Identifying Differences Between Biochemical Failure and Cure: Incidence Rates and Predictors

Markers of Toxicity and Response to Radiation Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer

The main treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer are surgery and radiation. Surgery removes the whole prostate gland, whereas with radiation therapy the irradiated prostate remains within the patient's body. Biomarkers specific to the prostate gland should become undetectable after surgery, but this is not the case when radiation therapy is used, as residual prostate cells may still be metabolically active. Here, we review the role of tumor markers of toxicity and response to radiation therapy in patients with prostate cancer, including prostate specific antigen, human kallikrein 2, osteopontin, prostate cancer associated 3, citrulline, and others.

Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources.

REVIEW METHODS

Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Biochemical outcomes for patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with I-125 interstitial brachytherapy monotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Routine use of I-125 interstitial brachytherapy (BT) alone in intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer is controversial. It is often combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). The biochemical outcome of a large cohort of only IR disease treated with BT monotherapy is reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2003 and 2007, 615 patients with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) defined IR disease (one risk factor only-T2b, or Gleason score (GS) 7, or raised initial PSA (iPSA) 10.1-20ng/ml) were treated with BT monotherapy. ASTRO (3 consecutive rises) and Phoenix (nadir plus 2) criteria defined biochemical failure. Potential prognostic factors (pre- and post-implant dosimetric indices, GS 3+4 versus 4+3, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)) were analysed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 5.0years. Forty-three patients had stage T2b, 180 had raised iPSA, 392 had GS 7 disease. ADT was received by 108 patients. The 5-year biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates are 87.3% (by ASTRO), 88.6% (by Phoenix). Stratification by risk factor (T2b, GS7, raised iPSA) demonstrated raised iPSA to have poorer outcome only by Phoenix criteria (p=0.0002). Other potential prognostic variables were non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Good rates of biochemical control can be achieved in the medium term with BT monotherapy in IR disease. Raised iPSA correlated with a poorer outcome.