EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Prostate Cancer and the John West Effect

Changes in resting-state measures of prostate cancer patients exposed to androgen deprivation therapy

The aim of the present work is to describe the differences in rs-fMRI measures (Amplitude of low frequency fluctuations [ALFF], Regional Homogeneity [ReHo] and Functional Connectivity [FC]) between patients exposed to Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and a control group. Forty-nine ADT patients and fifteen PC-non-ADT patients (Controls) were included in the study. A neuropsychological evaluation and a resting-state fMRI was performed to evaluate differences in ALFF and ReHo. Region of interest (ROI) analysis was also performed. ROIs were selected among those whose androgen receptor expression (at RNA-level) was the highest. FC analysis was performed using the same ROIs. Higher ALFF in frontal regions and temporal regions was identified in Controls than in ADT patients. In the ROI analysis, higher activity for Controls than ADT patients was shown in the left inferior frontal gyrus and in the left precentral gyrus. Lower ALFF in the right hippocampus and the lateral geniculate nucleus of the right thalamus was identified for Controls than ADT patients. Higher ReHo was observed in Controls in the left parietal-occipital area. Finally, ADT patients presented an increase of FC in more regions than Controls. These differences may reflect an impairment in brain functioning in ADT users.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Androgen deprivation therapy increases brain ageing

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most frequent neoplasia in the male population and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is frequently used in the management of the disease.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of ADT exposure on cognitive status, grey matter volume (GMV) and white matter lesion (WML) load.

METHODS

Fifty ADT patients and fifteen PC-non-ADT (control) patients were included in the study. A neuropsychological evaluation was performed and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with anatomical T1 and FLAIR sequences, was performed to evaluate the GMV and the WML burden.

RESULTS

Most of the patients included in the study presented a significant cognitive impairment (CI). No significant differences were identified in the cognitive assessment between the studied groups, but when considering the educational background intragroup differences were found.No significant difference of GMV and WML volume were identified between groups, but a negative relationship between the ADT period and the GMV was identified. Furthermore, a significant positive association between the age and the lesion volume was found in the ADT group (β=.406; p=.004).

CONCLUSION

PC patients exposed to ADT present an acceleration of age-related brain changes, such as WML development and GMV loss.

Infiltrating CD4+ T cells attenuate chemotherapy sensitivity in prostate cancer via CCL5 signaling

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (Doc) is efficient in a subset of prostate cancer (PCa) cases; however, most patients ultimately develop resistance to Docetaxel. The tumor immune microenvironment and secreted cytokines play a substantial role in development of resistance to chemotherapy. Our previous study has demonstrated that CD4+ T cells in prostate tumor microenvironment contribute to PCa progression; meanwhile, we found increased CD4+ T-cell infiltration in tumor area after Doc treatment; however, their effects on PCa chemosensitivity remain unclear. Here, we aim to explore the role and mechanisms of CD4+ T cells in PCa chemotherapy sensitivity.

METHODS

CD4+ T-cell infiltration in Doc-treated paraffin-embedded specimens from transurethral resection of prostate, radical prostatectomy, or bone metastasis was detected by immunohistochemistry. The castration-resistant PCa cell lines-C4-2 and CWR22RV1, and CD4+ T-cell lines-HH and Molt-3 were used in the coculture system. After coculture with the lymphocytes, PCa cell chemosensitivity was detected by cell counting kit-8, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling assays, and Western blot analysis. Various cell cytokines were determined by cytokine arrays and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. The recombinant human C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) was added to PCa cells for further confirming its effects and anti-CCL5 antibody was used for neutralization. S3I-201, a signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) inhibitor, was added to the coculture system to detect STAT3 role in chemosensitivity. Tumor xenografts in nude mice were used for confirming effects of CD4+ T cells in vivo study.

RESULTS

We found more infiltrated CD4+ T cells in human PCa lesions than in the adjacent noncancerous tissues after Doc treatment. In vitro cell line study confirmed that CD4+ T cells increase the PCa Doc resistance. Quantative polymerase chain reaction and cytokine arrays indicated that after coculture with PCa, CD4+ T cells could secrete large amounts of CCL5. Moreover, CCL5 stimulation enhanced PCa resistance to Doc, and anti-CCL5 antibody could partly reverse this process. We found that CD4+ T cells could activate P-STAT3 signaling via secreting CCL5 and adding a STAT3 inhibitor can reverse the chemoresistance. In vivo mouse model with xenografted 22RV1 cells and CD4+ T cells also confirmed the in vitro results.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, our results indicate that infiltrating CD4+ T cells could promote PCa chemotherapy resistance via modulation of the CCL5/STAT3 signaling pathway.

Will 68Ga PSMA-radioligands be the only choice for nuclear medicine in prostate cancer in the near future? A clinical update

Prostate Cancer (PCa) represents the most common malignant tumor in men but according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, a mass screening for PCa diagnosis should not be performed due to over-diagnosis and over-treatment related problems. An early clinical diagnosis is possible, mainly based on digital rectal examination and Prostatic Specific Agent (PSA) testing. However, the only mandatory test to define the presence of PCa is ultrasound guided-biopsy, obtained on multiple samples, which has also a high prognostic value. In this context, diagnostic imaging plays an important role as confirmed by EAU that in a 2016 update of their guidelines on PCa stated the importance of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with ¹¹C- or ¹⁸F-choline combined with computed tomography (CT) to identify local relapse, lymph node involvement and metastatic spread at all stages. Consequently, in 2017, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) together with the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) published new guidelines for ⁶⁸Ga-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET/CT to help physicians in the recommendation, execution and interpretation of PET/CT scans in patients with PCa. Thus, the aim of this 'evidence paper' is to define the current diagnostic algorithm in PCa in order to increase the general level of confidence in approaching such a crucial topic.