Effect of total androgen ablation on pathologic stage and resection limit status of prostate cancer. Initial results of the Italian PROSIT study

Modeling Androgen Deprivation Therapy-Induced Prostate Cancer Dormancy and Its Clinical Implications

Treatment-induced tumor dormancy is a state in cancer progression where residual disease is present but remains asymptomatic. Dormant cancer cells are treatment-resistant and responsible for cancer recurrence and metastasis. Prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) often enters a dormant state. ADT-induced prostate cancer dormancy remains poorly understood due to the challenge in acquiring clinical dormant prostate cancer cells and the lack of representative models. In this study, we aimed to develop clinically relevant models for studying ADT-induced prostate cancer dormancy. Dormant prostate cancer models were established by castrating mice bearing patient-derived xenografts (PDX) of hormonal naïve or sensitive prostate cancer. Dormancy status and tumor relapse were monitored and evaluated. Paired pre- and postcastration (dormant) PDX tissues were subjected to morphologic and transcriptome profiling analyses. As a result, we established eleven ADT-induced dormant prostate cancer models that closely mimicked the clinical courses of ADT-treated prostate cancer. We identified two ADT-induced dormancy subtypes that differed in morphology, gene expression, and relapse rates. We discovered transcriptomic differences in precastration PDXs that predisposed the dormancy response to ADT. We further developed a dormancy subtype-based, predisposed gene signature that was significantly associated with ADT response in hormonal naïve prostate cancer and clinical outcome in castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with ADT or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors.

IMPLICATIONS

We have established highly clinically relevant PDXs of ADT-induced dormant prostate cancer and identified two dormancy subtypes, leading to the development of a novel predicative gene signature that allows robust risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer to ADT or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

[Regressive changes after short-term neoadjuvant antihormonal therapy in prostatic carcinoma: the value of Gleason grading]

Although neoadjuvant, antihormonal therapy does not lead to an improvement in the outcome of prostatic carcinoma it is still used in the short-term in a subset of patients. Here we report the regressive changes due to this short-term treatment and analyse the impact on Gleason grading. The most frequent regressive changes in 82 tumors treated short-term were determined and quantified. The results were compared to a matched control group and also to the preoperative needle biopsies.A steep increase in regressive changes was observed within the first 4 weeks. After this point, changes increased only mildly. Within the first 2 weeks of treatment no significant changes compared to control tissue were present. Compared to the preoperative needle biopsies, pretreated tumors showed a significant upgrading. After 2 weeks of neoadjuvant antihormonal therapy, regressive changes are so great, that Gleason grading can no longer be recommended.

Reduction in PSA messenger-RNA expression and clinical recurrence in patients with prostatic cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: We assessed the incidence of micro-metastases at surgical margins (SM) and pelvic lymph nodes (LN) in patients submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) or to RP alone. We compared traditional staging to molecular detection of PSA using Taqman-based quantitative real-time PCR (qrt-PCR) never used before for this purpose. METHODS: 29 patients were assigned to NT plus RP (arm A) or RP alone (arm B). Pelvic LN were dissected for qrt-PCR analysis, together with right and left lateral SM. RESULTS: 64,3% patients of arm B and 26.6% of arm A had evidence of PSA mRNA expression in LN and/or SM. 17,2% patients, all of arm B, had biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Qrt-PCR may be more sensitive, compared to conventional histology, in identifying presence of viable prostate carcinoma cells in SM and LN. Gene expression of PSA in surgical periprostatic samples might be considered as a novel and reliable indicator of minimal residual disease after NT.

Prostate cancer management: (1) an update on localised disease

Prostate cancer is receiving ever more publicity with the result that more men are having their prostate specific antigen checked and a greater proportion of men are diagnosed with potentially curable localised disease. Advances in the therapeutic modalities including radical surgery, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy have reduced the incidence of side effects and now offer patients a choice of treatments depending on their tumour characteristics, age, and co-morbidity. A significant proportion of men do not need intervention and may be safely kept under a "watch and wait" policy. The use of genetic markers may in the future distinguish between patients most likely to benefit from radical therapy and those in who either palliation or observation is more appropriate. This review examines the potentially curative options, as well as expectant management, outlining the pros and cons of each. The use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy is also discussed.

[Comparative study of the effect of complete prolonged neoadjuvant hormonal blockade versus standard hormonal blockade]

INTRODUCTION

Radical prostatectomy is considered as a curative treatment option in clinically localised prostate cancer patients. Therapy failure is related to positive surgical margins and/or extracapsular extension. The use of neoadjuvant combined androgen blockade (CAB) withdrawal therapy, mainly in cT2 disease, has been shown to decrease positive margin rates. However, CAB therapy remains controversial since there is no proof that this approach confers any benefit in relation to biochemical and clinical disease-free survival. Increasing negatives surgical margins and lower tumour volume (TV) with prolonged CAB therapy has been recently reported.

AIM

To analyse the effect of 6 months neoadjuvant CAB therapy in front of 3 months in clinically localised prostate cancer patients submitted to radical prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The pathological stage and TV in forty-two patients treated by 6 months in front of thirty-four patients treated by 3 months were studied. The relationship of clinical stage and initial PSA concentration were analysed.

RESULTS

TV was significantly lower in 6 months treated patients (0.97 cc vs. 0.48 cc, p = 0.05). The lowest TV was observed in cT1 patients, but significant differences only were observed in cT2 (1.5 cc vs. 0.86 cc, p = 0.04). No relationship between TV and PSA was obtained. No differences in the incidence of organ-confined disease were seen depending of the CAB length (47% vs. 43%, p = NS). However, increasing incidence of specimen-confined disease was observed in 6 months treated patients (56% vs. 74%, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The duration of neoadjuvant CAB can affect both TV and surgical margin status. Lower TV and increasing incidence of specimen-confined disease with 6 months CAB treatment were observed. Patients with palpable disease may be more benefited by this treatment option.

Avoidance and management of positive surgical margins before, during and after radical prostatectomy

Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy lead to an increased risk of progression and reduced disease free survival. Earlier detection of prostate cancer, appropriate patient selection and improved operative techniques can reduce the incidence of positive margins, though the risk can not be eliminated as pre-operative staging techniques are not sufficiently sensitive. Nerve sparing and bladder neck sparing do not adversely affect margin status in appropriately selected men. Once positive margins have been diagnosed the optimal management and the timing of treatment remains controversial. Adjuvant radiotherapy or salvage radiotherapy in men with a low PSA may improve local control and PSA free survival in some individuals, a survival benefit has not yet been established.

A longer duration of neo-adjuvant combined androgen blockade prior to radical prostatectomy may lead to lower tumour volume of localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To analyse tumour volume (TV) in clinically localised prostate cancer patients treated with neo-adjuvant combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy prior to radical prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred consecutive patients treated between 1996 and 2000 were retrospectively analysed. Fifty patients underwent radical prostatectomy alone and 45 were treated with CAB for 1-3 months, 83 for 4-6 months and 22 for more than 6 months before surgery. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the strongest independent prognosticator of organ-confined disease.

RESULTS

No evidence of residual cancer was found in 11 specimens (5.6%). Regarding TV, 20 specimens showed less than 0.1cc, 33 between 0.1 and 0.49cc and 86 more than 0.5cc. Smaller TV was found in CAB-treated patients. Significant correlation was observed between treatment duration and TV. In logistic regression analysis, only CAB duration and TV were significantly correlated with organ-confined disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Prominent regressive features and lower TV were found after neo-adjuvant CAB. It seems that more prolonged treatment may lead to greater tumoural regression. Only tumour burden and length of CAB therapy were independent variables significantly correlated with pathologically localised prostate cancer.

Pathologic effects of neoadjuvant cyproterone acetate on nonneoplastic prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma: a detailed analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens from a randomized trial

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT; androgen ablation) is used prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) in an attempt to pathologically "downstage" prostatic adenocarcinoma and ultimately to improve disease-free survival. This study describes the pathologic effects of NHT with the antiandrogen cyproterone acetate, 300 mg/day for 12 weeks, on the RP specimens from men with clinically localized (stage T1 or T2) prostatic adenocarcinoma. There were 101 men in the pretreatment group (CPA) and 91 men in a control group who were treated with surgery alone. The prevalence and extent of morphologic effects were recorded for the nonneoplastic prostate, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive adenocarcinoma. The commonest effects on the nonneoplastic prostate were atrophy and basal cell hyperplasia and prominence. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was more commonly identified in the surgery alone group than the CPA group (p <0.01). In the CPA group, flat and low tufted patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia predominated. Following NHT, the adenocarcinoma showed characteristic morphologic alterations, including reduction in cytoplasmic quantity, cytoplasmic vacuolation, nuclear pyknosis, reduced gland diameter, and mucinous breakdown. In many cases there was prominence of collagenous stroma, obscuring malignant glands. Compared with the surgery alone group, the CPA group RP specimens had a significantly lower mean specimen weight (40.3 g vs 46.5 g, p = 0.025) and less tumor extent by several measures. Organ-confined tumor (stage pT2, margin negative) was found in 41.6% of the CPA group compared with 19.8% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.0017). The overall rate of margin positivity was lower in the CPA group (27.7% vs 64.8%, p = 0.001). We consider that the difference in margin positivity is the result of tumor shrinkage with a decreased likelihood of sampling in routine sections. There was no significant difference in the rate of extraprostatic extension between the two groups. There was elevation of the Gleason score in the RP specimens versus baseline biopsy in 60% of the CPA group compared with 33% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.02). The higher rate of elevation in the CPA group largely resulted from an increase in primary or secondary Gleason score 5 tumor, a morphologic artifact introduced by NHT. Because of this, we recommend not giving a Gleason grade to RP specimens following NHT. Monotherapy with CPA has similar pathologic effects on benign and malignant prostate tissue as does dual agent androgen blockade. Prolonged follow-up of these patients is required to determine if NHT with CPA leads to improved disease-free survival.

Effect of complete androgen blockade on pathologic stage and resection margin status of prostate cancer: progress pathology report of the Italian PROSIT study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the pathologic stage and surgical margin status in patients undergoing either immediate radical prostatectomy or surgery preceded by 3 or 6 months of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (NHT) in a prospective, randomized study.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-one men with prostate cancer were enrolled in the Italian randomized prospective PROSIT study. The whole-mount sectioning technique was used. By May 1999, the reviewing pathologist had evaluated 303 specimens. One hundred seven patients were untreated before radical prostatectomy was performed, and 114 and 82 patients had been treated for 3 and 6 months, respectively, with complete androgen blockade.

RESULTS

Pathologic organ-confined disease was found in 63.1% of patients with clinical Stage B disease treated with 6 months of NHT versus 61.0% after 3 months of NHT and 37.5% after immediate surgery. Among patients with clinical Stage C tumors, pathologic staging found organ-confined disease in 62.5%, 32.1%, and 11.1% of patients after 6 months of NHT, 3 months of NHT, and immediate surgery, respectively. Three months of NHT produced a significant increase in negative margins both in patients with clinical Stage B and C disease, but the addition of another 3 months of treatment did not significantly improve this result. A lower degree of benefit was observed in patients with clinical Stage C tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that complete androgen blockade before surgery is beneficial in men with clinical Stage B disease. The effects are more pronounced after 6 months of NHT than after 3 months.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of goserelin

Goserelin is a synthetic decapeptide analogue of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH). For experimental purposes it has been administered subcutaneously as an aqueous solution, but for therapeutic use it is formulated as subcutaneous depots releasing goserelin over periods of 1 (3.6 mg) or 3 (10.8 mg) months. Pharmacokinetic data have been generated using a specific radioimmunoassay. When administered as a solution, goserelin is rapidly absorbed and eliminated from serum with a mean elimination half-life (t1/2beta) of 4.2 hours in males and 2.3 hours in females. The shapes of the observed serum goserelin profiles following administration of the depots are primarily determined by the rate of goserelin release from the biodegradable lactide-glycolide copolymer matrix over periods of 1 or 3 months. There is no clinically relevant accumulation of goserelin during multiple administration of these depots. Goserelin is extensively metabolised prior to excretion. Its pharmacokinetics are unaffected by hepatic impairment, but the mean t1/2beta increases to 12.1 hours in patients with severe renal impairment. This suggests that the total renal clearance (renal metabolism and unchanged drug) is decreased in patients with renal dysfunction. It is unnecessary to adjust the dose or administration interval when the depot formulations are administered to elderly patients or to those with impaired renal or hepatic function. Administration of a goserelin 3.6 mg or 10.8 mg depot results in an initial increase of luteinising hormone (LH) levels and in increases of serum testosterone or oestradiol levels in males and females, respectively. This is followed by a decrease in serum LH levels and suppression of testosterone or oestradiol to within the castrate or menopausal range, respectively. Subsequently, throughout treatment with goserelin depots, serum testosterone or oestradiol levels remain suppressed. Clinical outcomes following treatment of patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer and benign gynaecological conditions with goserelin are described briefly.