Neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in association with age and serum testosterone

Practice Patterns of Korean Urologists Regarding Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: a Survey and Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus on the optimal treatment with curative intent for patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists regarding the resection margin after RP.

METHODS

A preliminary questionnaire was prepared by analyzing various studies on resection margins after RP. Eight experienced urologists finalized the 10-item questionnaire. In July 2019, the final questionnaire was delivered via e-mail to 105 urologists in Korea who specialize in urinary cancers.

RESULTS

We received replies from 91 of the 105 urologists (86.7%) in our sample population. Among them, 41 respondents (45.1%) had performed more than 300 RPs and 22 (24.2%) had completed 500 or more RPs. In the question about whether they usually performed an additional biopsy beyond the main specimen, to get information about surgical margin invasion during surgery, the main opinion was that if no residual cancer was suspected, it was not performed (74.7%). For PSMs, the Gleason score of the positive site (49.5%) was judged to be a more important prognostic factor than the margin location (18.7%), multifocality (14.3%), or margin length (17.6%). In cases with PSMs after surgery, the prevailing opinion on follow-up was to measure and monitor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels rather than to begin immediate treatment (68.1%). Many respondents said that they considered postoperative radiologic examinations when PSA was elevated (72.2%), rather than regularly (24.4%). When patients had PSMs without extracapsular extension (pT2R1) or a negative surgical margin with extracapsular extension (pT3aR0), the response 'does not make a difference in treatment policy' prevailed at 65.9%. Even in patients at high risk of PSMs on preoperative radiologic screening, 84.6% of the respondents said that they did not perform neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Most respondents (75.8%) indicated that they avoided nerve-sparing RP in cases with a high risk of PSMs, but 25.7% said that they had tried nerve-sparing surgery. Additional analyses showed that urologists who had performed 300 or more prostatectomies tended to attempt more nerve-sparing procedures in patients with a high risk of PSMs than less experienced surgeons (36.6% vs. 14.0%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The most common response was to monitor PSA levels without recommending any additional treatment when PSMs were found after RP. Through this questionnaire, we found that the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists differed considerably according to RP resection margin status. Refined research and standard practice guidelines are needed.

Overcoming oncogene addiction in breast and prostate cancers: a comparative mechanistic overview

Prostate cancer (PCa) and breast cancer (BCa) are both hormone-dependent cancers that require the androgen receptor (AR) and estrogen receptor (ER, ESR1) for growth and proliferation, respectively. Endocrine therapies that target these nuclear receptors (NRs) provide significant clinical benefit for metastatic patients. However, these therapeutic strategies are seldom curative and therapy resistance is prevalent. Because the vast majority of therapy-resistant PCa and BCa remain dependent on the augmented activity of their primary NR driver, common mechanisms of resistance involve enhanced NR signaling through overexpression, mutation, or alternative splicing of the receptor, coregulator alterations, and increased intracrine hormonal synthesis. In addition, a significant subset of endocrine therapy-resistant tumors become independent of their primary NR and switch to alternative NR or transcriptional drivers. While these hormone-dependent cancers generally employ similar mechanisms of endocrine therapy resistance, distinct differences between the two tumor types have been observed. In this review, we compare and contrast the most frequent mechanisms of antiandrogen and antiestrogen resistance, and provide potential therapeutic strategies for targeting both advanced PCa and BCa.

Effect of Smoking on Oncological Outcome among Prostate Cancer Patients after Radical Prostatectomy with Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy

We analyzed the association between smoking and oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. This study included men who had undergone radical prostatectomy with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy between 2003 and 2016. We evaluated the association between clinicopathological factors and smoking status as well as the prognostic significance of smoking status in biochemical recurrence. The patients' backgrounds were comparable between smokers and nonsmokers. Smoking status were identified as significant risk factors of biochemical recurrence. Smoking was a risk factor of biochemical recurrence, suggesting that smoking may promote cancer recurrence after surgical treatment combined with hormonal therapy.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with higher rates of biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, metastasis, and PCa-specific death, compared to low-and intermediate-risk disease. Herein, we review the various definitions of high-risk PCa, describe the rationale for neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy, and summarize the contemporary data on neoadjuvant therapies. Since the 1990s, several randomized trials of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have consistently demonstrated improved pathological parameters, specifically tumor downstaging and reduced extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margins without improvements in cancer-specific or overall survival. These studies, however, were not exclusive to high-risk patients and were limited by suboptimal follow-up periods. Newer studies of neoadjuvant ADT in high-risk PCa show promising pathological and oncological outcomes. Recent level 1 data suggests neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) may improve longer-term survival in high-risk PCa. Immunologic neoadjuvant trials are in their infancy, and further study is required. Neoadjuvant therapies may be promising additions to the multimodal therapeutic landscape of high-risk and locally advanced PCa in the near future.

The value of transperineal apical prostate biopsy in predicting urethral/apical margin status after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To investigate potential preoperative predictors of urethral or apical positive surgical margin (PSM) and the value of apical prostate biopsy in predicting urethral/apical margin status after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

A total of 531 patients who underwent RP during 2010 to 2017 at West China Hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study. Preoperative and postoperative factors including age, BMI, PSA, clinical T stage and biopsy Gleason score were analyzed. Univariate analysis and logistic regression were used to find out the potential predictive factors for PSM. Two logistic regression models were built to evaluate the role of apical prostate biopsy in predicting urethral/apical margin status.

RESULTS

The overall PSM rate was about 30.1% (160/531) and 97 of them were reported urethral/apical PSM. The incidence of urethral or apical PSM in patients with positive cores in the apical prostate was higher than those without (23.0% vs 9.9%, P < .001). We further found that the multivariable model with positive apical prostate biopsy could significantly increase the predictive value of urethral or apical PSM status (AUC: 0.744 vs 0.783, P = .016). Our analysis also showed that neo-adjuvant hormone therapy was an independent protective factor for urethral or apical PSM in patients with positive apical prostate biopsy, but not all patients.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the necessity of apical prostate biopsy to predict the risk of apical or urethral PSM. In clinical practice, neo-adjuvant hormone therapy should be given when patients with positive apical prostate biopsy to reduce the presence of PSM, especially patients with high/very high risk prostate cancer.