Early versus deferred standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) is a new imaging modality to detect the extra-prostatic spread of prostate cancer. PSMA PET/CT has a higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging (CT ± whole body bone scan [WBBS]). This study conducted a cost-utility analysis of PSMA PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate-risk or high-risk primary prostate cancer.

PERSPECTIVE

Australian healthcare perspective.

SETTING

Tertiary.

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model combined data from a variety of sources. The time horizon was 35 years. The sensitivity and specificity of PSMA PET/CT and CT alone were based on meta-analyses and the test accuracy of CT+WBBS was based on a single randomised controlled trial. Health outcomes included cases detected, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs related to other diagnostic tests, initial treatment, adverse events, and post-disease progression were included. All costs were reported in 2021 Australian Dollars (A$).

RESULTS

The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PSMA PET/CT was estimated to be A $21,147/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT+WBBS, and A$36,231/quality-adjusted life-year gained versus CT alone. The results were most sensitive to the time horizon, and the initial treatments received by patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The probability of PSMA PET/CT being cost effective was estimated to be 91% versus CT+WBBS and 89% versus CT alone, using a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

PSMA PET/CT is likely to be more costly than CT+WBBS or CT alone in Australia; however, it is still likely to be considered cost effective compared with conventional imaging.

Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group

OBJECTIVE

Cochrane Library provides a powerful and authoritative database to aid medical decision making. We aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical trials and systematic reviews recorded in the Cochrane urology cancers group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 44 published systematic reviews of the Cochrane urology group which were published until May 2020. In the current study, we selected the urological cancer reviews. All types of biases in the understudied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of these systematic reviews were evaluated using the Cochrane appraisal checklist. We also separated and stratified the types of biases in the included studies. In addition, the quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 44 systematic reviews and their understudied 340 RCTs were evaluated. On the basis of the JBI appraisal checklist results, 93.2% of systematic reviews had high quality. In terms of the quality of understudied RCTs in these reviews, the common prevalent risk of bias of the understudied RCTs or quasi- RCTs was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment and random sequence generation). The highest risk of bias was seen in the blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).

CONCLUSION

Although most Cochrane urological cancer reviews had high quality, performance bias was the highest one in their understudied RCTs. Regarding it and considering the increasing unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases, it is obvious that they have structural deficiencies; therefore, it is recommended to observe integrity principles for preventing research misconduct.

Evolving Castration Resistance and Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Expression: Implications for Patient Management

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains an incurable disease, despite multiple novel treatment options. The role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in the process of mCRPC development has long been underestimated. During the last years, a new understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of rising PSMA expression and its association with disease progression has emerged. Accurate understanding of these complex interactions is indispensable for a precise diagnostic process and ultimately successful treatment of advanced prostate cancer. The combination of different novel therapeutics such as androgen deprivation agents, 177LU-PSMA radioligand therapy and PARP inhibitors promises a new kind of efficacy. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about the most relevant molecular mechanisms around PSMA in mCRPC development and how they can be implemented in mCRPC management.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (2020)

The treatment of advanced prostate cancer has evolved due to recent advances in molecular research and new drug development. Dynamic aberrations in the androgen receptor, DNA repair genes, PTEN-PI3K, and other pathways drive the behavior of advanced prostate cancer allowing a better selection of therapies in each patient. Tumor testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, also considering a broad panel to guide decisions and genetic counseling. In symptomatic metastatic patients, castration should be stared to palliate symptoms and prolong survival. In high-risk or high-volume metastatic hormone-naïve patients, castration should be combined with docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide or apalutamide. Radiotherapy to the primary tumor combined with systemic therapy is recommended in low-volume mHNPC patients. In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant tumors, risk stratification can define the frequency of imaging. Adding enzalutamide, darolutamide or apalutamide to these patients prolongs metastasis-free and overall survival, but potential adverse events need to be taken into consideration. The choice of docetaxel, abiraterone or enzalutamide for treating metastatic castration-resistant patients depends on previous therapies, with cabazitaxel being also recommended after docetaxel. Olaparib is recommended in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutated castration-resistant patients after progression on at least one new hormonal therapy. Aggressive variants of prostate cancer respond to platinum-based chemotherapy. To optimize treatment efficiency, oncologists should incorporate all of these advances into an overall therapeutic strategy.

Oxidative stress and redox signaling in CRPC progression: therapeutic potential of clinically-tested Nrf2-activators

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay regimen in patients with androgen-dependent prostate cancer (PCa). However, the selection of androgen-independent cancer cells leads to castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The aggressive phenotype of CRPC cells underscores the need to elucidate mechanisms and therapeutic strategies to suppress CRPC outgrowth. Despite ADT, the activation of androgen receptor (AR) transcription factor continues via crosstalk with parallel signaling pathways. Understanding of how these signaling cascades are initiated and amplified post-ADT is lacking. Hormone deprivation can increase oxidative stress and the resultant reactive oxygen species (ROS) may activate both AR and non-AR signaling. Moreover, ROS-induced inflammatory cytokines may further amplify these redox signaling pathways to augment AR function. However, clinical trials using ROS quenching small molecule antioxidants have not suppressed CRPC progression, suggesting that more potent and persistent suppression of redox signaling in CRPC cells will be needed. The transcription factor Nrf2 increases the expression of numerous antioxidant enzymes and downregulates the function of inflammatory transcription factors, e.g., nuclear factor kappa B. We documented that Nrf2 overexpression can suppress AR-mediated transcription in CRPC cell lines. Furthermore, two Nrf2 activating agents, sulforaphane (a phytochemical) and bardoxolone-methyl (a drug in clinical trial) suppress AR levels and sensitize CRPC cells to anti-androgens. These observations implicate the benefits of potent Nrf2-activators to suppress the lethal signaling cascades that lead to CRPC outgrowth. This review article will address the redox signaling networks that augment AR signaling during PCa progression to CRPC, and the possible utility of Nrf2-activating agents as an adjunct to ADT.

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies.

METHODS

We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.