High-risk prostate cancer: the role of surgical management

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.

The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) White Paper on Contemporary Grading of Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT.—

Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading.

OBJECTIVE.—

To update grading recommendations.

DATA SOURCES.—

Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace "tertiary grade pattern" in radical prostatectomy (RP) with "minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5)," and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) "atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)" is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

Current and emerging therapies for localized high-risk prostate cancer

Introduction: Despite progress in the field of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRPCa) treatments, high-risk patients treated with curative intent are at increased risk of biochemical recurrence, metastatic progression and cancer-related death. The optimal treatment strategy remains a topic of debate. This review provides an overview of the current and investigational therapeutic options for HRPCa.Areas covered: A PubMed search was performed for papers on the current perspectives on the multimodality treatment of HRPCa. We focus on both primary local treatment as well as systemic treatment options. Finally, relevant ongoing trials focusing on systemic treatments (including [neo]adjuvant treatments) enrolling at least 50 patients were retrieved, to highlight ongoing research and treatment optimization.Expert opinion: Disease progression in HRPCa patients is driven by local tumor extension and subclinical metastases. Therefore, the main treatment concept is a multimodal approach targeting the primary tumor with extended surgery or RT with long-term ADT and simultaneously targeting micro-metastatic deposits. However, there is still room for optimization. Upcoming clinical trials comparing surgery versus RT as local treatment, trials with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or androgen receptor signaling inhibitors will likely change the treatment landscape. However, a multimodal treatment strategy will stay as the cornerstone in the treatment of HRPCa.

Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer

High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Recent Advances in the Management of High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Local Therapy, Systemic Therapy, and Biomarkers to Guide Treatment Decisions

High-risk prostate cancer accounts for approximately 15% of all prostate cancer diagnoses. Patients with high-risk disease have an increased risk of developing biochemical recurrence, metastases, and death from prostate cancer. As the optimal management of high-risk disease in patients with prostate cancer continues to evolve, the contemporary treatment paradigm is moving toward a multidisciplinary integrated approach of systemic and local therapy for patients with high-risk disease. The strategies for definitive, adjuvant, and salvage local treatment, including radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, serve as the backbone of therapy for patients with localized disease. Systemic therapy decisions regarding use in combination with surgery, choice of therapy (hormone therapy, chemotherapy), and treatment duration continue to be refined. As more effective hormonal agents populate the treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer, including abiraterone and next-generation antiandrogens, an opportunity is provided to explore these treatments in patients with localized disease in the hope of improving the long-term outcome for patients. Integration of innovative blood and tissue-based biomarkers to guide therapy selection for patients with high-risk disease is an area of active research. Contemporary studies are using such biomarkers to stratify patients and select therapies. In this review, we summarize contemporary evidence for local treatment strategies, systemic therapy options, and biomarkers in development for the management of high-risk prostate cancer in patients.

Social Support in Patients With Sexual Dysfunction After Non-Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy: A Qualitative Study

This study aimed to explore men's experiences of social support after non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. A qualitative study based on Gadamer's hermeneutic phenomenology was designed. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 men who had undergone a non-nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Data analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software. From this analysis, two main themes emerged: "The partner as a source of support and conflict after a prostatectomy," which includes empathetic reconnection with the partner and changes in sexual and cohabitation patterns and "The importance of social and professional circles," which addresses the shortcomings of the healthcare system in terms of sexual information and counseling as well as the role of friends within social support. The study suggests the need to establish interventions that address interpersonal communication and attention to social and informational support and include both the patient and those closest to them.

XPNPEP2 is associated with lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer patients

As we reported in our previous studies, TMTP1, a tumor-homing peptide, selectively targets highly metastatic tumors and their metastatic foci. Aminopeptidase P2 (XPNPEP2) is a receptor for TMTP1 tumor-homing peptide. However, the biological and clinical significance of Aminopeptidase P2 in human cancers remains unknown. In this study, the high-density multiple organ tumor tissue array was employed for the analysis of XPNPEP2 expression profiles in human specimens. The results showed that XPNPEP2 was moderately expressed in the normal prostate tissues, but significantly decreased in the prostate cancer. Hence we used TCGA, IHC, and ELISA to further analyze the expression of XPNPEP2 in tissues and serum of prostate cancer patients. In general, XPNPEP2 expression was lower in prostate cancer tissue than in normal prostate tissue, but was higher in prostate cancer tissues with local invasion and LN metastasis than in tissues with localized Pca. Western blot clarified XPNPEP2 had a secreted form in the serum. Then the serums of 128 Pca patients, 70 healthy males and 40 prostate hyperplasia patients were obtained for detecting serum XPNPEP2 levels.The results indicated that the concentration of XPNPEP2 in serums of Pca patients with LN metastasis (142.7 ± 14.40 ng/mL) were significantly higher than levels in Pca patients without LN metastasis (61.63 ± 5.50 ng/mL) (p < 0.01). An ROC analysis revealed that the combination of PSA and XPNPEP2 was more efficient than PSA or XPNPEP2 alone for predicting LN metastasis, especially for Pca patients with low serum PSA levels. In summary, serum XPNPEP2 levels when combined with PSA levels may result in increased sensitivity for predicting LN metastasis in Pca patients, especially for patients with low serum PSA levels.

Evaluation of tumor morphologies and association with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in grade group 5 prostate cancer

We assessed Gleason pattern 5 (GP5) and other prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa) morphologies to determine their association with biochemical recurrence (BCR). A search for grade group 5 PCa with radical prostatectomy (RP) yielded 49 patients. RPs were reviewed for %GP5 and morphologies (sheets, single cells, cords, small solid cylinders, solid medium to large nests with rosette-like spaces [SMLNRS], comedonecrosis, cribriform glands, glomerulations, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate [IDC-P], and prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma [PDCa]). Prevalence of morphologies was as follows: single cells 100%, cribriform glands 98.7%, cords 85.7%, IDC-P 77.6%, comedonecrosis 53.1%, sheets 49.0%, small solid cylinders 49.0%, PDCa 44.9%, glomerulations 34.7%, and SMLNRS 14.3%. From 28 patients who were treated with RP as monotherapy, 64.3% (18/28) had BCR. Comedonecrosis, sheets, small solid cylinders, IDC-P, and PDCa were significantly associated with BCR. Number of morphologies on RP and %GP5 were higher in patients with BCR (6.8 ± 2.1 versus 3.7 ± 2.9%; P < 0.001 and 26.9 ± 16.8 versus 11.4 ± 14.1%; P = 0.02) with area under ROC curve of 0.89 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.77-1.00). Sensitivity/specificity was 77.8/80.0% for predicting BCR when ≥ 5 morphologies were present and 0.79 (CI 0.60-0.99) with sensitivity/specificity of 66.7/80.0% for predicting BCR when ≥ 15% GP5 was present. Hazard ratio for BCR was higher with increasing number of morphologies (1.23, CI 1.02-1.49; P = 0.034) but not %GP5 (0.99, CI 0.97-1.02, P = 0.622). Our results indicate that GP5 morphologies may represent a biologically heterogeneous group and that an increasing number of PCa morphologies on RP is strongly associated with an increased risk of BCR.

Outcomes of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy at a Regional Cancer Centre

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer at Radiation Oncology Centres, Toowoomba.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of 130 consecutive patients with histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between January 2008 and December 2014 were analysed. Primary endpoint was Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) after RT. BCR was defined by PSA > 0.2 ng/mL and BCR endpoints were analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods. The impact of RT technique and the rates of acute and late toxicities are also reported. Toxicities were graded according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time after RT (regardless of technique) was 28 months. BCR occurred in 32 of the 126 patients (25%) whose prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels have been monitored post-RT. At 24 and 36 months, 85% and 75% of patients were BCR-free, respectively. Patients with a pre-RT PSA above 0.2 ng/mL had a higher probability of recurrence than patients with values below 0.2 ng/mL (P = 0.03). RT technique, pelvic nodal irradiation, androgen deprivation therapy, T staging or surgical margin did not significantly impact BCR results. No patient experienced acute toxicities greater than grade 2. Grade 1 or 2 late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity occurred in 11% and 1 patient experienced a grade 3 event. 12% of patients developed grade 1 or 2 late genitourinary (GU) toxicity, with evidence of grade 3 severity in only 1 patient. Evidence of a trend in reduction in late GI toxicity with the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was apparent but not with late GU toxicity.

CONCLUSION

At our regional centre, early RT (PSA < 0.2 ng/mL) was associated with significant improvement in BCR-free survival. Rates of toxicity mirror those of landmark trials which suggest no detriment for our regional prostate cancer patients. The use of IMRT/VMAT techniques was associated with a trend towards reduced rates of GI toxicity.