1
|
Gupta R, Das CK, Nair SS, Pedraza-Bermeo AM, Zahalka AH, Kyprianou N, Bhardwaj N, Tewari AK. From foes to friends: rethinking the role of lymph nodes in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2024:10.1038/s41585-024-00912-9. [PMID: 39095580 DOI: 10.1038/s41585-024-00912-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/17/2024] [Indexed: 08/04/2024]
Abstract
Clinically localized prostate cancer is often treated with radical prostatectomy combined with pelvic lymph node dissection. Data suggest that lymph node dissection does improve disease staging, but its therapeutic value has often been debated, with few studies showing that lymph node removal directly improves oncological outcomes; however, lymph nodes are an important first site of antigen recognition and immune system activation and the success of many currently used immunological therapies hinges on this dogma. Evidence, particularly in the preclinical setting, has demonstrated that the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors is dampened by the removal of tumour-draining lymph nodes. Thus, whether lymph nodes are truly 'foes' or whether they are actually 'friends' in oncological care is an important idea to discuss.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raghav Gupta
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Chandan K Das
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sujit S Nair
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Ali H Zahalka
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Natasha Kyprianou
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nina Bhardwaj
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ashutosh K Tewari
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simhal RK, Wang KR, Shah YB, Lallas CD, Shah MS, Chandrasekar T. Peri-operative outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the setting of advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 2024. [PMID: 38653516 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/25/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the peri-operative outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) for locally advanced, node-positive, and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), as determined through pathological staging, using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. METHODS We identified RP procedures performed between 2019 and 2021. Patients were stratified by pathological staging to compare the effect of locally advanced disease (T3-4), node positivity (N+) and metastasis (M+) vs localised PCa (T1-2 N0 M0). Baseline demographics and 30-day outcomes, including operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, readmissions, reoperations, major complications, minor complications and surgery-specific complications, were compared between groups. RESULTS Pathological staging data were available for 9276 RPs. Baseline demographics were comparable. There was a slightly higher rate of minor complications in the locally advanced cohort, but no significant difference in major complications, 30-day mortality, readmissions, or rectal injuries. Node positivity was associated with longer operating time, LOS, and some slightly increased rates of 30-day complications. RP in patients with metastatic disease appeared to be similarly safe to RP in patients with M0 disease, although it was associated with a longer LOS and slightly increased rates of certain complications. CONCLUSIONS For patients with pathologically determined locally advanced, node-positive, and metastatic PCa, RP appears to be safe, and is not associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality or major complications compared to RP for localised PCa. This study adds to the growing body of literature investigating the role of RP for advanced PCa; further studies are needed to better characterise the risks and benefits of surgery in such patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rishabh K Simhal
- Department of Urology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Kerith R Wang
- Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Yash B Shah
- Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Costas D Lallas
- Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Mihir S Shah
- Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Li S, Cai S, Huang J, Li Z, Shi Z, Zhang K, Jiao J, Li W, Pan Y. Develop prediction model to help forecast advanced prostate cancer patients' prognosis after surgery using neural network. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2024; 15:1293953. [PMID: 38577575 PMCID: PMC10991752 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1293953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2023] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The effect of surgery on advanced prostate cancer (PC) is unclear and predictive model for postoperative survival is lacking yet. Methods We investigate the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, to collect clinical features of advanced PC patients. According to clinical experience, age, race, grade, pathology, T, N, M, stage, size, regional nodes positive, regional nodes examined, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, history of malignancy, clinical Gleason score (composed of needle core biopsy or transurethral resection of the prostate specimens), pathological Gleason score (composed of prostatectomy specimens) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are the potential predictive variables. All samples are divided into train cohort (70% of total, for model training) and test cohort (30% of total, for model validation) by random sampling. We then develop neural network to predict advanced PC patients' overall. Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is used to evaluate model's performance. Results 6380 patients, diagnosed with advanced (stage III-IV) prostate cancer and receiving surgery, have been included. The model using all collected clinical features as predictors and based on neural network algorithm performs best, which scores 0.7058 AUC (95% CIs, 0.7021-0.7068) in train cohort and 0.6925 AUC (95% CIs, 0.6906-0.6956) in test cohort. We then package it into a Windows 64-bit software. Conclusion Patients with advanced prostate cancer may benefit from surgery. In order to forecast their overall survival, we first build a clinical features-based prognostic model. This model is accuracy and may offer some reference on clinical decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shanshan Li
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Seventh Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Siyu Cai
- Cancer Research Center, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University/Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Research Institute, Beijing, China
- Dermatology Department, General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Jinghong Huang
- Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine/Key Laboratory of Xinjiang Ministry of Education, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang, China
| | - Zongcheng Li
- Urinary Surgery Department, The First People’s Hospital of Ziyang, Ziyang, Sichuan, China
| | - Zhengyu Shi
- Chengdu Eighth People’s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Kai Zhang
- General Department, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University/Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Research Institute, Tongzhou District, Beijing, China
| | - Juan Jiao
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Seventh Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Wei Li
- Cancer Research Center, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University/Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Research Institute, Beijing, China
| | - Yuanming Pan
- Cancer Research Center, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University/Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Research Institute, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li Z, Huang Y, Zhao D, Luo X, Wu Z, Zheng X, Xie Y, Liu Y, Wu J, Peng Y, Li Y, Zhou F. Development and internal validation of a novel nomogram for predicting lymph node invasion for prostate cancer patients undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1186319. [PMID: 37223684 PMCID: PMC10202171 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1186319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/21/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Few studies have focused on the performance of Briganti 2012, Briganti 2017 and MSKCC nomograms in the Chinese population in assessing the risk of lymph node invasion(LNI) in prostate cancer(PCa) patients and identifying patients suitable for extended pelvic lymph node dissection(ePLND). We aimed to develop and validate a novel nomogram based on Chinese PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy(RP) and ePLND for predicting LNI. Methods We retrospectively retrieved clinical data of 631 patients with localized PCa receiving RP and ePLND at a Chinese single tertiary referral center. All patients had detailed biopsy information from experienced uropathologist. Multivariate logistic-regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with LNI. The discrimination accuracy and net-benefit of models were quantified using the area under curve(AUC) and Decision curve analysis(DCA).The nonparametric bootstrapping were used to internal validation. Results A total of 194(30.7%) patients had LNI. The median number of removed lymph nodes was 13(range, 11-18). In univariable analysis, preoperative prostate-specific antigen(PSA), clinical stage, biopsy Gleason grade group, maximum percentage of single core involvement with highest-grade PCa, percentage of positive cores, percentage of positive cores with highest-grade PCa and percentage of cores with clinically significant cancer on systematic biopsy differed significantly. The multivariable model that included preoperative PSA, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason grade group, maximum percentage of single core involvement with highest-grade PCa and percentage of cores with clinically significant cancer on systematic biopsy represented the basis for the novel nomogram. Based on a 12% cutoff, our results showed that 189(30%) patients could have avoided ePLND while only 9(4.8%) had LNI missing ePLND. Our proposed model achieved the highest AUC (proposed model vs Briganti 2012 vs Briganti 2017 vs MSKCC model: 0.83 vs 0.8 vs 0.8 vs 0.8, respectively) and highest net-benefit via DCA in the Chinese cohort compared with previous nomograms. In internal validation of proposed nomogram, all variables had a percent inclusion greater than 50%. Conclusion We developed and validated a nomogram predicting the risk of LNI based on Chinese PCa patients, which demonstrated superior performance compared with previous nomograms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhen Li
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yixin Huang
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Diwei Zhao
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xin Luo
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zeshen Wu
- Department of Urology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital (Nanshan Hospital), Shenzhen, China
| | - Xinyi Zheng
- Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ye Xie
- Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yixuan Liu
- Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jianwei Wu
- School of Clinical Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China
| | - Yulu Peng
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yonghong Li
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fangjian Zhou
- Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang X, Zhang X, Li H, Zhang M, Liu Y, Li X. Application of machine learning algorithm in prediction of lymph node metastasis in patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023:10.1007/s00432-023-04816-w. [PMID: 37127828 PMCID: PMC10374763 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-04816-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aims to establish the best prediction model of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) through machine learning (ML), and provide the guideline of accurate clinical diagnosis and precise treatment for clinicals. METHODS A total of 24,470 patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa were included in this study. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to screen the independent risk factors of LNM. At the same time, six algorithms, namely random forest (RF), naive Bayesian classifier (NBC), xgboost (XGB), gradient boosting machine (GBM), logistic regression (LR) and decision tree (DT) are used to establish risk prediction models. Based on the best prediction performance of ML algorithm, a prediction model is established, and the performance of the model is evaluated from three aspects: area under curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS In multivariate logistic regression analysis, T stage, PSA, Gleason score and bone metastasis were independent predictors of LNM in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa. By comprehensively comparing the prediction model performance of training set and test set, GBM model has the best prediction performance (F1 score = 0.838, AUROC = 0.804). Finally, we developed a preliminary calculator model that can quickly and accurately calculate the regional LNM in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa. CONCLUSION T stage, PSA, Gleason and bone metastasis were independent risk factors for predicting LNM in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa. The prediction model established in this study performs well; however, the GBM model is the best one.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiangrong Wang
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Xiangxiang Zhang
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Hengping Li
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
| | - Mao Zhang
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Yang Liu
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Xuanpeng Li
- Department of Urology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chung DY, Kang DH, Jung HD, Lee JY, Kim DK, Ha JS, Jeon J, Cho KS. Cytoreductive prostatectomy may improve oncological outcomes in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Investig Clin Urol 2023; 64:242-254. [PMID: 37341004 DOI: 10.4111/icu.20230058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2023] [Revised: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 06/22/2023] Open
Abstract
The oncologic outcomes of cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) in oligometastatic prostate cancer (OmPCa) are still controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the oncologic outcome of CRP in OmPCa. OVID-Medline, OVID-Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify eligible studies published before January 2023. A total of 11 studies (929 patients), 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 10 non-RCT studies, were included in the final analysis. RCT and non-RCT were further analyzed separately. End points were progression-free-survival (PFS), time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPCa), cancer-specific-survival (CSS) and overall-survival (OS). It was analyzed using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In PFS, in RCT, HR=0.43 (CIs=0.27-0.69) was shown statistically significant, but in non-RCTs, HR=0.50 (CIs=0.20-1.25), there was no statistical difference. And, in time to CRPCa was statistically significant in the CRP group in all analyses (RCT; HR=0.44; CIs=0.29-0.67) (non-RCTs; HR=0.64; CIs=0.47-0.88). Next, CSS was not statistically different between the two groups (HR=0.63; CIs=0.37-1.05). Finally, OS showed better results in the CRP group in all analyses (RCT; HR=0.44; CIs=0.26-0.76) (non-RCTs; HR=0.59; CIs=0.37-0.93). Patients who received CRP in OmPCa showed better oncologic outcomes compared to controls. Notably, time to CRPC and OS showed significantly improved compared with control. We recommend that experienced urologists who are capable of managing complications consider CRP as a strategy to achieve good oncological outcomes in OmPCa. However, since most of the included studies are non-RCT studies, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doo Yong Chung
- Department of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Dong Hyuk Kang
- Department of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Hae Do Jung
- Department of Urology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea
| | - Joo Yong Lee
- Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do Kyung Kim
- Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jee Soo Ha
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jinhyung Jeon
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kang Su Cho
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nakamura K, Norihisa Y, Ikeda I, Inokuchi H, Aizawa R, Kamoto T, Kamba T, Inoue T, Yamasaki T, Akamatsu S, Kobayashi T, Ogawa O, Mizowaki T. Ten‐year outcomes of whole‐pelvic intensity‐modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer with regional lymph node metastasis. Cancer Med 2022; 12:7859-7867. [PMID: 36536528 PMCID: PMC10134326 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Management of pelvic node-positive prostate cancer has been challenging and controversial. We conducted a study to evaluate the outcomes of whole-pelvic (WP) simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS A total of 67 consecutive patients with cT1c-4N1M0 prostate cancer were definitively treated by WP SIB-IMRT. Neoadjuvant ADT (median: 8.3 months) was administered in all cases. WP SIB-IMRT was designed to simultaneously deliver 78, 66.3, and 58.5 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate plus seminal vesicles, metastatic lymph nodes (LNs), and the pelvic LN region, respectively. Adjuvant ADT (median: 24.7 months) was administered in 66 patients. RESULTS The median follow-up period was 81.6 months (range: 30.5-160.7). Biochemical relapse-free, overall, and prostate cancer-specific survival rates at 10 years were 59.8%, 79.6%, and 86.3%, respectively. Loco-regional recurrence was not observed. Being in International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 5 and having a posttreatment detectable nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (≥0.010 ng/ml) were significantly associated with worse prostate cancer-specific survival and progression of castration resistance. The 10-year cumulative incidence rates of grade 2 and 3 late toxicities were, respectively, 1.5% and 0% for genitourinary, 0% and 1.5% for gastrointestinal events. No grade 4 acute or late toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS WP SIB-IMRT can be safely administered to patients with pelvic node-positive prostate cancer. Since grade group 5 and detectable nadir PSA levels are risks for castration resistance, we may need to increase the intensity of treatment for such cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiyonao Nakamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Yoshiki Norihisa
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Itaru Ikeda
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Haruo Inokuchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Rihito Aizawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Toshiyuki Kamoto
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Tomomi Kamba
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Takahiro Inoue
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Toshinari Yamasaki
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Shusuke Akamatsu
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Takashi Kobayashi
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Osamu Ogawa
- Department of Urology Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| | - Takashi Mizowaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image‐Applied Therapy Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Kyoto Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: prostate cancer - Diagnosis and management of localised disease. Prog Urol 2022; 32:1275-1372. [DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2022.07.148] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
9
|
Zacho HD, Nalliah S, Petersen A, Petersen LJ. The clinical consequences of routine 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, ISUP grade 5 and no metastases based on standard imaging - preliminary results. Scand J Urol 2022; 56:353-358. [PMID: 36073096 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2022.2119272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the clinical consequences of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT for primary staging in patients with ISUP grade 5 (Gleason score ≥9) prostate cancer (PCa), and no definitive distant metastases based on standard imaging. METHODS At our tertial referral center, PSMA PET/CT became standard of care from August 2018 for primary staging of prostate cancer given the following criteria: (1) no prior treatment for prostate cancer, (2) ISUP grade 5, (3) no definitive metastases on standard imaging (contrast enhanced CT and bone scintigraphy), and (4) deemed suitable for treatment with curative intent based on comorbidity and life expectancy. We present the preliminary results of first six months recruitment with 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS Forty-eight patients (mean age 69 years, median PSA 13.0 ng/mL, 20 patients with locally advanced PCa) were included. CT was positive in pelvic lymph nodes in two patients, bone scintigraphy was equivocal in three patients. PSMA PET/CT showed pathological uptake outside the prostatic bed in 22 patients (46%) of which 13 patients (27%) showed lesions confined to regional lymph nodes, and nine patients (19%) showed nonregional lymph node metastases and/or bone metastases. PSMA PET/CT changed the treatment strategy from curatively intended treatment to palliative treatment in 18 patients (38%). CONCLUSION PMSA PET/CT revealed pathological uptake in a large proportion of high-risk patients at primary staging among patients with no definite metastases on standard imaging leading to change of patient management in 38% of the patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helle D Zacho
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Surenth Nalliah
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Astrid Petersen
- Department of Pathology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Lars J Petersen
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sun X, Liu M, Zhao Y, Leng K, Zhang H. Evaluation of cystoprostatectomy on patients with prostate cancer extending to bladder: a retrospective study from single center. BMC Urol 2022; 22:118. [PMID: 35902854 PMCID: PMC9330683 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-022-01068-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This is an exploratory research of cystoprostatectomy (CP) in treating prostate cancer (PCa) extending to the bladder, which aimed to evaluate the effects of CP on survival outcomes and improving quality of life (QoL) in these patients. Methods A total of 27 PCa patients extending to the bladder were subjected to CP and followed up at regular intervals in our center. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival (PFS) were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to evaluate clinical characteristics predicting survivals. QoL and pelvic symptoms were also evaluated. Results Median PCSS was not reached over the period of follow-up. 5-year PCSS rate was 82.1%. Median PFS was 66.0 months. 5-year PFS rate was 58.5%. Multivariate analysis showed Gleason score (≥ 8) (hazard ratio (HR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28–4.04, p = 0.033), positive local lymph node status (HR 3.52, 95% CI 1.57–7.38, p = 0.006) and bladder muscle-invasion (HR 4.75, 95% CI 1.37–7.53, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of worse PCSS. The number of patients suffering pelvic symptoms was significantly decreased, and QoL scores were significantly down-regulated after surgeries. Conclusion CP offered effective and durable palliation in patients of locally advanced prostate cancer with invasion of the bladder, providing better QoL and relieving local symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoliang Sun
- Department of Urology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China
| | - Min Liu
- Department of Oncologic Chemotherapy, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, 250022, Shandong, China
| | - Yong Zhao
- Department of Urology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China
| | - Kang Leng
- Department of Urology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China
| | - Haiyang Zhang
- Department of Urology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China. .,Knuppe Molecular Urology Laboratory, Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Reyes DK, Trock BJ, Tran PT, Pavlovich CP, Deville C, Allaf ME, Greco SC, Song DY, Bivalacqua TJ, Han M, Partin AW, Sartor AO, Rowe SP, Pienta KJ. Interim analysis of companion, prospective, phase II, clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of multi-modal total eradication therapy in men with synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer. Med Oncol 2022; 39:63. [PMID: 35478055 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-022-01662-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Multimodal therapies were combined to eradicate the primary site, metastatic, and micrometastatic disease in men with newly diagnosed, synchronous, oligometastatic prostate cancer. The investigation included companion, phase II studies: total eradication therapy-1 (TET-1) for those treatment-naïve and total eradication therapy-2 (TET-2) for those post-prostatectomy. The treatment-naive protocol included androgen deprivation and docetaxel (with concurrent abiraterone added in a protocol amendment), followed by a prostatectomy, adjuvant radiation (if positive margins, T3/4, or detectable PSA), and metastasis-directed therapy. The post-prostatectomy protocol assigned the same therapies (omitting the prostatectomy). The primary endpoint was an undetectable PSA with recovered testosterone. The safety boundaries were ≤ 50% for grade 3/4 neutropenic and ≤ 20% for grade 3/4 surgical- and radiation-related toxicities. Enrollment was planned for 60 patients per protocol, to detect a PSA progression-free survival ≥ 32%, as compared to 15% in a historic control. Enrollment closed early. An interim analysis was conducted once > 50% of patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint duration was assessed by median progression-free survival. 52 patients were enrolled (n = 26 per protocol). Medium follow-up was 30.3 months. 80% (24/30) of evaluable patients achieved the primary endpoint; the duration was not reached. Of those not evaluable, 77% (17/22) had not reached the endpoint and 23% (5/22) had exited. There were 8% (4/52) grade 3/4 neutropenic and 2% (1/48) grade 3/4 surgical or radiation-induced toxicities. Interim findings suggest the trials' endpoints were met, advancing the concept of total eradication therapy in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diane K Reyes
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | - Bruce J Trock
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Phuoc T Tran
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Christian P Pavlovich
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Curtiland Deville
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mohamad E Allaf
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stephen C Greco
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Y Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Trinity J Bivalacqua
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Pearlman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Misop Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Alan W Partin
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - A Oliver Sartor
- Department of Oncology, Tulane Cancer Center, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Steven P Rowe
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kenneth J Pienta
- The James Buchanan Brady Urologic Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.,Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Li G, Li Y, Wang J, Gao X, Zhong Q, He L, Li C, Liu M, Liu Y, Ma M, Wang H, Wang X, Zhu H. Guidelines for radiotherapy of prostate cancer (2020 edition). PRECISION RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/pro6.1129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Gaofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Yexiong Li
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Beijing P. R. China
| | - Junjie Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University Third Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Xianshu Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University First Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Qiuzi Zhong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Liru He
- Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou 510060 P. R. China
| | - Chunmei Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Ming Liu
- Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Yueping Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Beijing P. R. China
| | - Mingwei Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University First Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology Peking University Third Hospital Beijing P. R. China
| | - Xuan Wang
- Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| | - Hui Zhu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine Department, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Beijing P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
D'Rummo KA, Chen RC, Shen X. Narrative review of management strategies and outcomes in node-positive prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:3176-3187. [PMID: 34430420 PMCID: PMC8350237 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 10/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Pelvic nodal involvement is present in 13% of new prostate cancer diagnoses each year and is associated with a poor prognosis compared to localized disease. Grouped as stage IV along with distant metastatic disease, node-positive nonmetastatic patients historically received systemic therapy alone as primary treatment. This treatment paradigm has shifted as data have demonstrated that these patients may benefit from aggressive locoregional therapy and are potentially curable. There is currently a lack of randomized evidence to define the optimal management for node-positive patients. While a few trials have included node-positive patients, the majority of data are derived from large multi-institutional series or population-based series. This narrative review summarizes the current literature supporting curative-intent management strategies for patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic clinically node-positive prostate cancer (cN1M0), as well as patients found to have pathologic nodal disease at the time of surgery (pN1M0). Treatment of both scenarios requires multimodality considerations including surgery, radiation therapy (RT) and systemic therapy to minimize the risks of both locoregional and distant recurrence. Future considerations include developments in enhanced imaging and systemic therapy. Inclusion of node-positive patients on prospective, randomized trials such as NRG GU 008 is needed to enhance our understanding of optimal management strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin A D'Rummo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Ronald C Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Xinglei Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy with Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Clinically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institutional Retrospective Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13153868. [PMID: 34359768 PMCID: PMC8345592 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13153868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2021] [Revised: 07/23/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Recently, it has been shown that radiation therapy (RT) together with androgen-depletion therapy (ADT) might be more beneficial compared with ADT alone for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer. However, there are a limited number of studies that have addressed specific RT techniques and analyzed their clinical results. The present study was a retrospective analysis of cN1 prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT), in addition to ADT, in our hospital. The present study suggests that ADT plus SIB-IMRT for cN1 prostate cancer treatment was safe and effective, was well tolerated, and had acceptable rates of late toxicity. Further prospective multicenter studies would be required to confirm the robustness of the present results. Abstract This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and the toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) combined with androgen-deprivation therapy for clinically node-positive (cN1) prostate cancer. We retrospectively analyzed 97 patients with cN1 prostate cancer who received SIB-IMRT between June 2008 and October 2017 at our hospital. The prescribed dosages delivered to the prostate and seminal vesicle, elective node area, and residual lymph nodes were 69, 54, and 60 Gy in 30 fractions, respectively. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). Toxicity was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ver. 4.0. Over a median follow-up duration of 60 months, the 5-year bRFS, RFS, OS, and PCSS were 85.1%, 88.1%, 92.7% and 95.0%, respectively. Acute Grade 2 genito-urinary (GU) and gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicities were observed in 10.2% and 2.1%, respectively, with no grade ≥3 toxicities being detected. The cumulative incidence rates of 5-year Grade ≥2 late GU and GI toxicities were 4.7% and 7.4%, respectively, with no Grade 4 toxicities being detected. SIB-IMRT for cN1 prostate cancer demonstrated favorable 5-year outcomes with low incidences of toxicity.
Collapse
|
15
|
Cheng B, Ye S, Bai P. The efficacy of cytoreductive surgery for oligometastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2021; 19:160. [PMID: 34051809 PMCID: PMC8164769 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02265-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS At present, the application of tumor reduction surgery in oligometastatic prostate cancer has aroused extensive discussion among urologists, but clinicians have not reached a consensus on this issue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of cytoreductive surgery for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer by meta-analysis. METHODS All relevant studies were systematically searched through The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) up to December 2019. All the previous clinical studies on the comparison of long-term efficacy between the cytoreductive surgery group and the endocrine therapy group were included in the search. The included studies were analyzed using Stata ver.14.0. The research has been registered on PROSPERO website with the registration number of crd42021224316. The relevant registration information can be obtained from the website: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero . RESULTS The case presentation is as follows: ten studies were identified that met the conclusion criteria. The total number of samples was 804; 449 patients underwent cytoreductive surgery, and 355 patients underwent endocrine therapy, and we conducted a meta-analysis of studies to compare the prognosis of endocrine therapy and cytoreductive surgery for treating prostate cancer. After all the studies were analyzed, we found that between cytoreductive surgery and endocrine therapy, a significant difference existed in overall survival (HR = 0.635, 95% CI 0.443-0.908, P = 0.013), cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.407, 95% CI 0.243-0.681, P = 0.001), and progression-free survival (HR = 0.489, 95% CI 0.315-0.758, P = 0.001), while there were no significant difference in progresses to castration-resistant prostate cancer (HR = 0.859, 95% CI 0.475-1.554, P = 0.616). CONCLUSION The cytoreductive surgery held advantages in overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival. Therefore, compared with endocrine therapy, cytoreductive surgery could be a more suitable approach in treating oligometastatic prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bisheng Cheng
- Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361001, China
| | - Shuchao Ye
- Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361001, China
| | - Peiming Bai
- Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361001, China.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Inaba K, Tsuchida K, Kashihara T, Umezawa R, Takahashi K, Okuma K, Murakami N, Ito Y, Igaki H, Sumi M, Nakayama Y, Shinoda Y, Hara T, Matsui Y, Komiyama M, Fujimoto H, Itami J. Treatment results of radiotherapy to both the prostate and metastatic sites in patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2021; 62:511-516. [PMID: 33822986 PMCID: PMC8127693 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rraa056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Revised: 06/12/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Although systemic therapy is the standard treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, a randomized controlled trial showed radiotherapy to the prostate improved overall survival of metastatic prostate cancer patients with the low metastatic burden. Additionally, a randomized phase II trial showed that metastasis-directed therapy for oligo-recurrent prostate cancer improved androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT)-free survival. Therefore, administering radiotherapy to both prostate and metastatic regions might result in better outcomes. Thus, we report the treatment results of radiotherapy to both prostate and metastatic regions. Our institutional database was searched for patients who received radiotherapy to the prostate and metastatic regions. We summarized patient characteristics and treatment efficacy and performed statistical analysis to find possible prognostic factors. A total of 35 patients were included in this study. The median age was 66 years, and the median initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 32 ng/ml. The Gleason score was 7 in 10 patients, 8 in 13 patients, and 9 in 12 patients. The median radiotherapy dose was 72 Gy to the prostate and 50 Gy to the metastatic bone region. The 8-year overall survival, cause-specific survival, progression-free survival, and freedom from biochemical failure rate were 81, 85, 53, and 57%. Among the 35 patients, 12 were disease-free even after ADT was discontinued. In selected patients with metastatic prostate cancer, ADT and radiotherapy to the prostate and metastatic sites were effective. Patients with good response to ADT may benefit from radiotherapy to both prostate and metastatic regions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koji Inaba
- Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan. Tel: +81-3-3542-2511; Fax: +81-3-3545-3567;
| | - Keisuke Tsuchida
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 2-3-2 Nakao, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 241-8515, Japan
| | - Tairo Kashihara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Rei Umezawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryou-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan
| | - Kana Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Kae Okuma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Naoya Murakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Yoshinori Ito
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Showa University School of Medicine, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 142-8666, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Igaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Minako Sumi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, 35-2 Sakae-cho, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-0015, Japan
| | - Yuko Nakayama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Yasuo Shinoda
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Tomohiko Hara
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Yoshiyuki Matsui
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Motokiyo Komiyama
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Fujimoto
- Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| | - Jun Itami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
McCormick BZ, Chery L, Chapin BF. Contemporary outcomes following robotic prostatectomy for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:2178-2187. [PMID: 34159100 PMCID: PMC8185652 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
While radical prostatectomy (RP) plays a prominent role in the management of localized prostate cancer, its role in high risk or metastatic disease is less clear. Due to changes in prostate cancer screening patterns, particularly those made by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, data is suggesting increasing incidences of high risk and metastatic disease, underlying the importance of continued research in this area. While past approaches to management may have discouraged surgical intervention, more contemporary approaches have attempted to evaluate its effectiveness and utility. The purpose of this review is an updated discussion of the current literature regarding surgical approaches to high risk prostate cancer. The PubMed and Medline databases were queried for English language articles related to the surgical management of high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma. In this review, we examine the utility of surgery as a single or multimodal approach to management with patients with high risk, locally advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes measures are reviewed including data on survival and recurrence rates. Functional outcomes are an important consideration in prostate cancer management and while data is more limited, this review examines some of the key findings. Finally, a discussion regarding surgical complication rates and ongoing clinical trials is addressed. While surgery appears to be promising in this patient cohort, there remains significant heterogeneity in the data that ongoing trials may be able to address. At its current level of understanding, surgery should be considered as a potential tool in patient management, but may play a more prominent role in a multi-modality setting for optimal outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barrett Z McCormick
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lisly Chery
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Clinically Lymph Node Positive Prostate Cancer: At the Intersection of Focal and Systemic Disease Control. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 26:53-57. [PMID: 31977386 DOI: 10.1097/ppo.0000000000000421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Clinically node-positive prostate cancer is often found at the time of diagnosis by cross-sectional imaging and remains poorly understood. Advanced imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticles or positron emission tomography-based molecular imaging stand to rapidly change the field and hopefully will bring better diagnostic clarity. This will allow for prospective clinical trials using radiographic, clinical, or molecular parameters to establish who may benefit from both localized and systemic treatment intensification and who may avoid overtreatment. Recent advances in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease may offer clues, but direct studies for nodal disease patients remain.
Collapse
|
19
|
Pathologically Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Casting for Cure When the Die Is Cast? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 26:58-63. [PMID: 31977387 DOI: 10.1097/ppo.0000000000000426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
The postoperative management of men with lymph node involved prostate cancer (pN+) remains a challenge as there is a general lack of randomized trial data and a range of management strategies. Retrospective studies suggest a variable clinic course for patients with pN+ prostate cancer. Some men progress rapidly to metastatic disease despite further therapies, whereas other men can have a period of prolonged quiescence without adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or radiation therapy (RT). For men who have undergone radical prostatectomy, randomized trial data indicate that the addition of ADT in pN+ disease extends metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific, and overall survival. Additional retrospective studies suggest that adding RT is potentially beneficial in this setting, improving overall and cancer-specific survival especially in men with certain pathologic parameters. Conversely, men with lower disease burden in their lymph nodes have longer times to progression and may be candidates for observation and salvage therapy as opposed to adjuvant ADT/RT.
Collapse
|
20
|
Ouyang W, Zhang Y, Long G, Sun G, Liu M, Li F, Yang C, Zeng X, Yang J, Yu X, Wang Z, Liu Z, Guan W, Hu Z, Wang S, Liu X, Li H, Xu H, Ye Z. Androgen receptor splice variant 7 detected by immunohistochemical is an independent poor prognostic marker in men receiving adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy after radical prostatectomy. Biomark Res 2021; 9:23. [PMID: 33789757 PMCID: PMC8011087 DOI: 10.1186/s40364-021-00276-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To evaluate the predictive value of AR-V7 expression detected by immunohistochemical (IHC) in the prognosis of prostate cancer patients receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods We retrospectively collected data of 110 patients with prostate cancer receiving RP, followed by AHT, from Tongji hospital. IHC analysis of AR-V7 expression was performed in a retrospective cohort. Results In total, 110 patients were enrolled, of whom 21 patients (19.1%) were AR-V7-positive and 89 patients (80.9%) were AR-V7-negative. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the two groups. AR-V7-positive patients had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 4.26; 95% CI, 1.55 to 11.68; P = 0.003), shorter cancer-special survival (CSS) (HR: 22.47; 95% CI, 2.912 to 173.4; P = 0.003) and shorter overall survival (OS) (HR: 6.61; 95% CI, 1.40 to 31.20; P = 0.017) compared to AR-V7-negative patients. In multivariate analysis, AR-V7 is an independent risk factor for shorter PFS (HR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.70; P = 0.002), shorter CSS (HR: 9.17; 95% CI, 1.48 to 55.56; P = 0.017) and shorter OS (HR: 4.81; 95% CI, 1.28 to 17.86; P = 0.020). Conclusion The presence of AR-V7 in prostate cancer tissue is independently associated with an unfavorable prognosis for PFS, OS and CSS in patients who received AHT. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40364-021-00276-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Ouyang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Yucong Zhang
- Department of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Gongwei Long
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Guoliang Sun
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Man Liu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Fan Li
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Chunguang Yang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Xing Zeng
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Jun Yang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiao Yu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhihua Wang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zheng Liu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Wei Guan
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhiquan Hu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Shaogang Wang
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiaming Liu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. .,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. .,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
| | - Hua Xu
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhangqun Ye
- Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.,Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Jansen BHE, Bodar YJL, Zwezerijnen GJC, Meijer D, van der Voorn JP, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, Wondergem M, Roeleveld TA, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, van Moorselaar RJA, Oprea-Lager DE, Vis AN. Pelvic lymph-node staging with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to extended pelvic lymph-node dissection in primary prostate cancer - the SALT trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48:509-520. [PMID: 32789599 PMCID: PMC7835187 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04974-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2020] [Accepted: 07/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The detection of lymph-node metastases (N1) with conventional imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) is inadequate for primarily diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is successfully introduced for the staging of (biochemically) recurrent PCa. Besides the frequently used 68gallium-labelled PSMA tracers, 18fluorine-labelled PSMA tracers are available. This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-DCFPyL (PSMA) PET/CT for lymph-node staging in primary PCa. METHODS This was a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Patients with primary PCa underwent 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (ePLND). Patients were included between October 2017 and January 2020. A Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) nomogram risk probability of ≥ 8% of lymph-node metastases was set to perform ePLND. All images were reviewed by two experienced nuclear physicians, and were compared with post-operative histopathologic results. RESULTS A total of 117 patients was analysed. Lymph-node metastases (N1) were histologically diagnosed in 17/117 patients (14.5%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases on a patient level were 41.2% (confidence interval (CI): 19.4-66.5%), 94.0% (CI 86.9-97.5%), 53.8% (CI 26.1-79.6%) and 90.4% (CI 82.6-95.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT showed a high specificity (94.4%), yet a limited sensitivity (41.2%) for the detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases in primary PCa. This implies that current PSMA PET/CT imaging cannot replace diagnostic ePLND. Further research is necessary to define the exact place of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the primary staging of PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B H E Jansen
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Y J L Bodar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - G J C Zwezerijnen
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Meijer
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J P van der Voorn
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J A Nieuwenhuijzen
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Wondergem
- Department of Nuclear medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - T A Roeleveld
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - R Boellaard
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R J A van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A N Vis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is systemic, based on androgen deprivation therapy recommended in different forms, alone or combined with abiraterone acetate or docetaxel. The aim of this review is to synthesize the available data from literature regarding the optimal treatment of the primary in patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS Multimodal treatments offer the best chance for survival for these patients, but the optimal strategy lacks consensus. Using retrospective studies as an argument, recent articles sustain the clinical and oncological benefits of local therapies in hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer, represented by radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Through these procedures, local control of disease can be achieved, thus avoiding potential complications and further surgical interventions. Even if the current results are not evenly relevant, the treatment of the primary along with metastasis-directed therapy could improve survival and even cure-selected patients. SUMMARY This article emphasizes important aspects regarding a feasible management of mPCa, with possible impact on subsequent guidelines. The expected results from ongoing trials may provide another perspective in treatment of these cases.
Collapse
|
23
|
Semaan A, El Helou E, Abi Tayeh G, Mjaess G, Abi Chebel J, Sarkis J. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: Laparoscopy is not dead. Actas Urol Esp 2020; 44:682-691. [PMID: 33069487 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2020.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2020] [Revised: 05/31/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in localized prostate cancer is feasible through an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. Data comparing the three approaches is sparse. OBJECTIVE To perform a review in order to compare the effectiveness of the different PLND approaches. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE A search was performed including the following words: ("pelvic lymph node dissection") OR ("pelvic lymphadenectomy") AND ("French"[Language] OR "English"[Language]) AND ("1990"[Date-Publication]: "3000"[Date-Publication]) AND prostatectomy[Title]). Twenty-nine articles were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer is a minimally invasive procedure with a relatively short operative time, minimal blood loss, lower level of pain, shorter hospital stay, and fewer perioperative complications when compared to an open approach. This technique is more cost-effective than a robot-assisted approach. CONCLUSION Concerning the treatment of localized prostate cancer, laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection should be learned and applied by urologists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Semaan
- Departamento de Urología, Hotel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Líbano; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano.
| | - E El Helou
- Departamento de Urología, Hotel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Líbano; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano
| | - G Abi Tayeh
- Departamento de Urología, Hotel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Líbano; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano
| | - G Mjaess
- Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano
| | - J Abi Chebel
- Departamento de Urología, Hotel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Líbano; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano
| | - J Sarkis
- Departamento de Urología, Hotel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Líbano; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Saint Joseph, Beirut, Líbano
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Recommandations françaises du Comité de cancérologie de l’AFU – actualisation 2020–2022 : cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol 2020; 30:S136-S251. [DOI: 10.1016/s1166-7087(20)30752-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
25
|
Lamba N, Butler S, Mahal BA, Trinh QD, Rose B, King M, Orio P, Mouw KW, Martin N, Leeman JE, Feng FY, Nguyen PL, Muralidhar V. Three-tiered Subclassification System of High-risk Prostate Cancer in Men Managed With Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Treatment Decision-making. Urology 2020; 145:197-203. [PMID: 32763323 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2020] [Revised: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To inform treatment decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we determined rates of adverse pathologic factors and overall survival (OS) among subgroups of high-risk men. METHODS Using the National Cancer Database, 89,450 patients with clinical N0M0 unfavorable intermediate-risk, favorable high-risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 20 ng/mL or cT1c, biopsy Gleason 8, PSA < 10 ng/mL), standard high-risk (all other cT3a, biopsy Gleason ≥ 8, or PSA > 20 ng/mL), or very high-risk (cT3b-T4 or biopsy primary Gleason pattern 5) PCa treated with radical prostatectomy were identified. Rates of adverse pathologic factors (positive surgical margins, T4 disease, or pathologic lymph node involvement) were compared across subgroups. RESULTS Patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 31,381) and favorable high-risk (n = 10,296) disease had similar rates of adverse features (7.6% vs 8.2%, adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.08, P= .974). Patients with standard high-risk (n = 30,260) or very high-risk (n = 7513) disease were significantly more likely to have adverse pathologic factors (15.9% and 26.5%, P < .001 for both). Patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk and favorable high-risk disease had similar 5-year OS (95.7% vs 95.1%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.21, P = .411) but better OS compared to standard and very high-risk patients (93.4% and 88.1%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION Unfavorable intermediate-risk or favorable high-risk PCa patients had low rates of adverse pathologic factors and similar OS. In contrast, standard and very high-risk PCa patients had significantly higher rates of adverse pathologic factors and worse OS. This 3-tiered subclassification of high-risk disease may allow for improved treatment selection among patients considering surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nayan Lamba
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | | | | | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Brent Rose
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA
| | - Martin King
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Peter Orio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Kent W Mouw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Neil Martin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Jonathan E Leeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Felix Y Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA; Department of Urology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA
| | - Paul L Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Chen JJ, Zhu ZS, Zhu YY, Shi HQ. Applied anatomy of pelvic lymph nodes and its clinical significance for prostate cancer:a single-center cadaveric study. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:330. [PMID: 32299388 PMCID: PMC7164256 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06833-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2019] [Accepted: 04/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is one of the most important steps in radical prostatectomy (RP). Not only can PLND provide accurate clinical staging to guide treatment after prostatectomy but PLND can also improve the prognosis of patients by eradicating micro-metastases. However, reports of the number of pelvic lymph nodes have generally come from incomplete dissection during surgery, there is no anatomic study that assesses the number and variability of lymph nodes. Our objective is to assess the utility of adopting the lymph node count as a metric of surgical quality for the extent of lymph node dissection during RP for prostate cancer by conducting a dissection study of pelvic lymph nodes in adult male cadavers. Methods All 30 adult male cadavers underwent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), and the lymph nodes in each of the 9 dissection zones were enumerated and analyzed. Results A total of 1267 lymph nodes were obtained. The number of lymph nodes obtained by limited PLND was 4–22 (14.1 ± 4.5), the number obtained by standard PLND was 16–35 (25.9 ± 5.6), the number obtained by extended PLND was 17–44 (30.0 ± 7.0), and the number obtained by super-extended PLDN was 24–60 (42.2 ± 9.7). Conclusions There are substantial inter-individual differences in the number of lymph nodes in the pelvic cavity. These results have demonstrated the rationality and feasibility of adopting lymph node count as a surrogate for evaluating the utility of PLND in radical prostatectomy, but these results need to be further explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jia-Jun Chen
- Department of Urology, Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, JingHua, China.,Zhejiang University School of Medicine, HangZhou, China.,Department of Urology, ShaoXing People's Hosptial, ShaoXing, China
| | - Zai-Sheng Zhu
- Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, Department of Urology, No. 365 Renmin East Road, Jinhua City, 321000, Zhejiang Province, China.
| | - Yi-Yi Zhu
- Zhejiang University School of Medicine, HangZhou, China
| | - Hong-Qi Shi
- Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, Department of Pathology, JingHua, China
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Prediction of metastatic prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen in combination with T stage and Gleason Grade: Nationwide, population-based register study. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0228447. [PMID: 31995611 PMCID: PMC6988964 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Accepted: 01/15/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The objective was to investigate the proportion of men with metastatic prostate cancer in groups defined by T stage, Gleason Grade Group (GGG) and serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and if PSA can be used to rule in metastatic prostate cancer when combined with T stage and GGG. We identified 102,076 men in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 4.0 who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2006–2016. Risk of metastases was assessed for PSA stratified on T stage and five-tiered GGG. For men who had not undergone bone imaging, we used multiple imputation to classify metastatic prostate cancer. Advanced T stage, high GGG and high PSA were related to bone metastases. For example: only 79/38 190 (0.2%) of men with T1-2 and GGG 1 had PSA above 500 ng/mL, and 29/79 (44%) of these men had metastases; whereas 1 154/7 018 (16%) of men with T3-4 and GGG 5 had PSA above 500 ng/ml and 1 088/1 154 (94%) of these men had metastases. However, no PSA cut-off could accurately identify the majority of men with metastatic prostate cancer (i.e. high sensitivity) while also correctly classifying most men without metastasis (i.e. high specificity). In conclusion, these results support the use of imaging to confirm bone metastases in men with advanced prostate cancer as no PSA level in combination with T stage and GGG could accurately rule in metastatic prostate cancer and thereby safely omit bone imaging.
Collapse
|
28
|
The Horse is at the Stable Door: Management of N1M0 Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2019; 32:199-208. [PMID: 31899081 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2019.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2019] [Revised: 11/24/2019] [Accepted: 12/03/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Pelvic lymph node involvement in prostate cancer is a significant poor prognostic factor with very little evidence on the optimal management options for these patients. It is estimated that lymph node-positive patients make up 12% of newly diagnosed prostate cancer and this figure is expected to rise with the advancement and increasing use of novel imaging. The controversy around this subgroup of patients is whether this is an intermediary stage before disseminated disease and hence amenable to curative treatment options. Systemic therapies have been the mainstay of treatment for these patients for decades, but in recent years, studies have emerged supporting the addition of local therapy. This review will focus on the current multimodal management approach for clinical and pathological lymph node-positive prostate cancer with a focus on radiotherapy options and aims to provide the rationale for a curative approach with a combination of local and systemic therapy.
Collapse
|
29
|
Motterle G, Ahmed ME, Andrews JR, Karnes RJ. The Role of Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection in Clinically Node Positive Patients. Front Oncol 2019; 9:1395. [PMID: 31921652 PMCID: PMC6914693 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2019] [Accepted: 11/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Patients diagnosed with clinically node-positive prostate cancer represent a population that has historically been thought to harbor systemic disease. Increasing evidence supports the role of local therapies in advanced disease, but few studies have focused on this particular population. In this review we discuss the limited role for conventional cross sectional imaging for accurate nodal staging and how molecular imaging, although early results are promising, is still far from widespread clinical utilization. To date, evidence regarding the role of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in clinically node-positive disease comes from retrospective studies; overall surgery appears to be a reasonable option in selected patients, with improved oncological outcomes that could be attributed to both to its potential curative role in disease localized to the pelvis and to the improved staging to help guide subsequent multimodal treatment. The role of surgery in clinically node-positive disease needs higher-level evidence but meanwhile, radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection can be offered as a part of a multimodality approach with the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Motterle
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.,Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-Urology, Padova, Italy
| | - Mohamed E Ahmed
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Jack R Andrews
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - R Jeffrey Karnes
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Ekanger C, Helle SI, Heinrich D, Johannessen DC, Karlsdóttir Á, Nygård Y, Halvorsen OJ, Reisæter L, Kvåle R, Hysing LB, Dahl O. Ten-Year Results From a Phase II Study on Image Guided, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Simultaneous Integrated Boost in High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 5:396-403. [PMID: 32529133 PMCID: PMC7276692 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2019.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/30/2019] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose There is no consensus on how to treat high-risk prostate cancer, and long-term results from hypofractionated radiation therapy are lacking. We report 10-year results after image guided, intensity modulated radiation therapy with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost and elective pelvic field. Methods and Materials Between 2007 and 2009, 97 consecutive patients with high-risk prostate cancer were included, treated with 2.7 to 2.0 Gy × 25 Gy to the prostate, seminal vesicles, and elective pelvic field. Toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria and biochemical disease-free survival (BFS) defined by the Phoenix definition. Patients were subsequently divided into 3 groups: high risk (HR; n = 32), very high risk (VHR; n = 50), and N+/s–prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥100 (n = 15). Differences in outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results BFS in the patients at HR and VHR was 64%, metastasis-free survival 80%, prostate cancer-specific survival 90%, and overall survival (OS) 72%. VHR versus HR subgroups demonstrated significantly different BFS, 54% versus 79% (P = .01). Metastasis-free survival and prostate cancer-specific survival in the VHR group versus HR group were 76% versus 87% (P = .108) and 74% versus 100% (P = .157). Patients reaching nadir PSA <0.1 (n = 80) had significantly better outcomes than the rest (n = 17), with BFS 70% versus 7% (P < .001). Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal tract (GI) and genitourinary tract (GU) toxicity occurred in 27% and 40%, grade 3 GI and GU toxicity in 1% and 3%. Late GI and GU grade 2 toxicity occurred in 1% and 8%. Conclusions High-risk prostate cancer patients obtained favorable 10-year outcomes with low toxicity. There were significantly better results in the HR versus the VHR group, both better than the N+/PSA ≥100 group. A nadir PSA value < 0.1 predicted good prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Ekanger
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Svein Inge Helle
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Daniel Heinrich
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Dag Clement Johannessen
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Ása Karlsdóttir
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Yngve Nygård
- Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Ole Johan Halvorsen
- Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Norway.,Department of Patohology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Reisæter
- Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.,Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Rune Kvåle
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Liv Bolstad Hysing
- Institute of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.,Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Olav Dahl
- Department of Oncology and Institute of Clinical Science, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.,Department of Clinical Science Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Pavlovich CP. Is Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Necessary During Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy? Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2:549-550. [PMID: 31402216 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2019] [Revised: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 07/16/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Christian P Pavlovich
- Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Muralidhar V, Nguyen PL, Mahal BA, Yang DD, Mouw KW, Rose BS, Beard CJ, Efstathiou JA, Martin NE, King MT, Orio PF. Practice Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients With N0M0 Prostate Cancer and a Very High Prostate-Specific Antigen Level. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17:941-948. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2018] [Accepted: 02/08/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Background: Management of patients with a very high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (≥98.0 ng/mL) but clinically localized (N0M0) prostate cancer is challenging. This study sought to determine practice patterns and outcomes among these patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 748,825 patients with prostate cancer from 2004 through 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database. These patients were subdivided by PSA level (0–9.9, 10.0–19.9, 20.0–39.9, 40.0–59.9, 60.0–79.9, 80.0–97.9, and ≥98.0 ng/mL), nodal status (N0 vs N1), and distant metastases (M0 vs M1). Rates of locoregional treatment and 5-year overall survival (OS) in each group were determined. Survival was compared using Cox regression after adjusting for multiple patient-specific factors. Results: The rate of locoregional treatment for patients with N0M0 disease and PSA level ≥98.0 ng/mL was significantly lower than for those with N1M0 disease (52.6% vs 60.4%; P<.001) or N0M0 disease and PSA level <98.0 ng/mL (52.6% vs 86.6%; P<.001). The 5-year OS rate was similar for patients with N1M0 disease and those with N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level (63.2% vs 59.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.91; P=.063). The survival benefit associated with locoregional treatment was higher among those with N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level than among those with N1M0 disease (aHR, 0.28 vs 0.44; P<.001). Conclusions: Patients with clinical N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level (≥98.0 ng/mL) have outcomes similar to those with N1 disease but receive locoregional treatment at a lower rate. Future work is needed to investigate the utility of locoregional treatment in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Paul L. Nguyen
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Brandon A. Mahal
- aHarvard Radiation Oncology Program, Harvard Medical School, and
| | - David D. Yang
- aHarvard Radiation Oncology Program, Harvard Medical School, and
| | - Kent W. Mouw
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Brent S. Rose
- cDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California; and
| | - Clair J. Beard
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jason A. Efstathiou
- dDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Neil E. Martin
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Martin T. King
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter F. Orio
- bDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Kim DK, Parihar JS, Kwon YS, Kim S, Shinder B, Lee N, Farber N, Ahlering T, Skarecky D, Yuh B, Ruel N, Kim WJ, Rha KH, Kim IY. Risk of complications and urinary incontinence following cytoreductive prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. Asian J Androl 2019; 20:9-14. [PMID: 28440262 PMCID: PMC5753561 DOI: 10.4103/1008-682x.196852] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Emerging evidence has suggested that cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) allows superior oncologic control when compared to current standard of care androgen deprivation therapy alone. However, the safety and benefit of cytoreduction in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has not been proven. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of complications following CRP in men newly diagnosed with mPCa. A total of 68 patients who underwent CRP from 2006 to 2014 at four tertiary surgical centers were compared to 598 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Urinary incontinence was defined as the use of any pad. CRP had longer operative times (200 min vs 140 min, P < 0.0001) and higher estimated blood loss (250 ml vs 125 ml, P < 0.0001) compared to the control group. However, both overall (8.82% vs 5.85%) and major complication rates (4.41% vs 2.17%) were comparable between the two groups. Importantly, urinary incontinence rate at 1-year after surgery was significantly higher in the CRP group (57.4% vs 90.8%, P < 0.0001). Univariate logistic analysis showed that the estimated blood loss was the only independent predictor of perioperative complications both in the unadjusted model (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.02–1.37; P = 0.025) and surgery type-adjusted model (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.01–1.36; P = 0.034). In conclusion, CRP is more challenging than radical prostatectomy and associated with a notably higher incidence of urinary incontinence. Nevertheless, CRP is a technically feasible and safe surgery for selecting PCa patients who present with node-positive or bony metastasis when performed by experienced surgeons. A prospective, multi-institutional clinical trial is currently underway to verify this concept.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dae Keun Kim
- Department of Urology, CHA Seoul Station Medical Center, CHA University, CHA Medical School, Seoul 04637, Korea.,Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Graduate School, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
| | - Jaspreet Singh Parihar
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA
| | - Young Suk Kwon
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ Piscataway 08854, USA
| | - Sinae Kim
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ Piscataway 08854, USA
| | - Brian Shinder
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA
| | - Nara Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA
| | - Nicholas Farber
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA
| | - Thomas Ahlering
- Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange 92687, USA
| | - Douglas Skarecky
- Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange 92687, USA
| | - Bertram Yuh
- Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte 91010, USA
| | - Nora Ruel
- Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte 91010, USA
| | - Wun-Jae Kim
- Department of Urology, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju 28644, Korea
| | - Koon Ho Rha
- Department of Urology and Urological Science Institute, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea
| | - Isaac Yi Kim
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08901, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Li H, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Sun G, Ding B, Yan L, Liu H, Guan W, Hu Z, Wang S, Cheng F, Xu H, Zhang X, Ye Z. The Immune Checkpoint Regulator PDL1 is an Independent Prognostic Biomarker for Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients Following Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy. J Cancer 2019; 10:3102-3111. [PMID: 31289580 PMCID: PMC6603373 DOI: 10.7150/jca.30384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2018] [Accepted: 04/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The programmed death 1 (PD1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1) targeted therapies have gained positive outcomes in several tumors, but the evidence of the expression and prognosis value of PD1/PDL1 in high risk prostate cancer was rare. Methods: Immunohistochemical analysis of PDL1/PD1 expression by a validated antibody was performed in a retrospectively collected high risk prostate cancer cohort who received adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). The association between PDL1/PD1 expression and prognosis was determined. Results: In total, 127 patients were enrolled. 49.6% patients were considered PDL1-high expression while the PD1-positive expression proportion was 24.4%. High PDL1 and negative PD1 expression were significantly associated with lower prostate specific antigen (PSA) density (p=0.010 and p=0.033, respectively). Compared with the PDL1-low expression patients, the PDL1-high expression patients had significantly shorter time to PSA nadir (TTN) (P=0.001) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) (P=0.004). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the PDL1-high expression group (p<0.0001) and the PDL1-high/PD1-negative expression group (p<0.0001) showed markedly lower BCR-free survival in localized disease. Univariate cause-specific Cox proportional hazard regression model concluded total PSA (p=0.047), PDL1-high-expression (p<0.001), PDL1-high/PD1-negative expression (p<0.001) were significant risk factors of shorter progression time to BCR in localized disease. PDL1-high-expression was the independent predictor of time to BCR in multiple Cox regression of all patients (Hazard ratio [HR]: 3.901; 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 1.287-11.824; p=0.016). Conclusions: PDL1 expression is not only highly prevalent in high-risk prostate cancer, but is also an independent biomarker in the prognosis of high-risk prostate cancer received AHT after RP. PDL1/PD1 targeted therapy might be a potentially adjuvant treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer after RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heng Li
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Zhize Wang
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Yucong Zhang
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Guoliang Sun
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Beichen Ding
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Libin Yan
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Haoran Liu
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Wei Guan
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Zhiquan Hu
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Shaogang Wang
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Fei Cheng
- Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Hua Xu
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Xu Zhang
- Department of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Zhangqun Ye
- Hubei Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.,Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Ventimiglia E, Seisen T, Abdollah F, Briganti A, Fonteyne V, James N, Roach M, Thalmann GN, Touijer K, Chen RC, Cheng L. A Systematic Review of the Role of Definitive Local Treatment in Patients with Clinically Lymph Node-positive Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2:294-301. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2018] [Revised: 01/02/2019] [Accepted: 02/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
36
|
Contemporary Trends and Survival Outcomes After Aborted Radical Prostatectomy in Lymph Node Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5:381-388. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2017] [Revised: 12/22/2017] [Accepted: 01/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
37
|
A systematic review of contemporary management of oligometastatic prostate cancer: fighting a challenge or tilting at windmills? World J Urol 2019; 37:2343-2353. [PMID: 30706122 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02652-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Amongst the unanswered questions regarding prostate cancer (PCa), the optimal management of oligometastatic disease remains one of the major concerns of the scientific community. The very existence of this category is still subject to controversy. Aim of this systematic review is to summarize current available data on the most appropriate management of oligometastatic PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION All relevant studies published in English up to November the 1st were identified through systematic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Ovid database. A search was performed including the combination of following words: (prostate cancer) and (metastatic) and [(oligo) or (PSMA) or (cytoreductive) or (stereotaxic radiotherapy) or (prostatectomy)]. 3335 articles were reviewed. After title screening and abstract reading, 118 papers were considered for full reading, leaving a total of 36 articles for the systematic review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS There is still no consensus on the definition of oligometastatic disease, nor on the imaging modalities used for its detection. While retrospective studies suggest an added benefit with the treatment the primitive tumor by cytoreductive prostatectomy (55% survival rate vs 21%, p < 0.001), prospective studies do not validate the same outcome. Nonetheless, most studies have reported a reduction in local complications after cytoreductive prostatectomy (< 10%) compared to the best systemic treatment (25-30%). Concerning radiotherapy, an overall survival benefit for patients with a low metastatic burden was found in STAMPEDE (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90; p = 0.007) and suggested in subgroup analysis of the HORRAD trial. Regarding the impact of metastases-directed therapy (MDT), the STOMP and ORIOLE trials suggested that metastatic disease control might improve androgen deprivation therapy-free survival (in STOMP: 21 vs 13 months for MDT vs standard of care). Nonetheless, the impact of MDT on long-term oncologic results remains unclear. Finally, oligometastatic disease appears to be a biologically different entity compared to high-burden metastatic disease. New findings on exosomes appear to make them intriguing biomarkers in the early phases of oligometastatic PCa. CONCLUSION Oligometastatic PCa is today a poorly understood disease. The implementation of new imaging techniques as whole-body MRI and PSMA PET/CT has increased exponentially the number of oligometastatic patients detected. Data of available trials suggest a benefit from cytoreductive prostatectomy to reduce local complication, though its impact on survival remains unknown. Radiotherapy may be beneficial for patients with low-burden metastatic PCa, while MDT may delay the need for androgen deprivation therapy. Results from ongoing trials data are eagerly awaited to draw reliable recommendations.
Collapse
|
38
|
Rozet F, Hennequin C, Beauval JB, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Fromont-Hankard G, Mongiat-Artus P, Ploussard G, Mathieu R, Brureau L, Ouzzane A, Azria D, Brenot-Rossi I, Cancel-Tassin G, Cussenot O, Rebillard X, Lebret T, Soulié M, Penna RR, Méjean A. RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer. Prog Urol 2018; 28:S79-S130. [PMID: 30392712 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations.
Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007.
C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article.
This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published.
The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007.
That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Rozet
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, institut mutualiste Montsouris, université René-Descartes, 42, boulevard Jourdan, 75674, Paris, France.
| | - C Hennequin
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service de radiothérapie, Saint-Louis Hospital, AP-HP, 75010, Paris, France
| | - J-B Beauval
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, oncologie médicale, institut universitaire du cancer Toulouse-Oncopole, CHU Rangueil, 31100, Toulouse, France
| | - P Beuzeboc
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, 92150, Suresnes, France
| | - L Cormier
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, CHU François-Mitterrand, 21000, Dijon, France
| | - G Fromont-Hankard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; CHU de Tours, 2, boulevard Tonnellé, 37000, Tours, France
| | - P Mongiat-Artus
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, Paris cedex 10, France
| | - G Ploussard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique La Croix du Sud-Saint-Jean Languedoc, institut universitaire du cancer, 31100, Toulouse, France
| | - R Mathieu
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital de Rennes, 2, rue Henri-le-Guilloux, 35033, Rennes cedex 9, France
| | - L Brureau
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Inserm, U1085, IRSET, 97145 Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe
| | - A Ouzzane
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Claude-Huriez, CHRU de Lille, rue Michel-Polonovski, 59000, Lille, France
| | - D Azria
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Inserm U1194, ICM, université de Montpellier, 34298, Montpellier, France
| | - I Brenot-Rossi
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Institut Paoli-Calmettes, 232, boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, 13009, Marseille, France
| | - G Cancel-Tassin
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; GRC no 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France
| | - O Cussenot
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France
| | - X Rebillard
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, clinique mutualiste Beau-Soleil, 119, avenue de Lodève, 34070, Montpellier, France
| | - T Lebret
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital Foch, 92150, Suresnes, France
| | - M Soulié
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Centre hospitalier universitaire Rangueil, 31059, Toulouse, France
| | - R Renard Penna
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; GRC no 5 ONCOTYPE-URO, institut universitaire de cancérologie, Sorbonne université, 75020, Paris, France; Service de radiologie, hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, 75020, Paris, France
| | - A Méjean
- Comité de cancérologie de l'Association française d'urologie, groupe prostate, maison de l'urologie, 11, rue Viète, 75017, Paris, France; Service d'urologie, hôpital européen Georges-Pompidou, université Paris Descartes, Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), 75015, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Rozet F, Hennequin C, Beauval JB, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Fromont-Hankard G, Mongiat-Artus P, Ploussard G, Mathieu R, Brureau L, Ouzzane A, Azria D, Brenot-Rossi I, Cancel-Tassin G, Cussenot O, Rebillard X, Lebret T, Soulié M, Renard Penna R, Méjean A. Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol 2018; 28 Suppl 1:R81-R132. [DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/14/2018] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
|
40
|
Yuh BE, Kwon YS, Shinder BM, Singer EA, Jang TL, Kim S, Stein MN, Mayer T, Ferrari A, Lee N, Parikh RR, Ruel N, Kim WJ, Horie S, Byun SS, Ahlering TE, Kim IY. Results of Phase 1 study on cytoreductive radical prostatectomy in men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2018; 7:102-107. [PMID: 31485434 PMCID: PMC6713798 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2018.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2018] [Accepted: 10/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Preclinical and retrospective data suggest that cytoreductive radical prostatectomy may benefit a subset of men who present with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). Herein, we report the results of the first planned Phase 1 study on cytoreductive surgery. Methods From four institutions, 36 patients consented to the study. However, four did not complete surgery because of rapid disease progression (n = 3) and another because of an intraoperatively discovered pericolonic abscess. Men with newly diagnosed clinical mPCa to lymph nodes or bones were eligible. The primary endpoint was the rate of major perioperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade 3 or higher) occurring within 90 days of surgery. Results The mean age at surgery was 64.0 years. The 90-day overall complication rate was 31.2% (n = 10), of which two (6.25%) were considered major complications: one acute tubular necrosis requiring temporary dialysis and one death. In men with more than 6 months of follow-up, 67.9% had prostate specific antigen nadir ≤0.2 ng/mL, while one patient experienced a rapid rise in prostate specific antigen and another a widely disseminated disease that resulted in death 5 months after surgery. Altogether, these results demonstrate that cytoreductive radical prostatectomy is safe and surgically feasible in selected patients who present with mPCa . Yet, there may be a small subset of patients in whom surgery may cause a significant harm. Conclusion Therefore, cytoreductive surgery in men with mPCa should be limited to clinical trials until robust data are available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bertram E Yuh
- Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Young Suk Kwon
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Brian M Shinder
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Eric A Singer
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Thomas L Jang
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Sinae Kim
- Department of Biostatistics, Rutgers School of Public Health, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Mark N Stein
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Tina Mayer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Anna Ferrari
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Nara Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Rahul R Parikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Nora Ruel
- Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Wun-Jae Kim
- Department of Urology, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea
| | - Shigeo Horie
- Department of Urology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Seok-Soo Byun
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Bundang, Korea
| | - Thomas E Ahlering
- Department of Urology, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Isaac Yi Kim
- Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Battaglia A, De Meerleer G, Tosco L, Moris L, Van den Broeck T, Devos G, Everaerts W, Joniau S. Novel Insights into the Management of Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 2:174-188. [PMID: 31017094 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2018] [Revised: 09/04/2018] [Accepted: 09/12/2018] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The current standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus either docetaxel or abiraterone. Growing evidence suggests that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) and/or local therapy targeted to the primary tumour (ie, prostate) may be of benefit in the setting of oligometastatic disease. Several prospective studies are underway; however, until robust evidence is available to guide treatment decisions, physicians are challenged with how best to manage patients with oligometastases. OBJECTIVE This comprehensive review aims to collate the available evidence to date for a role of MDT and/or prostate-targeted therapy in the setting of oligometastatic PCa, as well as discuss ongoing trials in this setting. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched PubMed for the combination of "prostate cancer" and "oligometastatic", "oligometastases", "oligometastasis", "solitary metastases", "stereotactic body radiotherapy", "SBRT", "stereotactic ablative radiotherapy", "SABR", "salvage lymphadenectomy", or "metastasectomy" in publications over the last 20yr. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing trials. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The studies were divided according to the timing of metastasis into synchronous (ie, detected at the time of primary PCa diagnosis) and metachronous (ie, detected after treatment of the primary tumour), and according to treatment modality into MDT (including salvage lymph node dissection [sLND]) and prostate-targeted treatment. For MDT of synchronous/metachronous metastases, we included 16 completed studies and 11 ongoing prospective studies. In the case of sLND for nodal-only recurrence after primary treatment with curative intent, we included 11 completed studies. Finally, for prostate-targeted treatment of synchronous metastatic PCa, we included 25 completed studies and 11 ongoing prospective studies. In selected patients with oligorecurrent disease, early detection and aggressive treatment of metastatic lesions (surgery or radiotherapy) appears to be a feasible strategy and may delay the use of systemic therapies. MDT is a promising option in oligometastatic PCa patients, but more robust data are needed. In the setting of synchronous oligometastatic disease, aggressive cytoreductive treatment needs further data to confirm the benefits. CONCLUSIONS In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature on the treatment of patients with oligometastatic PCa. The data suggest that although ADT plus either docetaxel or abiraterone remains the mainstay of treatment for mPCa, in oligometastatic PCa, improved outcomes may be achieved with metastasis- and prostate-targeted therapies. The studies included in this review are mainly retrospective in nature, limiting the strength of the evidence they provide. Prospective studies are ongoing, and their results are eagerly awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the treatment of patients with prostate cancer that has spread to five sites or fewer. We conclude that while androgen deprivation plus either docetaxel or abiraterone should remain the standard of care, there is evidence that treatment targeted at the metastases and the primary tumour may improve the outcome for the patient and potentially delay the use of systemic treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonino Battaglia
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lorenzo Tosco
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lisa Moris
- Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Thomas Van den Broeck
- Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gaëtan Devos
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Wouter Everaerts
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Steven Joniau
- Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Sentinel node evaluation in prostate cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis 2018; 35:471-485. [PMID: 30187286 DOI: 10.1007/s10585-018-9936-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2018] [Accepted: 08/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Sentinel lymph node (SLN) based pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in prostate cancer (PCa) is appealing over the time, cost and morbidity classically attributed to conventional PLND during radical prostatectomy. The initial report of feasibility of the SLN concept in prostate cancer was nearly 20 years ago. However, PLND based on the SLN concept, either SLN biopsy of a single node or targeted SLN dissection of multiple nodes, is still considered investigational in PCa. To better appreciate the challenges, and potential solutions, associated with SLN-based PLND in PCa, this review will discuss the rationale behind PLND in PCa and evaluate current SLN efforts in the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in men in the US.
Collapse
|
43
|
Jaber Y, Reichard CA, Chapin BF. Emerging role of cytoreductive prostatectomy in patients with metastatic disease. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7:S505-S513. [PMID: 30363448 PMCID: PMC6178312 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2018.06.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Traditionally, systemic androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the primary treatment modality in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) while treatment of the primary tumor has been reserved for patients with clinically localized disease. Emerging data suggests that treating the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease may provide a survival benefit. However, these studies are fraught with selection bias towards patients with favorable disease characteristics. Despite these limitations, clinicians are becoming increasingly interested in consolidative treatment of the primary tumor in this setting. Many translational models and observational studies of cytoreduction in mPCa have yielded compelling results, suggesting a potential biological and clinical benefit. While there are no published randomized control trials on cytoreduction in mPCa, the literature regarding safety, feasibility, and potential symptomatic benefit of cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) in mPCa supports further investigation. Thus, MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were queried for English language articles related to patients with mPCa who underwent radical prostatectomy. Keywords used include: cytoreductive prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, oligometastatic, mPCa, and oligometastasis. In this review we examine the literature regarding the feasibility of CRP as well as the reported oncologic outcomes, limitations of the literature, and future directions. Since there is currently no level one evidence to support its use, CRP should not be applied outside a clinical trial. A better understanding of the biology driving mPCa, in conjunction with standardization of clinical trials, will help expedite actionable data acquisition that may improve clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasmeen Jaber
- Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Chad A Reichard
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Imaging modalities in synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer. World J Urol 2018; 37:2573-2583. [PMID: 30069582 PMCID: PMC6868105 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2416-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2018] [Accepted: 07/18/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Along with a number of other malignancies, the term “oligometastatic” prostate cancer has recently emerged. It represents an attempt to define a subtype of cancer with a limited metastatic load that might perform more favorably than a distinctly disseminated disease, or even one that may be managed in a potentially curative way. Since there is currently a knowledge gap of what imaging modalities should be utilized to classify patients as having this type of tumor, we aimed to shed light on the role of conventional and marker-based imaging in the setting of synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer as well as summarize the available evidence for its clinical application. Methods A literature search on December 15th 2017 was conducted using the Pubmed database. Results Functional imaging techniques like 68Ga PSMA. 68Ga PSMA PET-CT has currently been shown the best detection rates for the assessment of nodal, bone and visceral metastases, especially for smaller lesions at low PSA levels. Conclusions Functional imaging helps detect low-burden disease metastatic patients. However, these imaging modalities are not available in every center and thus clinicians may be prone to prescribe systemic treatment rather than referring patients for cytoreductive treatments. We hope that the ongoing prospective trials will help guide clinicians in making a more personalized management of synchronous metastatic patients.
Collapse
|
45
|
Koo KC, Dasgupta P. Treatment of Oligometastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Yonsei Med J 2018; 59:567-579. [PMID: 29869454 PMCID: PMC5990677 DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.5.567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
With advancements in diagnostic techniques, including molecular and clinical imaging, that directly target cancer cells, oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is being diagnosed in patients who were, in the past, considered to have localized disease. With accumulating evidence, there has been a paradigm shift in considering aggressive treatments targeted at both the primary tumor and metastatic lesions in an aim to avoid and delay the need for palliative treatments and, ultimately, to achieve survival benefits. However, many questions still remain unanswered regarding the understanding of oligometastatic PCa, from its definition to optimal treatment strategies for each individual. Limited retrospective studies have suggested that interventions, including local and/or metastasis-directed therapy using surgery and radiation therapy (RT), can improve survival outcomes with minimal risk of adverse effects. Such treatments have been shown to decrease the risks of subsequent palliative interventions and to delay the start of androgen-deprivation therapy. Nevertheless, available data are insufficient to draw a reliable conclusion regarding their effect on quality of life measures and overall survival. This comprehensive review overviews data from contemporary literature that have investigated treatments, including surgery and RT, for patients with oligometastatic PCa, namely pelvic lymph node positive disease and limited distant metastases, and summarizes ongoing trials that are evaluating the feasibility of aggressive multimodal treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyo Chul Koo
- Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- Department of Urology, Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Transplantation and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Harke NN, Godes M, Wagner C, Addali M, Fangmeyer B, Urbanova K, Hadaschik B, Witt JH. Fluorescence-supported lymphography and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective, randomized trial. World J Urol 2018; 36:1817-1823. [PMID: 29767326 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2330-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 05/08/2018] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To demonstrate the benefits of fluorescence-supported extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) compared to regular ePLND in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS 120 patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer were prospectively randomized (1:1): in the intervention group, indocyanine green (ICG) was injected transrectally into the prostate before docking of the robot. In both groups, ePLND was performed including additional dissection of fluorescent lymph nodes (LN) in the ICG group. RESULTS After drop-out of two patients, 59 patients were allocated to the control (A) and intervention group (B) with a median PSA of 8,6 ng/ml. Median console time was 159 (A) vs. 168 (B) min (p = 0.20) with a longer time for ICG-ePLND: 43 (A) vs. 55 min (B) (p = 0.001). 2609 LN were found with significantly more LN after ICG-supported ePLND with a median of 25 vs. 17 LN in A (p < 0.001). Nodal metastases were detected in 6 patients in A (25 cancerous LN) vs. 9 patients in B (62 positive LN) (p = 0.40). In seven of nine patients, ICG-ePLND identified at least one cancer-positive LN (sensitivity 78%), 27 of 62 cancerous LN were fluorescent. Symptomatic lymphocele occurred in one patient in a and in three patients in b (p = 0.62). After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, PSA levels were similar. CONCLUSIONS While ICG-ePLND seems to be beneficial for a better understanding of the lymphatic drainage and a more meticulous diagnostic approach, the sensitivity is not sufficient to recommend stand-alone ICG lymph node dissection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nina Natascha Harke
- Department of Urology, Urooncology and Pediatric Urology, Essen University Hospital, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
| | - Michael Godes
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| | - Christian Wagner
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| | - Mustapha Addali
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| | - Bernhard Fangmeyer
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| | - Katarina Urbanova
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Department of Urology, Urooncology and Pediatric Urology, Essen University Hospital, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany
| | - Jorn H Witt
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Gronau, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Although cytoreductive surgery is accompanied with prolonged survival in many other malignancies in a metastatic stage, its role in oligometastatic prostate cancer is unclear. RECENT FINDINGS Radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer seems to be feasible. Perioperative complication rates vary between 20 and 50% (Clavien 1-3) and are comparable to patients with locally advanced tumors. Postoperative functional outcomes (urinary continence and erectile function) can be slightly worse than in patients with locally advanced tumor. In literature, an oncological benefit of surgery is so far only described for retrospective multiinstitutional databases and a case-control study but not for prospective studies. Still, men undergoing RP clearly seem to develop severe local complications less frequently than patients receiving best systemic therapy (up to more than 50% versus less than10%). SUMMARY Patients should be counseled about the potential significant reduction of local complications whenever undergoing RP for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Nevertheless, as complication rates are relatively high, functional outcome can be slightly worse compared with RP with curative intent and especially as oncological benefit so far is shown using retrospective but not prospective data, patients should only undergo surgery within the ongoing prospective, randomized trials.
Collapse
|
48
|
Matulay JT, DeCastro GJ. Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Localized or Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Removing the Primary. Curr Urol Rep 2018; 18:53. [PMID: 28589400 DOI: 10.1007/s11934-017-0703-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW We reviewed the literature to determine what role, if any, radical prostatectomy should play in the treatment of high-risk and/or node-positive prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS The AUA, NCCN, and EAU all include radical prostatectomy as a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer based on evidence that has shown improvements in biochemical-free and disease-specific survival. Lymph node-positive patients may also derive benefit from radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection, however, only retrospective studies with high risk of selection bias have been published to date. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease representing a wide range of disease characteristics. Radical surgery, historically avoided in such patients, may now be considered a valid treatment option for select cases. The adverse effects of surgery using modern techniques lead to similar quality of life outcomes as radiation therapy, and treatment of the primary tumor is likely beneficial when compared to ADT alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin T Matulay
- Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10032, USA
| | - G Joel DeCastro
- Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Gillessen S, Attard G, Beer TM, Beltran H, Bossi A, Bristow R, Carver B, Castellano D, Chung BH, Clarke N, Daugaard G, Davis ID, de Bono J, Borges Dos Reis R, Drake CG, Eeles R, Efstathiou E, Evans CP, Fanti S, Feng F, Fizazi K, Frydenberg M, Gleave M, Halabi S, Heidenreich A, Higano CS, James N, Kantoff P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Khauli RB, Kramer G, Logothetis C, Maluf F, Morgans AK, Morris MJ, Mottet N, Murthy V, Oh W, Ost P, Padhani AR, Parker C, Pritchard CC, Roach M, Rubin MA, Ryan C, Saad F, Sartor O, Scher H, Sella A, Shore N, Smith M, Soule H, Sternberg CN, Suzuki H, Sweeney C, Sydes MR, Tannock I, Tombal B, Valdagni R, Wiegel T, Omlin A. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017. Eur Urol 2018; 73:178-211. [PMID: 28655541 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 368] [Impact Index Per Article: 61.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2017] [Accepted: 06/01/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. OBJECTIVE To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silke Gillessen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and University of Berne, Switzerland.
| | - Gerhardt Attard
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Institute of Cancer Research/Royal Marsden, London, UK
| | - Tomasz M Beer
- Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute, OR, USA
| | - Himisha Beltran
- Department of Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alberto Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Genito Urinary Oncology, Prostate Brachytherapy Unit, Goustave Roussy, Paris, France
| | - Rob Bristow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, USA
| | - Brett Carver
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel Castellano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Byung Ha Chung
- Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
| | - Noel Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| | - Gedske Daugaard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ian D Davis
- Monash University and Eastern Health, Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, Australia
| | - Johann de Bono
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Institute of Cancer Research/Royal Marsden, London, UK
| | - Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis
- Department of Urology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Charles G Drake
- Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Haematology/Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ros Eeles
- Department of Clinical Oncology and Genetics, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Eleni Efstathiou
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, USA
| | - Christopher P Evans
- Department of Urology, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, CA, USA
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, Università di Bologna, Italy
| | - Felix Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Karim Fizazi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, University of Paris Sud, Paris, France
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Department of Surgery, Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University
| | - Martin Gleave
- Department of Urology, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Susan Halabi
- Department of Clinical trials and Statistics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Celestia S Higano
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, WA, USA
| | - Nicolas James
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Clinical Oncology Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Philip Kantoff
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland
| | - Raja B Khauli
- Department of Urology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Gero Kramer
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Chris Logothetis
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Centre, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Fernando Maluf
- Department of Medical Oncology Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and Department of Medical Oncology Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo
| | - Alicia K Morgans
- Department of Medical Oncology and Epidemiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Michael J Morris
- Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Nord St. Etienne, St. Etienne, France
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - William Oh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Department of Radiology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Chris Parker
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | | | - Mack Roach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Mark A Rubin
- Department of Pathology, University of Bern and the Inselspital, Bern (CH)
| | - Charles Ryan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Clinical Medicine and Urology at the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of, California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Fred Saad
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Oliver Sartor
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tulane Cancer Center, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Howard Scher
- Department of Medical Oncology, Genitourinary Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, NY, USA
| | - Avishay Sella
- Department of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Centre, Tel-Aviv University, Sackler School of Medicine, Zerifin, Israel
| | - Neal Shore
- Department of Urology, Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
| | - Matthew Smith
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Centre, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Howard Soule
- Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
| | - Cora N Sternberg
- Department of Medical Oncology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Hiroyoshi Suzuki
- Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center, Japan
| | - Christopher Sweeney
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Matthew R Sydes
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ian Tannock
- Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Bertrand Tombal
- Department of Urology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Riccardo Valdagni
- Department of Oncology and Haemato-oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano. Radiation Oncology 1, Prostate Cancer Program, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie des Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee, Ulm, Germany
| | - Aurelius Omlin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and University of Berne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Poon DMC, Chan CK, Chan TW, Cheung FY, Kwong PWK, Lee EKC, Leung AKC, Leung SYL, Ma WK, So HS, Tam PC, Ho LY. Consensus statements on the management of metastatic prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology. BJU Int 2018; 121:703-715. [DOI: 10.1111/bju.14091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Darren Ming-Chun Poon
- Department of Clinical Oncology; State Key Laboratory in Oncology in South China; Sir YK Pao Centre for Cancer; Hong Kong Cancer Institute and Prince of Wales Hospital; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | - Chi-Kwok Chan
- Department of Surgery; Prince of Wales Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | - Tim-Wai Chan
- Department of Clinical Oncology; Queen Elizabeth Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | | | | | - Eric Ka-Chai Lee
- Department of Clinical Oncology; Tuen Mun Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | | | | | - Wai-Kit Ma
- Department of Surgery; Queen Mary Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | - Hing-Shing So
- Division of Urology; Department of Surgery; United Christian Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | - Po-Chor Tam
- Department of Surgery; Queen Mary Hospital; Hong Kong Hong Kong
| | | |
Collapse
|