Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer

Differential outcomes of re-stratified high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost

Purpose

We report outcomes of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, initially classified according to a 3-tier NCCN classification system, treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT). Patients were analyzed based on a re-stratification of their risk grouping using CAPRA score and a newer 5-tier NCCN classification.

Material and methods

471 high-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT, HDR-BT, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) between 1999 and 2018 were included. Competing risk survival analyses to compare individuals with CAPRA scores < 6 vs. ≥ 6 for biochemical relapse (BCR) and metastasis incidence were conducted. Also, overall survival (OS) for both groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis was assessed. The same analyses were repeated using a 5-tier NCCN stratification comparing those classified as high-risk vs. very high-risk patients.

Results

The median age was 71 years, and the median follow-up period was 72 months. The whole cohort received an EQD2 of 74 Gy or greater, with a median EQD2 of 106.89 Gy. Both a CAPRA score ≥ 6 and belonging to the NCCN very high-risk group were associated with BCR, with subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) of 3.04 (p = 0.015) and 2.53 (p = 0.013), respectively. For metastasis incidence, both the CAPRA and NCCN groups had similar sHRs of 2.60 (p = 0.094) and 2.71 (p = 0.037), respectively. For 10-year OS, patients with CAPRA score ≥ 6 and belonging to the NCCN very high-risk group presented similar HRs of 2.11 (p = 0.005) and 2.10 (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

We showed that high-risk PCa patients classified according to the 3-tier NCCN system benefit from further stratification using the CAPRA score or the 5-tier NCCN stratification method. Patients with a CAPRA score ≥ 6 or classified as very high-risk demonstrate a higher hazard of BCR, metastasis, and death. These patients might benefit from further intensification of their investigations and treatment, based on ongoing research.

Merkel cell carcinoma recurrence risk estimation is improved by integrating factors beyond cancer stage: A multivariable model and web-based calculator

BACKGROUND

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) recurs in 40% of patients. In addition to stage, factors known to affect recurrence risk include: sex, immunosuppression, unknown primary status, age, site of primary tumor, and time since diagnosis.

PURPOSE

Create a multivariable model and web-based calculator to predict MCC recurrence risk more accurately than stage alone.

METHODS

Data from 618 patients in a prospective cohort were used in a competing risk regression model to estimate recurrence risk using stage and other factors.

RESULTS

In this multivariable model, the most impactful recurrence risk factors were: American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (P < .001), immunosuppression (hazard ratio 2.05; P < .001), male sex (1.59; P = .003) and unknown primary (0.65; P = .064). Compared to stage alone, the model improved prognostic accuracy (concordance index for 2-year risk, 0.66 vs 0.70; P < .001), and modified estimated recurrence risk by up to 4-fold (18% for low-risk stage IIIA vs 78% for high-risk IIIA over 5 years).

LIMITATIONS

Lack of an external data set for model validation.

CONCLUSION/RELEVANCE

As demonstrated by this multivariable model, accurate recurrence risk prediction requires integration of factors beyond stage. An online calculator based on this model (at merkelcell.org/recur) integrates time since diagnosis and provides new data for optimizing surveillance for MCC patients.

Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

Advances in high-risk localized prostate cancer: Staging and management

Nearly 15% of individuals with localized prostate cancer are identified as high risk for recurrence and progression of the disease, which is why the correct staging is vital for the definition of correct treatment-also developing novel therapeutic strategies to find a balance between getting better outcomes without sacrificing the quality of life (QoL). In this narrative review, we introduced the current standards of staging and primary treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa), based on international guidelines and arguments in the debate, under the light of the most recent literature. It brings essential tools such as PSMA PET/CT and different nomograms (Briganti. MSKCC, Gandaglia) for accurate staging and selecting wisely the definitive therapy. Even though there is a broad discussion over the best local treatment in curative-intent treatment, it looks more important to define which patient profile would adapt correctly to every different treatment, highlighting the benefits and superior outcomes with multimodal treatment.

Development and validation of a clinic machine-learning nomogram for the prediction of risk stratifications of prostate cancer based on functional subsets of peripheral lymphocyte

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive risk stratification contributes to the precise treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). In previous studies, lymphocyte subsets were used to differentiate between low-/intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa, with limited clinical value and poor interpretability. Based on functional subsets of peripheral lymphocyte with the largest sample size to date, this study aims to construct an easy-to-use and robust nomogram to guide the tripartite risk stratifications for PCa.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from 2039 PCa and benign prostate disease (BPD) patients with 42 clinical characteristics on functional subsets of peripheral lymphocyte. After quality control and feature selection, clinical data with the optimal feature subset were utilized for the 10-fold cross-validation of five Machine Learning (ML) models for the task of predicting low-, intermediate- and high-risk stratification of PCa. Then, a novel clinic-ML nomogram was constructed using probabilistic predictions of the trained ML models via the combination of a multivariable Ordinal Logistic Regression analysis and the proposed feature mapping algorithm.

RESULTS

197 PCa patients, including 56 BPD, were enrolled in the study. An optimal subset with nine clinical features was selected. Compared with the best ML model and the clinic nomogram, the clinic-ML nomogram achieved the superior performance with a sensitivity of 0.713 (95% CI 0.573-0.853), specificity of 0.869 (95% CI 0.764-0.974), F1 of 0.699 (95% CI 0.557-0.841), and AUC of 0.864 (95% CI 0.794-0.935). The calibration curve and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) indicated the predictive capacity and net benefits of the clinic-ML nomogram were improved.

CONCLUSION

Combining the interpretability and simplicity of a nomogram with the efficacy and robustness of ML models, the proposed clinic-ML nomogram can serve as an insight tool for preoperative assessment of PCa risk stratifications, and could provide essential information for the individual diagnosis and treatment in PCa patients.

Transcriptomic Heterogeneity in High-risk Prostate Cancer and Implications for Extraprostatic Disease at Presentation on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has greater specificity and sensitivity for detection of extraprostatic prostate cancer (PCa) at presentation than conventional imaging. Although the long-term clinical significance of acting on these findings is unknown, it has been shown that the risk of upstaging is prognostic for long-term outcomes in men with high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) PCa. We evaluated the association between the risk of upstaging on PSMA PET and the Decipher genomic classifier score, a known prognostic biomarker in localized PCa that is being evaluated for its predictive ability to direct systemic therapy intensification. In a cohort of 4625 patients with HR or VHR PCa, the risk of upstaging on PSMA PET was significantly correlated with the Decipher score (p < 0.001). These results should be seen as hypothesis-generating and warrant further studies on the causal pathways linking PSMA findings, Decipher scores, extraprostatic disease, and long-term clinical outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found significant correlation between the risk of having prostate cancer outside the prostate gland on a sensitive scan (based on prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]) at initial staging and the Decipher genetic score. The results warrant further studies on the causal pathways between PSMA scan findings, Decipher scores, disease outside the prostate, and long-term outcomes.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

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.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN)

CONTEXT

The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

ARNEO: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Degarelix with or Without Apalutamide Prior to Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have a high risk of biochemical recurrence and metastatic progression following radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of neoadjuvant degarelix plus apalutamide before RP compared with degarelix with a matching placebo.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

ARNEO was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II neoadjuvant trial before RP performed between March 2019 and April 2021. Eligible patients had high-risk PCa and were amenable to RP.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to degarelix (240-80-80 mg) + apalutamide (240 mg/d) versus degarelix + matching placebo for 3 mo followed by RP. Prior to and following neoadjuvant treatment, pelvic ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was the difference in proportions of patients with minimal residual disease (MRD; = residual cancer burden (RCB) ≤0.25 cm³ at final pathology). Secondary endpoints included differences in prostate-specific antigen responses, pathological staging, and change in TNM stage on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/MRI following hormonal treatment. Biomarkers (immunohistochemical staining on prostate biopsy [PTEN, ERG, Ki67, P53, GR, and PSMA] and PSMA PET/MRI-derived characteristics) associated with pathological response (MRD and RCB) were explored.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Patients were randomized to neoadjuvant degarelix + apalutamide (n = 45) or degarelix + matching placebo (n = 44) for 12 wk and underwent RP. Patients in the degarelix + apalutamide arm achieved a significantly higher rate of MRD than those in the control arm (38% vs 9.1%; relative risk [95% confidence interval] = 4.2 [1.5-11], p = 0.002). Patients with PTEN loss in baseline prostate biopsy attained significantly less MRD (11% vs 43%, p = 0.002) and had a higher RCB at final pathology (1.6 vs 0.40 cm³, p < 0.0001) than patients without PTEN loss. Following neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, PSMA PET-estimated tumor volumes (1.2 vs 2.5 ml, p = 0.01) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax; 4.3 vs 5.7, p = 0.007) were lower in patients with MRD than in patients without MRD. PSMA PET-estimated volume and PSMA PET SUVmax following neoadjuvant treatment correlated significantly with RCB at final pathology (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk PCa patients, neoadjuvant degarelix plus apalutamide prior to RP results in a significantly improved pathological response (MRD and RCB) compared with degarelix alone. Our trial results provide a solid hypothesis-generating basis for neoadjuvant phase 3 trials, which are powered to detect differences in long-term oncological outcome following neoadjuvant androgen receptor signaling inhibitor therapy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we looked at the difference in pathological responses in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with degarelix plus apalutamide or degarelix plus matching placebo prior to radical prostatectomy. We demonstrated that patients treated with degarelix plus apalutamide achieved a significantly better tumor response than patients treated with degarelix plus matching placebo. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether improved pathological outcome translates into better oncological outcomes.

Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Based PET Brings New Insights into the Management of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the third most common cancer diagnosed in the world. Since its first identification in 1987 and its first molecular cloning in 1993, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has been developed as a theragnostic imaging biomarker and therapeutic agent for PCa. For metastatic castration-resistant PCa, PSMA-based PET imaging can be applied to the monitoring of disease and response assessment with PSMA-based therapeutics. This novel imaging modality is bringing new insights into diagnosis, stratification, and clinical decision-making and treatment.

Radiomics and artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: new tools for molecular hybrid imaging and theragnostics

In prostate cancer (PCa), the use of new radiopharmaceuticals has improved the accuracy of diagnosis and staging, refined surveillance strategies, and introduced specific and personalized radioreceptor therapies. Nuclear medicine, therefore, holds great promise for improving the quality of life of PCa patients, through managing and processing a vast amount of molecular imaging data and beyond, using a multi-omics approach and improving patients’ risk-stratification for tailored medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics may allow clinicians to improve the overall efficiency and accuracy of using these “big data” in both the diagnostic and theragnostic field: from technical aspects (such as semi-automatization of tumor segmentation, image reconstruction, and interpretation) to clinical outcomes, improving a deeper understanding of the molecular environment of PCa, refining personalized treatment strategies, and increasing the ability to predict the outcome. This systematic review aims to describe the current literature on AI and radiomics applied to molecular imaging of prostate cancer.

[Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) for urologists-when and which tracer?]

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) is increasingly replacing conventional imaging for staging of prostate cancer. A major challenge is its appropriate use and correct interpretation.

OBJECTIVES

How and when is PSMA PET used in patient care to optimally direct therapy?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic presentation and discussion of the current state of knowledge, guidelines and expert knowledge on PSMA PET with a summary of ongoing studies.

CONCLUSION

PSMA PET is the new standard for systemic staging of prostate cancer, enabling precision patient care with novel local, oligometastatic, and systemic treatment approaches.