1
|
Slevin F, Zattoni F, Checcucci E, Cumberbatch MGK, Nacchia A, Cornford P, Briers E, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Eberli D, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Liew M, Linares Espinós EE, Oldenburg J, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Smith EJ, Stranne J, Tilki D, Smith CT, Van Den Bergh RCN, Van Oort IM, Wiegel T, Yuan CY, Van den Broeck T, Henry AM. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:677-696. [PMID: 38151440 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.11.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Finbar Slevin
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
| | - Enrico Checcucci
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Gert De Meerleer
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, EOC, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | | | - Jan Oldenburg
- Department of Oncology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway; Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Emma Jane Smith
- European Association of Urology Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Johan Stranne
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Catrin Tudur Smith
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Inge M Van Oort
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Ann M Henry
- University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jochems KFT, Menges D, Sanchez D, de Glas NA, Wildiers H, Eberli D, Puhan MA, Bastiaannet E. Outcomes in studies regarding older patients with prostate cancer: A systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol 2024; 15:101763. [PMID: 38575500 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2024.101763] [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: 10/23/2023] [Revised: 03/24/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Older patients are often deemed ineligible for clinical research, and many frequently-used endpoints and outcome measures are not as relevant for older patients for younger ones. This systematic review aimed to present an overview of outcomes used in clinical research regarding patients over the age of 65 years with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed and Embase were systematically searched to identify studies on prostate cancer (treatment) in patients aged ≥65 between 2016 and 2023. Data on title, study design, number of participants and age, stage of disease, treatment, and investigated outcomes were synthesized and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS Sixty-eight studies were included. Of these most included patients over 65 years, while others used a higher age. Overall, 39 articles (57.3%) reported on survival-related outcomes, 22 (32.4%) reported on progression of disease and 38 (55.9%) used toxicity or adverse events as an outcome measure. Health-related quality of life and functional outcomes were investigated in 29.4%, and cognition in two studies. The most frequently investigated survival-related outcomes were overall and cancer-specific survival (51.3%); however, 38.5% only studied overall survival. DISCUSSION The main focus of studies included in this review remains survival and disease progression. There is limited attention for health-related quality of life and functional status, although older patients often prioritize the latter. Future research should incorporate outcome measures tailored to the aged population to improve care for older patients with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim F T Jochems
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Dominik Menges
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Dafne Sanchez
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Nienke A de Glas
- Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Hans Wildiers
- Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Milo A Puhan
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Esther Bastiaannet
- Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lash RS, Hong AS, Bell JF, Reed SC, Pettit N. Recognizing the emergency department’s role in oncologic care: a review of the literature on unplanned acute care. EMERGENCY CANCER CARE 2022; 1:6. [PMID: 35844666 PMCID: PMC9200439 DOI: 10.1186/s44201-022-00007-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The global prevalence of cancer is rapidly increasing and will increase the acute care needs of patients with cancer, including emergency department (ED) care. Patients with cancer present to the ED across the cancer care continuum from diagnosis through treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life. This article describes the characteristics and determinants of ED visits, as well as challenges in the effort to define preventable ED visits in this population.
Findings
The most recent population-based estimates suggest 4% of all ED visits are cancer-related and roughly two thirds of these ED visits result in hospitalization—a 4-fold higher ED hospitalization rate than the general population. Approximately 44% of cancer patients visit the ED within 1 year of diagnosis, and more often have repeat ED visits within a short time frame, though there is substantial variability across cancer types. Similar patterns of cancer-related ED use are observed internationally across a range of different national payment and health system settings. ED use for patients with cancer likely reflects a complex interaction of individual and contextual factors—including provider behavior, health system characteristics, and health policies—that warrants greater attention in the literature.
Conclusions
Given the amount and complexity of cancer care delivered in the emergency setting, future research is recommended to examine specific symptoms associated with cancer-related ED visits, the contextual determinants of ED use, and definitions of preventable ED use specific to patients with cancer.
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
5
|
Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fukuhara H. Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020; 50:963-969. [PMID: 32580211 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Satoru Taguchi
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kenshiro Shiraishi
- Department of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Fukuhara
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ashrafi AN, Yip W, Aron M. Neoadjuvant Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Indian J Urol 2020; 36:251-261. [PMID: 33376260 PMCID: PMC7759181 DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_115_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2020] [Revised: 04/26/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akbar N. Ashrafi
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck Medical Center of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
- Division of Surgery, North Adelaide Local Health Network, SA Health, Australia
- Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Wesley Yip
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck Medical Center of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Monish Aron
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck Medical Center of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang Z, Ni Y, Chen J, Sun G, Zhang X, Zhao J, Zhu X, Zhang H, Zhu S, Dai J, Shen P, Zeng H. The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2020; 18:42. [PMID: 32093688 PMCID: PMC7041271 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01824-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments. Results A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain. Conclusion RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhipeng Wang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yuchao Ni
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Junru Chen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Guangxi Sun
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xingming Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jinge Zhao
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xudong Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Haoran Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Sha Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jindong Dai
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Pengfei Shen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Hao Zeng
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
|
9
|
Greenberger BA, Chen VE, Den RB. Combined Modality Therapies for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review of Current Understanding and New Directions. Front Oncol 2019; 9:1273. [PMID: 31850194 PMCID: PMC6896415 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the many prospective randomized trials that have been available in the past decade regarding the optimization of radiation, hormonal, and surgical therapies for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), many questions remain. There is currently a lack of level I evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant radiation compared to radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk PCa. Current retrospective series have also described an improvement in biochemical outcomes and PCa-specific mortality through the use of augmented radiation strategies incorporating brachytherapy. The relative efficacy of modern augmented RT compared to RP is still incompletely understood. We present a narrative review regarding recent advances in understanding regarding comparisons of overall and PCa-specific mortality measures among patients with high-risk PCa treated with either an RP/adjuvant RT or an RT/ADT approach. We give special consideration to recent trends toward the assembly of multi-institutional series targeted at providing high-quality data to minimize the effects of residual confounding. We also provide a narrative review of recent studies examining brachytherapy boost and systemic therapies, as well as an overview of currently planned and ongoing studies that will further elucidate strategies for treatment optimization over the next decade.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin A Greenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Victor E Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Robert B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|