoperative androgen deprivation: Five-year results

BACKGROUND

The effects of preoperative androgen deprivation on the outcomes of prostate cancer patients who received radical prostatectomy and subsequent adjuvant endocrine therapy have not yet been fully evaluated.

METHODS

Patients with stage A(2), B or C prostate cancers were randomized to one of two groups: group I (n = 90), who received androgen deprivation (leuprolide and chlormadinone acetate) for 3 months followed by radical prostatectomy and subsequent adjuvant endocrine therapy (leuprolide alone), and group II (n = 86), who underwent the surgery followed by 3-month androgen deprivation (leuprolide and chlormadinone acetate) and subsequent adjuvant endocrine therapy (leuprolide alone). The effects of preoperative androgen deprivation on survival, clinical relapse (serum prostate specific antigen, PSA, above the normal level, local recurrence, or distant metastases), and PSA relapse (PSA above the detectable level) were evaluated at 5 years or later after treatment.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in overall, cause-specific, clinical relapse-free, or PSA relapse-free survival rates between the two groups. In a subanalysis, no prostate cancer deaths or clinical relapses were noted in 29 patients with organ-confined disease (OCD: negativity of capsular invasion, seminal vesicle invasion, surgical margins or nodal involvement). The odds ratio for OCD depending on group assignment was 2.44 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.04-5.72), for group I, demonstrating a higher probability of having OCD. This ratio was increased to 4.00 (95% CI 1.06-15.16) if the analysis was conducted in a subpopulation with prostate specific antigen levels less than 35.6 ng/mL and with clinical stage B or C cancers.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative androgen deprivation has no demonstrable benefit in 5-year outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and adjuvant endocrine therapy. However, it did increase the probability of OCD, which was associated with no clinical relapse during the follow-up. A longer observation is needed to clarify the exact extent of the benefits in terms of survival.

Neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized prostate cancer: defining appropriate endpoints

High-risk localized prostate cancer remains a vexing problem for clinicians. Definitive local treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy cure only a minority of these patients. As a result, efforts are being made to reduce the risk of recurrence by using chemotherapy and new agents before, during or after definitive local therapy. Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy has yielded disappointing results when combined with surgery. Chemotherapy in the management of localized disease is evolving, and preliminary studies are just now being completed. Although these agents have established activity and acceptable toxicity in the hormone-refractory setting, more extensive use of them in patients with androgen-dependent disease will require data from randomized studies to determine overall efficacy. New molecular-targeted therapies are promising and hold the greatest hope that outcomes in early disease may be improved with early use of systemic therapy. The neoadjuvant surgical model also has promise in assessing the activity of new drugs, because it provides a means to determine molecular effects of specific agents, along with standard pathologic and clinical parameters of efficacy.