Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: 10-year data from the TROG 96.01 randomised trial

Psychological resilience aspects that mediate the depressive effects of urinary incontinence in prostate cancer survivors 10 years after treatment with radiation and hormone ablation

Repeated surveys of prostate cancer (PCa) patients indicate that their prevalence of depression is well above that for their non-PCa peers. Although standard first-line treatments for depression are only about 35% effective, some recent comments have suggested that a focus upon the possible correlates (factors that aggravate or mediate depression) might help improve treatment efficacy. To investigate this issue, 144 10 year PCa survivors were asked about the frequency of urinary incontinence, a common side effect of some PCa treatments. The 53 patients who suffered urinary incontinence had significantly higher depression scores on the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale than those patients who did not report urinary incontinence. Using mediation analysis, patients' psychological resilience (PR) significantly mediated the depressive effects of urinary incontinence, but those effects were confined to just one of the five components of PR-a sense of control over the things that happen to oneself. Implications for treatment models of psychosocial oncology support for PCa survivors are discussed.

Radiotherapy in prostate cancer treatment: results of the patterns of care study in Korea

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns of radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer in Korea.

Materials and Methods

A questionnaire about radiation treatment technique and principles in 2013 was sent to 83 radiation oncologists and data from 57 hospitals were collected analyzed to find patterns of RT for prostate cancer patients in Korea.

Results

The number of patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive RT ranged from 1 to 72 per hospital in 2013. RT doses and target volumes increased according to risk groups but the range of radiation doses was wide (60 to 81.4 Gy) and the fraction size was diverse (1.8 to 5 Gy). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was used for definitive treatment in 93.8% of hospitals. Hormonal therapy was integrated with radiation for intermediate (63.2%) and high risk patients (77.2%). Adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy was performed in 46 hospitals (80.7%). Indications of adjuvant RT included positive resection margin, seminal vesicle invasion, and capsular invasion. The total dose for adjuvant RT ranged from 50 to 72 Gy in 24–39 fractions. Salvage RT was delivered with findings of consecutive elevations in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA level over 0.2 ng/mL, or clinical recurrence. The total radiation doses ranged from 50 to 80 Gy with a range of 1.8 to 2.5 Gy per fraction for salvage RT.

Conclusion

This nationwide patterns of care study suggests that variable radiation techniques and a diverse range of dose fractionation schemes are applied for prostate cancer treatment in Korea. Standard guidelines for RT in prostate cancer need to be developed.

External Beam Radiation Therapy or Brachytherapy With or Without Short-course Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Study of Quality of Life

PURPOSE

The long-term effects of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) with radiation therapy on participant-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have not been characterized in prospective multicenter studies. We evaluated HRQOL for 2 years among participants undergoing radiation therapy (RT) with or without NADT for newly diagnosed, early-stage prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We analyzed longitudinal cohort data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction with Treatment Quality Assessment Consortium to ascertain the HRQOL trajectory of men receiving NADT with external beam RT (EBRT) or brachytherapy. HRQOL was measured using the expanded prostate cancer index composite 26-item questionnaire at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after the initiation of NADT. We used the χ² or Fisher exact test to compare the shift in percentages between groups that did or did not receive NADT. Analyses were conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level.

RESULTS

For subjects receiving EBRT, questions regarding the ability to have an erection, ability to reach an orgasm, quality of erections, frequency of erections, ability to function sexually, and lack of energy were in a significantly worse dichotomized category for the patients receiving NADT. Comparing the baseline versus 24-month outcomes, 24%, 23%, and 30% of participants receiving EBRT plus NADT shifted to the worse dichotomized category for the ability to reach an orgasm, quality of erections, and ability to function sexually compared with 14%, 13%, and 16% in the EBRT group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with baseline, at 2 years, participants receiving NADT plus EBRT compared with EBRT alone had worse HRQOL, as measured by the ability to reach orgasm, quality of erections, and ability to function sexually. However, no difference was found in the ability to have an erection, frequency of erections, overall sexual function, hot flashes, breast tenderness/enlargement, depression, lack of energy, or change in body weight. The improved survival in intermediate- and high-risk patients receiving NADT and EBRT necessitates pretreatment counseling of the HRQOL effect of NADT and EBRT.

Weighing Risk of Cardiovascular Mortality Against Potential Benefit of Hormonal Therapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background

The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal strategy for men with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer by age and cardiac risk.

Methods

A Markov model was calibrated to the EORTC 22991 trial, which randomly assigned men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy (RT) with or without six months of hormonal therapy (HT). We compared quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in men age 50, 60, and 70 years by age decile and cardiac risk group. Competing risks of cardiovascular mortality were estimated from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of varying model assumptions.

Results

HT was associated with a net decrease of 0.3 to 0.4 QALYs in men with a history of myocardial infarction. However, for all other men, HT improved QALYs (range = 0.4-2.6 QALYs). Younger men with fewer cardiac risk factors experienced the largest benefit from HT. In sensitivity analyses, the model was only found to be sensitive to the probability of biochemical failure. Men at low risk for biochemical failure (≤8.7% at five years) did not benefit from HT. Further, the benefits of HT did not begin to manifest until after 7.3 years of follow-up.

Conclusions

The optimal choice of therapy depends upon age, cardiac risk, and disease recurrence risk. Young men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with no cardiac risk factors benefit most from HT. Men with a history of myocardial infarction who are at very low risk for biochemical failure may be negatively impacted by the addition of HT.

The modern role of androgen deprivation therapy in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at some stage. The role of ADT in the management of metastatic disease has long been recognised, and its place in the management of localised and locally advanced disease has become clearer in the past few years. Nevertheless, concerns remain that some men might not benefit from ADT in earlier-stage disease. The purpose of the current article is to provide a brief narrative review of the role of ADT as part of a strategy of treatment with curative intent, concentrating mainly on key recent developments in the area.

METHODS

Narrative literature review of key publications in the English language relating to ADT in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer.

RESULTS

In locally advanced and high-risk localised prostate cancer, the use of ADT in combination with radiotherapy improves disease-specific and overall survival. There is no evidence to support the use of ADT in the treatment of low-risk localised prostate cancer. There appears to be an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, particularly in men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, but the relevance of this in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting is currently unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should focus on identification of men who are at risk from cardiovascular complications associated with ADT and on the comparison of radiotherapy with ADT versus surgery in the management of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer, particularly with regards to men with pre-existing comorbidities.

The very-high-risk prostate cancer: a contemporary update

BACKGROUND

Treatment of high-risk prostate cancer has evolved considerably over the past two decades, yet patients with very-high-risk features may still experience poor outcome despite aggressive therapy. We review the contemporary literature focusing on current definitions, role of modern imaging and treatment alternatives in very-high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database for all clinical trials or practice guidelines published in English between 2000 and 2016, with the following search terms: 'prostatic neoplasms' (MeSH Terms) AND ('high risk' (keyword) OR 'locally advanced' (keyword) OR 'node positive' (keyword)). Abstracts pertaining to very-high-risk prostate cancer were evaluated and 40 pertinent studies served as the basis for this review.

RESULTS

The term 'very'-high-risk prostate cancer remains ill defined. The European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines provide the only available definitions, categorizing those with clinical stage T3-4 or minimal nodal involvement as very high risk irrespective of PSA level or biopsy Gleason score. Modern imaging with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography-prostate-specific membrane antigen scans has a role in pre-treatment assessment. Local definitive therapy by external beam radiation combined with androgen deprivation is supported by several randomized clinical trials, whereas the role of surgery in the very-high-risk setting combined with adjuvant radiation/androgen deprivation therapy is emerging. Growing evidence suggest neoadjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in the context of a multimodal approach may be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with very-high-risk tumors may benefit from local definitive treatment in the setting of a multimodal regimen, offering local control and possibly cure in well selected patients. Further studies are necessary to better characterize the 'very'-high-risk category and determine the optimal therapy for the individual patient.

Duration of the anti-androgen in men undergoing 6 months of an LHRH agonist and radiation therapy for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer and the risk of death

BACKGROUND

Whether adding a first-generation anti-androgen (AA) to a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist in the radiotherapeutic management of unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PC) reduces the risk of all-cause and PC-specific mortality (ACM and PCSM) among men within differing comorbidity subgroups is unknown.

METHODS

Between 1995 and 2001, 206 men with unfavorable-risk PC were enrolled in a randomized trial comparing radiation with or without 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Partial AA use (median: 4.2 months) occurred in 29 of the 102 men randomized to ADT. Cox, and Fine and Gray's regressions were used to evaluate the impact of full versus partial AA use on PCSM and ACM-risk within comorbidity subgroups.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 16.62 years, 156 men died. In men with moderate to severe comorbidity increasing death was observed as treatment transitioned from no to partial to full ADT (P=0.02) with an increased ACM-risk with full versus partial AA use (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94-5.41); P=0.07); whereas only 1 and no PC deaths occurred in men receiving a partial versus full AA course, respectively. Among men with no or minimal comorbidity there was no decrease in ACM (AHR, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.49-1.91); P=0.92) or PCSM-risk (AHR 0.39 (95% CI 0.07-52.18); P=0.28) in comparing full versus partial AA use.

CONCLUSION

Increasing AA use by 2 months does not appear to impact survival in men with localized unfavorable-risk PC and no or minimal comorbidity, but may shorten survival in men with moderate to severe comorbidity, raising concern regarding in whom and for how long the AA should be prescribed.

Optimization of the Radiation Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Radiation and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) are mainstays of treatment for men with high-risk prostate cancer. High-risk disease is heterogeneous and subcategories of "favorable" high risk and very high risk can identify subgroups with particularly good or poor prognosis to help personalize treatment. Overall, randomized trials show that the combination of radiation and ADT improves survival when compared with either by itself. The optimum duration of ADT remains controversial, but for most healthy men with aggressive disease, approximately 2-3 years of ADT is well supported by the literature. The role of prophylactic pelvic nodal irradiation remains controversial, and there is an ongoing trial testing whether it improves overall survival. The use of brachytherapy boost appears to improve recurrence-free survival without yet improving survival, and may come at the cost of slightly higher toxicity. The addition of docetaxel to radiation and ADT may also improve failure-free survival, but a meta-analysis did not find that it improved overall survival. Retrospective data about the relative value of surgery vs radiation for high-risk disease have yielded varied conclusions and are ultimately hampered by the major issue of selection bias in retrospective series.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use in the Setting of High-dose Radiation Therapy and the Risk of Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality Stratified by the Extent of Competing Mortality

PURPOSE

The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to radiation therapy (RT) is the standard of care for men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, whether competing mortality (CM) affects the ability of ADT to improve, survival remains unanswered.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We calculated a CM risk score using a Fine-Gray semiparametric model that included age and cardiometabolic comorbidities from a cohort of 17,669 men treated with high-dose RT with or without supplemental ADT for nonmetastatic PC. Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis was used to assess whether ADT reduced the risk of PC-specific mortality for men with a low versus a high risk of CM among the 4550 patients within the intermediate- and high-risk cohort after adjustment for established PC prognostic factors, year of treatment, site, and ADT propensity score.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 8.4 years, 1065 men had died, 89 (8.36%) of PC. Among the men with a low CM score, ADT use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PC-specific mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.87, P=.02) but was not for men with high CM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.77-2.30, P=.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ADT to high-dose RT appears to be associated with decreased PC-specific mortality risk in men with a low but not a high CM score. These data should serve to heighten awareness about the importance of considering competing risks when determining whether to add ADT to RT for older men with intermediate- or high-risk PC.

The role of androgen deprivation therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has a long and illustrious history in the treatment for prostate cancer and continues to be a mainstay treatment for locally advanced and high-risk patients. Because the survival for even high-risk prostate patients is lengthy, details of treatment such as duration and timing must be considered carefully and weighed against the various side effects.

AREAS COVERED

In the following article, we discuss the evolution of ADT from its initial applications in metastatic prostate cancer to its more recent incorporation into front line treatment in conjunction with radiation therapy (RT) for intermediate and high risk disease. We emphasize the results of phase III trials, which have defined the role of ADT in combination with RT in this patient population. We emphasize not only the potential benefits of ADT with RT, but also the potential risks, and underscore the need to consider both in order to maximize the therapeutic ration for each patient. Studies were identified via a search of PubMed as well as the bibliographies of articles discussed herein. Expert commentary: Even with advanced radiation techniques and dose escalation, adjuvant ADT continues to confer an overall survival benefit in intermediate and high-risk patients, although some evidence suggest that duration of treatment may be shortened, particularly for the high-risk group. The coming years will shed further information on this complicated topic with maturing of results from several ongoing trials.

Race and mortality risk after radiation therapy in men treated with or without androgen-suppression therapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

African American (AA) men are more likely than non-AA men to have a comorbid illness that could interact with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and shorten survival. This study assessed the impact that race had on the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) among men definitively treated for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2013, 7252 men with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PC were treated with brachytherapy with neoadjuvant ADT (n = 1501) or without neoadjuvant ADT (n = 5751) for a 4-month median duration. Cox and Fine-Gray multivariate regressions were used to analyze whether the risk of ACM and OCM increased among AA men versus non-AA men receiving ADT; adjustments were made for the age at brachytherapy, year of brachytherapy, cardiometabolic comorbidity status, risk group, and ADT treatment propensity score.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 8.04 years, 869 men (12.0%) died: 48 (5.52%) of PC and 821 (94.48%) of other causes. There was a significant association between AA race and an increased risk of both ACM (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.94; P = .028) and OCM (AHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.08-3.19; P = .024) among AA men versus non-AA men who received ADT but not among those who did not receive ADT (AHR for ACM, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.93-1.91; P = .12; AHR for OCM, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.96-2.02; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT use may shorten survival in AA men with favorable-risk PC; therefore, its reservation for the treatment of higher risk PC, for which level 1 evidence supports its use, should be considered. Cancer 2016;122:3608-14. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Limitations of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) Prognostic Tool for Prediction of Metastases and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality in Patients Treated With External Beam Radiation Therapy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) prognostic tool for freedom-from-metastases (FFM) and cause-specific survival (CSS) in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and to determine whether the performance of CAPRA is influenced by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use or the presence of Gleason pattern 5 (GP-5).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 612 patients from a prospective database of 718 patients treated with dose-escalated EBRT from 1998 to 2008 who met CAPRA scoring criteria were included in the study. Performance of CAPRA and association of CAPRA score, GP-5 and short-term or long-term ADT use (STAD or LTAD, respectively) with FFM and CSS were evaluated using Cox models. The impact of ADT use on accuracy of the CAPRA-based CaPSURE model for CSS was assessed. The discriminatory ability of the CAPRA model and modified models incorporating GP-5 and ADT use were compared using the C-index.

RESULTS

Increasing CAPRA score correlated with worse FFM and CSS, and was prognostic for FFM and CSS for the overall cohort. CAPRA showed poorer discrimination for FFM and CSS in patients treated with EBRT+LTAD than those who received EBRT alone or EBRT+STAD. The addition of GP-5 and ADT use to CAPRA score increased the predictive accuracy of the CAPRA model for both FFM (C-index 0.809 vs. 0.779, P<0.001) and CSS (C-index 0.864 vs. 0.796, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAPRA score should be modified to incorporate GP-5 and ADT use for risk adjustment and risk prediction in prostate cancer patients who receive EBRT.

An Update on Triptorelin: Current Thinking on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay palliative treatment for men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, and aims to reduce testosterone to levels obtained by surgical castration. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists predominates among the ADT options. The GnRH agonist, triptorelin is a first-line hormonal therapy that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trials of patients with locally advanced non-metastatic or metastatic disease. Sustained-release 1-, 3- and 6-month formulations of triptorelin, administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously, have been developed to provide improved flexibility and convenience for the patient. Head-to-head studies of GnRH agonists are lacking in the field of prostate cancer. Despite the inevitable progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in most patients receiving ADT, monitoring of testosterone levels needs to improve in routine practice and physicians should not overlook the benefits of continued ADT in their patients when introducing one of the various new treatment options for CRPC. For improved survival outcomes, there remains a need to tailor ADT treatment regimens, novel hormonal agents and chemotherapy according to the individual patient with advanced prostate cancer.

Evidence-based recommendations on androgen deprivation therapy for localized and advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The management of prostate cancer (PC) is still evolving. Although, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option, particularly in patients with disseminated disease, important data regarding hormonal manipulation have recently emerged. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence on ADT, make recommendations and address areas of controversy associated with its use in men with PC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An expert panel was convened. Areas related to the hormonal management of patients with PC requiring evidence review were identified and questions to be addressed by the panel were determined. Appropriate literature review was performed and included a search of online databases, bibliographic reviews and consultation with experts.

RESULTS

The panel was able to provide recommendations on: 1) which patients with localised PC should receive androgen deprivation in conjunction with radiotherapy (RT); 2) what standard initial treatment should be used in metastatic hormone-naïve PC (MHNPC); 3) efficacy of androgen deprivation agents; 4) whether ADT should be continued in patients with castration resistant PC (CRPC). However, no recommendations could be made for combined ADT and very high-dose RT in patients with an intermediate-risk disease.

CONCLUSIONS

ADT remains the cornerstone of treatment for both metastatic hormone-naïve and castration-resistant PC. According to the expert panel's opinion, based on the ERG report, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists might not be equivalent but this needs to be confirmed in long-term data. The combined use of ADT and RT improves outcome and survival in men with high-risk localised disease. The benefits in patients with intermediate-risk disease, particularly those subject to escalated dose RT are controversial.

Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer and the Odds of Upgrading to Gleason 8 or Higher at Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Some men with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) have occult disease with a Gleason score of 8 or higher unrecognized on biopsy because of a sampling error that would change management to long from short course androgen-deprivation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy. Identifying such men could improve outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 136 consecutive men with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2005 and 2008. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify clinical factors associated with upgrading to a Gleason score of 8 or higher at RP.

RESULTS

Fourteen percent of the men were upgraded to a Gleason score of 8 or higher PC at RP. Both increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.19, 3.30; P = .01) and greatest percentage core length (GPC) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.03, 1.19; P < .01) were significantly associated with upgrading. A significant interaction between PSA and GPC was observed (P = .01). Specifically, men with low PSA (< 5 ng/mL) and those with larger GPC (> 70%) were significantly more likely to have a Gleason score of 8 or higher at RP compared to men with low PSA and GPC of 70% or less (35% vs. 0%; P = .01), whereas the same was not true among men with PSA levels ≥ 5 ng/mL (16% vs. 9%; P = .36).

CONCLUSION

In men with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC, a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging could be considered when the PSA is low and the percentage core length high to identify occult Gleason score 8 or higher disease and change management from short to long course androgen-deprivation therapy and radiotherapy.

Different outcomes among favourable and unfavourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy

Background

to evaluate the role of a risk stratification system in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (HyRT).

Methods

131 patients affected by intermediate-risk PCa were treated with HyRT at the total dose of 54,75 Gy in 15 fraction plus 9 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients were classified as favourable risk (FIR) if they had a single NCCN intermediate-risk factor (IRF), a Gleason score ≤3 + 4 = 7, and <50 % of biopsy cores containing cancer (PBCC). If these criteria were not met were classified as unfavourable risk (UIR). Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards model were calculated for biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), the risk of local recurrence and metastasis-free survival (MFS).

Results

After a median follow-up of 56.7 months (range 9.8 to 93.7 months), 11 patients (8.4 %) died, of whom 2 (1.5 %) for PCa. In the univariate analysis, Gleason score, PPBCs, IRFs and PSA at first follow-up were prognostic factors for bRFS and LF while Gleason score, PPBCs and PSA at first follow-up were significant predictor for MFS. In the multivariate analysis only the PSA at first follow-up resulted a prognostic factor for bRFS and MFS. Patients with a value of PSA at first follow-up <0.7 ng/mL respect to those with PSA ≥0,7 ng/mL had a 5y-bRFS of 93.3 % vs. 57.5 %, 5y-MFS of 99.0 % vs. 78.9 % and 5y-LF of 5.8 % vs. 38.3 %. Patients in the UIR PCa group with a PSA value <0.7 ng/mL at first follow-up had significant better bRFS, LF and MFS.

Conclusions

Risk factors currently not included in the guidelines are useful to stratify patients with intermediate-risk PCa in two groups of different prognosis even when HyRT is delivered. PSA at first follow-up is useful in UIR PCa to guide the overall length of ADT.

Mortality, cardiovascular risk, and androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a cornerstone therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We hypothesized that cardiovascular (CV) risk is different across the various ADT modalities to compare their effects on CV morbidity and mortality, and all-cause mortality in patients with PCa. To investigate more in depth potential CV risk heterogeneity focusing on coronary (main outcome) and cerebrovascular risk, CV, and overall mortality. We performed a Medline and Embase query, without language restriction, since 1950 up to July 2014. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies providing that they compared at least 1 ADT modality to another one or to placebo and they gave data on CV event or all-cause mortality. Sixty-eight studies out of 3419 met our eligibility criteria. Eleven observational studies were analyzed. Direct meta-analyses showed that antiandrogen was associated with a 30% decrease risk for myocardial infarction (MI) compared to GnRH agonists (RR, 0.70 [0.54-0.91]); combined androgen blockade (CAB) was associated with a 10% increase risk for stroke when compared to antiandrogen (RR, 1.10 [1.02-1.19]). With regard to RCTs, 57 were included: direct meta-analyses suggested that CAB was associated with a 10% decrease of all-cause mortality when compared to GnRH agonist (RR, 0.90 [0.82-1.00]). Network analysis could only be performed for all-cause mortality and it remains difficult to disentangle benefit (positive impact on cancer survival) and risk (including CV risk). The impact of the ADT modalities on CV morbidity remains difficult to quantify and more detailed prospective collection is required.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42014010598.

Evolving Paradigm of Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Current Consensus and Continuing Controversies

High-risk prostate cancer is an aggressive form of the disease with an increased risk of distant metastasis and subsequent mortality. Multiple randomized trials have established that the combination of radiation therapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy improves overall survival compared to either treatment alone. Standard of care for men with high-risk prostate cancer in the modern setting is dose-escalated radiotherapy along with 2-3 years of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). There are research efforts directed towards assessing the efficacy of shorter ADT duration. Current research has been focused on assessing hypofractionated and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques. Ongoing randomized trials will help assess the utility of pelvic lymph node irradiation. Research is also focused on multimodality therapy with addition of a brachytherapy boost to external beam radiation to help improve outcomes in men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of EORTC Trial 22991

Purpose

Up to 30% of patients who undergo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5 years. We assessed if biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) is improved by adding 6 months of androgen suppression (AS; two injections of every-3-months depot of luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist) to primary radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods

A total of 819 patients staged: (1) cT1b-c, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≥ 7, or (2) cT2a (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997), with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread, with PSA ≤ 50 ng/mL, were centrally randomized 1:1 to either RT or RT plus AS started on day 1 of RT. Centers opted for one dose (70, 74, or 78 Gy). Biochemical DFS, the primary end point, was defined from entry until PSA relapse (Phoenix criteria) and clinical relapse by imaging or death of any cause. The trial had 80% power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the two-sided α = 5%.

Results

The median patient age was 70 years. Among patients, 74.8% were intermediate risk and 24.8% were high risk. In the RT arm, 407 of 409 patients received RT; in the RT plus AS arm, 403 patients received RT plus AS and three patients received RT only. At 7.2 years median follow-up, RT plus AS significantly improved biochemical DFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P < .001, with 319 events), as well as clinical progression-free survival (205 events, HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84; P = .001). In exploratory analysis, no statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and dose of RT could be evidenced (heterogeneity P = .79 and P = .66, for biochemical DFS and progression-free survival, respectively). Overall survival data are not mature yet.

Conclusion

Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS improves biochemical and clinical DFS of intermediate- and high-risk cT1b-c to cT2a (with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread) prostatic carcinoma, treated by radiation.

Incorporating Androgen Deprivation With Dose-Escalated External-Beam Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.A 71-year-old man was seen by his primary care physician for routine evaluation in early 2015. On digital rectal examination, his prostate was moderately enlarged, although he had no obvious areas of palpable disease. His prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.1 ng/mL. A standard ultrasound-guided biopsy of his prostate revealed a 60-mL prostate volume and a single core (out of 12) of Gleason 3 + 3 disease. He chose to undergo surveillance. Six months later, his PSA level had risen to 10.0 ng/mL; there was still no palpable disease on digital rectal examination. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of his prostate and pelvis revealed two suspicious intraprostatic lesions with restricted diffusion, focal and earlier enhancement with contrast than adjacent normal prostate, and hypointense features on T2-weighted imaging; these findings were highly suspicious for high-grade prostate cancer (Fig 1). Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of each lesion yielded a total of four positive biopsy cores of Gleason 4 + 3 = 7, involving 50% to 80% of each core, with perineural invasion noted. The patient's medical history is notable for overweight (but not morbidly obese), hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, cataract surgeries, and inguinal hernia repair, but the patient is otherwise healthy. He has decided against prostatectomy and brachytherapy because of strong personal preference. In particular, he wanted to avoid anesthesia, and was concerned about the potential for greater urinary incontinence and/or urinary irritation associated with these treatments compared with external-beam radiotherapy (RT).(1,2).

Neutralizing S1P inhibits intratumoral hypoxia, induces vascular remodelling and sensitizes to chemotherapy in prostate cancer

Hypoxia promotes neovascularization, increased tumor growth, and therapeutic resistance. The transcription factor, hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α), has been reported as the master driver of adaptation to hypoxia. We previously identified the sphingosine kinase 1/sphingosine 1-phosphate (SphK1/S1P) pathway as a new modulator of HIF-1α under hypoxia. Taking advantage of a monoclonal antibody neutralizing extracellular S1P (sphingomab), we report that inhibition of S1P extracellular signaling blocks HIF-1α accumulation and activity in several cancer cell models exposed to hypoxia. In an orthotopic xenograft model of prostate cancer, we show that sphingomab reduces hypoxia and modifies vessel architecture within 5 days of treatment, leading to increased intratumoral blood perfusion. Supporting the notion that a transient vascular normalization of tumor vessels is the mechanism by which sphingomab exerts its effects, we demonstrate that administration of the antibody for 5 days before chemotherapy is more effective at local tumor control and metastatic dissemination than any other treatment scheduling. These findings validate sphingomab as a potential new normalization agent that could contribute to successful sensitization of hypoxic tumors to chemotherapy.

Influence of Comorbidity on the Risk of Mortality in Men With Unfavorable-Risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing High-Dose Radiation Therapy Alone

PURPOSE

To explore whether a subgroup of men with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PC) exists in whom high-dose radiation therapy (RT) alone is sufficient to avoid excess PC death due to competing risk from cardiometabolic comorbidity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This was a cohort study of 7399 men in whom comorbidity (including congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, or myocardial infarction) was assessed and recorded with T1-3NxM0 PC treated with brachytherapy with or without neoadjuvant RT, October 1997 to May 2013 at a single providing institution. Cox and competing risks regression analyses were used to assess whether men with unfavorable-intermediate/high-risk versus favorable-intermediate/low-risk PC were at increased risk of PC-specific, all-cause, or other-cause mortality (PCSM, ACM, OCM), adjusting for number of comorbidities, age at and year of brachytherapy, RT use, and an RT treatment propensity score.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, 935 men died: 80 of PC and 855 of other causes. Among men with no comorbidity, PCSM risk (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-5.06], P=.001) and ACM risk (AHR 1.30 [95% CI 1.07-1.58], P=.007) were significantly increased in men with unfavorable-intermediate/high-risk PC versus favorable-intermediate/low-risk PC, with no difference in OCM (P=.07). Although PCSM risk was increased in men with 1 comorbidity (AHR 2.87 [95% CI 1.11-7.40], P=.029), ACM risk was not (AHR 1.03 [95% CI 0.78-1.36], P=.84). Neither PCSM risk (AHR 4.39 [95% CI 0.37-51.98], P=.24) or ACM risk (AHR 1.43 [95% CI 0.83-2.45], P=.20) was increased in men with 2 comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

To minimize death from PC, high-dose RT alone may be sufficient treatment in men with 2 or more cardiometabolic comorbidities and unfavorable-intermediate- and high-risk PC.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.

CONCLUSION

TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

[Localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies.

RESULTS

Most of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.

Prostate cancer

Much progress has been made in research for prostate cancer in the past decade. There is now greater understanding for the genetic basis of familial prostate cancer with identification of rare but high-risk mutations (eg, BRCA2, HOXB13) and low-risk but common alleles (77 identified so far by genome-wide association studies) that could lead to targeted screening of patients at risk. This is especially important because screening for prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen remains controversial due to the high rate of overdiagnosis and unnecessary prostate biopsies, despite evidence that it reduces mortality. Classification of prostate cancer into distinct molecular subtypes, including mutually exclusive ETS-gene-fusion-positive and SPINK1-overexpressing, CHD1-loss cancers, could allow stratification of patients for different management strategies. Presently, men with localised disease can have very different prognoses and treatment options, ranging from observation alone through to radical surgery, with few good-quality randomised trials to inform on the best approach for an individual patient. The survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer progressing on androgen-deprivation therapy (castration-resistant prostate cancer) has improved substantially. In addition to docetaxel, which has been used for more than a decade, in the past 4 years five new drugs have shown efficacy with improvements in overall survival leading to licensing for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Because of this rapid change in the therapeutic landscape, no robust data exist to inform on the selection of patients for a specific treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer or the best sequence of administration. Moreover, the high cost of the newer drugs limits their widespread use in several countries. Data from continuing clinical and translational research are urgently needed to improve, and, crucially, to personalise management.

[CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF EXTERNAL-BEAM RADIOTHERAPY COMBINED WITH NEOADJUVANT ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY FOR HIGH-RISK PROSTATE CANCER]

(Purpose) We investigated the outcome of external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NeoADT) for high-risk prostate cancer defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. (Patients and method) From 2002 to 2013, 70 patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PSA ≥20 ng/ml or clinical T stage ≥T3a, Gleason score ≥8) were treated with NeoADT and EBRT. EBRT consisted of three-dimensional conformal or intensity modulated radiotherapy with or without whole-pelvic radiation. Biochemical failure was defined according to the Phoenix definition. Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic factors for bPFS were analyzed by using the Cox proportional hazard model. (Result) The median age and initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level were 72 years old and 25.2 ng/ml, respectively. 43 patients had PSA level ≥20 ng/ml, 51 patients had clinical stage ≥T3a, 27 patients had Gleason score ≥8. The number of risk factors patients possessed was 1 (RiskN-1) in 31 patients, 2 (RiskN-2) in 27 patients and 3 (RiskN-3) in 12 patients. Median EBRT dose and duration of Neo ADT were 74 Gy and13.0 months, respectively. Whole-pelvic radiation was administered in 7 patients. After median follow-up of 4.8 years, biochemical and clinical failure occurred in 23 and 2 patients, respectively. No patients died of cancer. Five-year/8-year bPFS and OS were 63%/54% and 100%/91%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, three high-risk factor of NCCN guideline (PSA, clinical stage, Gleason score) did not predict outcome after EBRT independently, but RiskN (-1 vs -2, 3, HR 35.35, 95%CI 2.51-498.05, p<0.01) and pre-EBRT PSA (continuous, hazard ratio 1.31, 95%CI 1.01-1.71, p<0.05) were the significant predictors of bPFS. Five-year/8-year bPFS in RiskN-1 group and RiskN-2 or -3 group were 89%/79% and 47%/39%, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events (CTCAE ver4.0-JCOG) occurred in 2 patients. (Conclusion) Median dose of 74 Gy EBRT with intermediate-term NeoADT was safe and beneficial for high-risk prostate cancer. The number of risk factors and pre-EBRT PSA level were the independent prognostic factors for biochemical progression-free survival.

Improved survival with the addition of radiotherapy to androgen deprivation: questions answered and a review of current controversies in radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer

The contemporary standard of care for locally advanced high-risk prostate cancer includes a combination of dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT) plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). However, 20 years ago, at the inception of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) led study (NCIC Clinical Trials Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110), the survival impact of prostate RT for high-risk disease was uncertain. Recently, Mason, Warde and colleagues presented the final results of this NCIC/MRC study (PMID: 25691677) randomizing 1,205 high-risk prostate cancer patients to ADT + RT vs. ADT alone. These updated results confirm substantial improvements with the addition of RT to ADT for the endpoints of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and biochemical recurrence. Close examination of subtleties of this trial's design highlight some of the most salient controversies in the field of prostate RT, including the risk-stratified roles of ADT, optimal ADT duration, and RT field design in the dose-escalated and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) era.

Optimal duration of androgen deprivation therapy following radiation therapy in intermediate- or high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer: A systematic review and metaanalysis

Objectives:

To investigate current evidence on the optimal duration of adjuvant hormone deprivation for prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy with curative intent.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic search was performed in electronic databases. Data from randomized trials comparing different durations of hormone blockade was collected for pooled analysis. Overall survival, disease-free survival, disease-specific survival and toxicity were the outcomes of interest. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects model.

Results:

Six studies met the eligibility criteria. For overall survival, the pooled data from the studies demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for longer hormone deprivation (Hazard Ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.74 – 0.96). A statistically significant benefit was also found for disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 – 0.89), and disease-specific survival (Hazard Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.62 – 0.85). Studies with longer blockade duration arm demonstrated greater benefit. Toxicity was low, with no increase in cardiovascular events.

Conclusions:

Longer duration of androgen deprivation combined to radiotherapy prolongs OS, DFS and DSS in patients with intermediate and high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer. However, this evidence is based on trials using older radiation techniques, and further research of combination of androgen deprivation and new RT technologies may be warranted.

A prospective study of nomogram-based adaptation of prostate radiotherapy target volumes

BACKGROUND

A prospective clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a novel approach to the treatment of patients with high risk prostate cancer (HRPC) through the use of a nomogram to tailor radiotherapy target volumes.

METHODS

Twenty seven subjects with HRPC were treated with a mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen using image-guided IMRT technique between Jun/2013-Jan/2015. A set of validated prognostic factors were inputted into the Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prostate cancer nomogram to estimate risk of loco-regional spread (LRS). The nomogram risk estimates for extra-capsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicles involvement (SVI), and pelvic lymph nodes involvement (LNI) were used to adapt radiotherapy treatment volumes based on a risk threshold of ≥15 % in all cases. A planning guide was used to delineate target volumes and organs at risk (OAR). Up to three dose levels were administered over 28 fractions; 70Gy for gross disease in the prostate +/- seminal vesicles (2.5Gy/fraction), 61.6Gy for subclinical peri-prostatic disease (2.2Gy/fraction) and 50.4Gy to pelvic nodes (1.8Gy/fraction). Data regarding protocol adherence, nomogram use, radiotherapy dose distribution, and acute toxicity were collected.

RESULTS

Nomogram use 100 % of patients were treated for ECE, 88.9 % for SVI, and 70.4 % for LNI. The three areas at risk of LRS were appropriately treated according to the study protocol in 98.8 % cases. The MSKCC nomogram estimates for LRS differed significantly between the time of recruitment and analysis. Contouring protocol compliance Compliance with the trial contouring protocol for up to seven target volumes was 93.0 % (159/171). Compliance with protocol for small bowel contouring was poor (59.3 %). Dose constraints compliance Compliance with dose constraints for target volumes was 97.4 % (191/196). Compliance with dose constraints for OAR was 88.2 % (285/323). Acute toxicity There were no grade 3 acute toxicities observed. 20/27 (74.1 %) and 6/27 (22.2 %) patients experienced a grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated the feasibility of this novel risk-adapted radiation treatment protocol for HRPC. This study has identified key learning points regarding this approach, including the importance of standardization and updating of risk quantification tools, and the utility of an observer to verify their correct use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClincialTrials.gov identifier NCT01418040 . Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (HNEHREC) reference number 12/08/15/4.02.

Long-term Impact of Androgen-deprivation Therapy on Cardiovascular Morbidity After Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the impact of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) on the incidence of cardiovascular events (CE) in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 2211 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with RT from 1988 to 2008 at our institution. There were 991 patients (44.8%) who received ADT at the time of RT for a median of 6.1 months. Salvage ADT was initiated prior to CE in 365 men (16.5%) at a median of 5.5 years (range: 0.6 to 18.4 years) after RT and continued for a median of 4.3 years. A nomogram was constructed to predict the 10-year risk of CE "post-RT" (i.e., after RT).

RESULTS

Patients receiving ADT at the time of RT exhibited significantly higher 10-year incidence of CE (19.6%, 95% CI 17.0%-22.6%) than those not receiving ADT (14.3%, 95% CI 12.2%-16.7%, P = .005). On multivariate analysis, both ADT at the time of RT (P = .007) and the time of salvage (P = .0004) were associated with increased CE risk, as were advanced age (P  =  .02), smoking (P  =  .0007), history of diabetes (P  =  .0007), and history of CE before RT (P  <  .0001). A nomogram using patient age, smoking status, history of pre-RT CE, history of diabetes, and ADT use at the time of RT predicted the rate of 10-year CE with a C-index of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.88).

CONCLUSION

While ADT is often an essential part of prostate cancer treatment, patients should be counseled regarding increased risks of CE and prophylactic efforts should be considered to mitigate that risk.

Proteins from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate cancer sections that predict the risk of metastatic disease

Background

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and the third leading cause of cancer related deaths among men living in developed countries. Biomarkers that predict disease outcome at the time of initial diagnosis would substantially aid disease management.

Results

Proteins extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue were identified using nanoflow liquid chromatography-MALDI MS/MS or after separation by one- or two-dimensional electrophoresis. The proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD000963. A list of potential biomarker candidates, based on proposed associations with prostate cancer, was derived from the 320 identified proteins. Candidate biomarkers were then examined by multiplexed Western blotting of archival specimens from men with premetastatic disease and subsequent disease outcome data. Annexin A2 provided the best prediction of risk of metastatic disease (log-rank Chi squared p = 0. 025). A tumor/control tissue >2-fold relative abundance increase predicted early biochemical failure, while <2-fold change predicted late or no biochemical failure.

Conclusions

This study confirms the potential for use of archival FFPE specimens in the search for prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer and suggests that annexin A2 abundance in diagnostic biopsies is predictive for metastatic potential. Protein profiling each cancer may lead to an overall reduction in mortality from metastatic prostate cancer as well as reduced treatment associated morbidity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12014-015-9096-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is Gleason Grade 5 Prostate Cancer Resistant to Conventional Androgen Deprivation Therapy?

Synthesis of data from randomized trials suggests that long-term versus short-term androgen deprivation therapy may be most effective in men with Gleason grade 4 prostate cancer (PCa) and less or ineffective in men with Gleason grade 5 PCa.

[Radiotherapy in elderly patients, recommendations for the main localizations: Breast, prostate and gynaecological cancers]

Modifications of radiotherapy indications or schedules because of age could be discussed in view of a different evolution of the disease or because of specific toxicities. One important aim is to decrease the number of hospital transports. For breast cancer, the rate of local relapse after lumpectomy is lower in old patients; moreover, characteristics of the disease are often more favourable (hormonosensitivity, low grade). However, adjuvant irradiation decreases significantly the incidence of breast relapse and must be systematically proposed. Hypofractionnated schedules must be recommended; limited data are available for accelerated partial breast irradiation in old women and these techniques must not be used in routine. For low or intermediate risk prostate cancer, assessment of comorbidities is crucial before considering any invasive treatment. A life expectancy of at least 10 years is required if a curative approach, potentially toxic is proposed. In this case, radiotherapy is often the good choice, giving less sequelae than surgery. The indication of androgen deprivation must take into account cardiovascular and bone history. Management of gynaecological cancers must follow the same recommendations as in young women. Exclusive postoperative brachytherapy must be recommended in early stage endometrial carcinomas. Brachytherapy must be also systematically integrated in the radiotherapy program for cervix cancers, even in old women.