Metastasis, Mortality, and Quality of Life for Men With NCCN High and Very High Risk Localized Prostate Cancer After Surgical and/or Combined Modality Radiotherapy

Japanese clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer 2023

This fourth edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2023 is compiled. It was revised under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, with members selected from multiple academic societies and related organizations (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, the Department of EBM and guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Japanese Society of Pathology, and the patient group (NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association)), in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2020 ver. 3.0). The most important feature of this revision is the adoption of systematic reviews (SRs) in determining recommendations for 14 clinical questions (CQs). Qualitative SRs for these questions were conducted, and the final recommendations were made based on the results through the votes of 24 members of the guideline development group. Five algorithms based on these results were also created. Contents not covered by the SRs, which are considered textbook material, have been described in the general statement. In the general statement, a literature search for 14 areas was conducted; then, based on the general statement and CQs of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2016, the findings revealed after the 2016 guidelines were mainly described. This article provides an overview of these guidelines.

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.

Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with or Without Adjuvant Treatments

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is used frequently to treat prostate cancer; yet, prospective data on the quality of life and functional outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of life and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in different risk groups with or without adjuvant treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Be-RALP database is a prospective multicentre database that covers 9235 RALP cases from 2009 until 2016. Of these 9235 patients, 2336 high-risk prostate cancer patients were matched with low/intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

INTERVENTION

Patients were treated with RALP only or followed by radiotherapy and/or hormone treatment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used a mixed-model analysis to longitudinally analyse quality of life, urinary function, and erectile function between risk groups with or without additional treatments.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Risk group was not significant in predicting quality of life, erectile function, or urinary function after RALP. Postoperative treatment (hormone and/or radiotherapy treatment) was significant in predicting International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), sexual activity, and sexual functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk group was not linked with clinically relevant declines in functional outcomes after RALP. The observed functional outcomes and quality of life are in favour of considering RALP for high-risk prostate cancer. Postoperative treatment resulted in lower erectile function measures without clinically relevant changes in quality of life and urinary functions. Hormone therapy seems to have the most prominent negative effects on these outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study investigated the quality of life, and urinary and erectile function in patients with aggressive and less aggressive prostate cancer after surgery only or in combination with hormones or radiation. We found that quality of life recovers completely, while erectile and urinary function recovers only partially after surgery. Aggressiveness of the disease had a minimal effect on the outcomes; yet, postoperative treatments lowered erectile function further.

The Ability of the STAR-CAP Staging System to Prognosticate the Risk of Subsequent Therapies and Metastases After Initial Treatment of M0 Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The International Staging Collaboration for Prostate Cancer (STAR-CAP) has been proposed as a risk model for prostate cancer with superior prognostic power compared to the current staging system. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of STAR-CAP in predicting the risk of subsequent therapy after initial treatment and the risk of developing metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 3425 men from an institutional observational registry with a median age of 64.9 years and a median follow-up time of 5.4 years. The primary endpoints were metastases and progression to additional therapy after initial therapy (radiation ± surgery). The risk of progression in the STAR-CAP group was estimated using a competing risk model (death).

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with STAR-CAP stages 1A-1C had a similar risk of requiring additional therapies and developing metastasis. Compared to stage IC, each stage from 2A to 3B incrementally increased the risk of subsequent therapy (hazard ratio (HR) 1.4-5.8, respectively) and metastases (HR 1.5-10.8, respectively). The 5-year probability of receiving subsequent therapy for a patient with stage IC was 8.6%, which increased from 11.4% to 37.4% for those with stages 2A to 3B. The 5-year probability of developing metastases for patients with stage IC was 1.5%, which increased from 2.2% to 8.2% for patients with stages 2A to 3B.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of receiving subsequent therapy was higher for patients undergoing surgery, while radiation therapy patients were more likely to receive treatment with intensified multimodality therapies upfront.

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.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion rates in NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Contemporary seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) rates in National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients are not well known but essential for treatment planning. We examined SVI rates according to individual patient characteristics for purpose of treatment planning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), 4975 NCCN high-risk patients were identified. In the development cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: South, North-East, Mid-West, n = 2456), we fitted a multivariable logistic regression model predicting SVI. Its accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analyses (DCAs) were then tested versus previous models within the external validation cohort (SEER geographic region of residence: West, n = 2519).

RESULTS

Out of 4975 patients, 28% had SVI. SVI rate ranged from 8% to 89% according to clinical T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason Grade Group and percentage of positive biopsy cores. In the development cohort, these variables were independent predictors of SVI. In the external validation cohort, the current model achieved 77.6% accuracy vs 73.7% for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) vs 68.6% for Gallina et al. Calibration was better than for the two alternatives: departures from ideal predictions were 6.0% for the current model vs 9.8% for MSKCC vs 38.5% for Gallina et al. In DCAs, the current model outperformed both alternatives. Finally, different nomogram cutoffs allowed to discriminate between low versus high SVI risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

More than a quarter of NCCN high-risk PCa patients harbored SVI. Since SVI positivity rate varies from 8% to 89%, the currently developed model offers a valuable approach to distinguish between low and high SVI risk patients.

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied.

RESULTS

In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients

Purpose

To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Methods

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010–2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage).

Results

In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19–0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21–1.39, p = 0.2).

Conclusion

Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.

The Stage at Presentation and Oncologic Outcomes for Agent Orange Exposed and Non-Exposed United States Veterans Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown if Agent Orange (AO)-exposed veterans have worse outcomes than unexposed Veterans after prostate cancer treatment. We evaluated oncologic outcomes based on AO exposure history, accounting for known prognostic covariates not previously studied.

METHODS

US military Veterans diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma born between 1930 and 1956 were identified from our prospectively gathered institutional database. Evaluable patients had to have known AO exposure status, age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, Charlson comorbidity score, smoking status, and type of initial therapy. The risk of death, metastasis, and progression stratified by initial therapy was analyzed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

Seventy AO-exposed and 561 non-exposed Veterans were identified (median follow-up, 10.0 years). AO-exposed veterans (AOeV) were slightly younger (64.0 vs 65.7 years; P = .013) at diagnosis and presented at more advanced stages (stage 4: 14.3% vs 2.5%) than non-AOeV. There was no difference for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; P = .576; metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.5; P = .212), or progression-free survival (HR, 0.67; P = .060) between AOeV vs non-AOeV in analyses stratified by treatment received accounting for other prognostic covariates. Cigarette smoking was associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of death over those who quit or never smoked.

CONCLUSION

Although AOeV do present at a younger age and higher clinical stages than non-AOeV, the oncologic outcomes after accounting for treatments received and other prognostic covariates are similar.