Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes after Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Center, Two-Arm Prospective Study

AIMS

To compare the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

Between November 2002 and December 2018, we prospectively recorded the data of patients undergoing RARP for high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) at our tertiary referral center. NSS (nerve-sparing surgery) was carefully offered on the basis of the preoperative clinical characteristics of the patients and an intraoperative assessment. The patients were stratified into two groups: nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing groups (yes/no). Radical prostatectomies were performed by 10 surgeons with a robot-assisted technique using a daVinci® surgical system. The primary oncological outcome evaluated was biochemical recurrence (BCR). The secondary oncological outcomes assessed were positive surgical margins (PSMs) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 779 patients were included in the study: 429 (55.1%) underwent NSS while 350 (44.9%) underwent non-NSS. After a mean (±SD) follow-up of 192 (±14) months, 328 (42.1%) patients developed BCR; no significant difference was found between the NSS and non-NSS groups (156 vs. 172; p = 0.09). Both our univariable and multivariable analyses found that the nerve-sparing approach was not a predictor of BCR (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Mayer survival curves for BCR showed no significant difference among the non-NSS, unilateral NSS, and bilateral NSS groups (log rank test = 0.6). PSMs were reported after RARPs for 254 (32.6%) patients, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS group (143 vs. 111; p = 0.5). In the subgroup of 15 patients who died during the follow-up period, mean (±SD) CSS was 70.5 (±26.1) months, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS groups (mean CSS: 70.3 vs. 70.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS

NSS does not appear to negatively impact the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk PCa. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our promising findings.

Irradiation-induced IFN-type-I pathway activation in prostate cancer cell lines

The Interferon (ΙFN) Type-I pathway has an important role in the activation of an anti-tumor immune response. We investigated the effects of two different dose fractionations of radiation (3 daily 8 Gy fractions vs. one fraction of 20 Gy) on the activation of the Type-I IFN-pathway in three hormone-dependent (22Rv1) and independent (DU145, PC3), prostate cancer (PC) cell lines. Regardless of the dose schedules, radiation-induced the expression of IFN-stimulated genes in all PC cell lines, with a strong up-regulation of the IFI6v2 and IFI44 genes. In addition, strong up-regulation of the MX1 and MX2 genes was noted in the PC3 cell line. This effect was independent of the expression of IFNβ, cGAS, or TREX1 levels. It is suggested that the RT-induced IFN type-I response could be exploited for the development of immuno-RT policies for localized and metastatic PC.

Radiation Facility Volume and Survival for Men With Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy

IMPORTANCE

Very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers.

OBJECTIVE

To examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016.

EXPOSURES

Treatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

A total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

Multi-Institutional Clinical Outcomes of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancers Treated With Contemporary High-Dose Radiation and Long-Term Androgen Deprivation Therapy

AIMS

This multicentric retrospective study reports long-term clinical outcomes of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated across 19 institutions were studied. The key endpoints that were evaluated were 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival, together with EBRT-related acute and late toxicities. The impact of various prognostic factors on the studied endpoints was analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 462 patients, 88% (405) had Gleason 9 disease and 31% (142) had primary Gleason pattern 5. A prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan was used for staging in 33% (153), 80% (371) were staged as T3/T4 and 30% (142) with pelvic nodal disease. The median ADT duration was 24 months; 66% received hypofractionated EBRT and 71.4% (330) received pelvic nodal irradiation. With a median follow-up of 56 months, the 5-year bRFS, MFS and overall survival were 73.1%, 77.4% and 90.5%, respectively. Primary Gleason pattern 5 was associated with worse bRFS, MFS and overall survival with hazard ratios of 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.73, P < 0.001), 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96, P = 0.031) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.97, P = 0.040), respectively, whereas pelvic nodal disease was associated with worse bRFS (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.98, P = 0.039) and MFS (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.85, P = 0.006). The acute and late radiation-related toxicities were low overall and pelvic nodal irradiation was associated with higher toxicities.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary EBRT and long-term ADT led to excellent 5-year clinical outcomes and low rates of toxicity in this cohort of non-metastatic grade group 5 prostate cancers. Primary Gleason pattern 5 and pelvic node disease portends inferior clinical outcomes.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis

PURPOSE

Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

[Multimodal treatment of high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer]

Treatment of the high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer is a challenge in daily practice. At 20-40%, patients with such tumor stages currently make up the majority of patients at high-volume centers. Due to COVID-19, the proportion of patients with this tumor stage will probably continue to increase in the next few years. In addition to adequate staging, selection of the best individual therapy is crucial to avoid local complications and ensure optimal oncological survival. Treatment is often carried out with a multimodal approach. The use of extended hormone therapy in the neoadjuvant setting is currently under evaluation in large phase III trials and remains open.

The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and primary management of non-metastatic disease

OBJECTIVE

There is now an unprecedented amount of evidence to consider when revising prostate cancer guidelines. We believe that there is a value in publishing summaries of national clinical guidelines in English for others to read and comment on.

METHODS

This is part 1 of a summary of the Swedish prostate cancer guidelines that were published in June 2022. It covers the early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and management of the non-metastatic disease. Part 2 covers recurrence after local treatment and management of the metastatic disease.

RESULTS

The 2022 Swedish guidelines include several new recommendations: rectal iodine-povidone to reduce post-biopsy infections, external beam radiation with focal boost to the tumour, use of a pre-rectal spacer to reduce rectal side effects after external beam radiotherapy in some expert centres, 6 months' concomitant and adjuvant rather than neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal treatment together with radiotherapy for unfavourable intermediate and high-risk disease, and adjuvant abiraterone plus prednisolone together with a GnRH agonist for a subgroup of men with very high-risk disease. The Swedish guidelines differ from the European by having more restrictive recommendations regarding genetic testing and pelvic lymph node dissection, the risk group classification, recommending ultra-hypofractionated (7 fractions) external radiotherapy for intermediate and selected high-risk cancers, by not recommending any hormonal treatment together with radiotherapy for favourable intermediate-risk disease, and by recommending bicalutamide monotherapy instead of a GnRH agonist for some patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2022 Swedish prostate cancer guidelines include several new recommendations and some that differ from the European guidelines.