Equivalent biochemical failure-free survival after external beam radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy in patients with a pretreatment prostate specific antigen of > 4-20 ng/ml

HoSAGE: sarcopenia in older patient with intermediate / high-risk prostate cancer, prevalence and incidence after androgen deprivation therapy: study protocol for a cohort trial

Background

Sarcopenia is defined by a loss of muscle strength associated to a decrease in skeletal muscle mass. Ageing greatly contributes to sarcopenia as may many other factors such as cancer or androgen deprivation therapies (ADT). This cohort study aims to evaluate (1) the prevalence of muscle disorders and sarcopenia in older patients before initiation of intermediate to high risk prostate cancer treatment with ADT and radiotherapy, and (2) the occurrence and/or aggravation of muscle disorders and sarcopenia at the end of cancer treatment.

Methods

This cohort study is monocentric and prospective. The primary objectives are to determine the risk factor of sarcopenia prevalence and to study the relationship between ADT and sarcopenia incidence, in patients 70 years and older with histologically proven localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, addressed to a geriatrician (G8 score ≤14) for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in Marseille University Hospital. Secondary objectives encompass, measurement of sarcopenia clinical criteria along prostate oncological treatment; evaluation of the quality of life of patients with sarcopenia; evaluation of the impact of socio-behavioral and anthropological factors on sarcopenia evolution and incidence; finally the evaluation of the impact of ADT exposure on sarcopenia. Sarcopenia prevalence was estimated to be between 20 and 30%, therefore the study will enroll 200 patients.

Discussion

The current guidelines for older patients with prostate cancer recommend a pelvic radiotherapy treatment associated to variable duration (6 to 36 months) of ADT. However ADT impacts muscle mass and could exacerbate the risks of sarcopenia. Our study intends to assess the specific effect of ADT on sarcopenia incidence and/or worsening as well as to estimate sarcopenia prevalence in this population. The results of this cohort trial will lead to a better understanding of sarcopenia prevalence and incidence necessary to further elaborate a prevention plan.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered to the French drug and device regulation agency under the number 2019-A02319-48, before beginning the study (11/12/2019). The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT04484246, registration on the ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04484246).

The emerging landscape of tumor marker panels for the identification of aggressive prostate cancer: the perspective through bibliometric analysis of an Italian translational working group in uro-oncology

Molecular heterogeneity and availability of different therapeutic strategies are relevant clinical features of prostate cancer. On this basis, there is an urgent need to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers for an individualized therapeutic approach. In this context, researchers focused their attention on biomarkers able to discriminate potential life-threatening from organ-confined disease. Such biomarker could provide aid in clinical decision making, helping to choose the treatment which ensures the best results in terms of patient survival and quality of life. To address this need, many new laboratory tests have been proposed, with a clear tendency to use panels of combined biomarkers. In this review we evaluate current data on the application in clinical practice of the most promising laboratory tests: Phi, 4K score and Stockholm 3 as circulating biomarkers, Mi-prostate score, Exo DX Prostate and Select MD-X as urinary biomarkers, Confirm MDx, Oncotype Dx, Prolaris and Decipher as tissue biomarkers. In particular, the ability of these tests in the identification of clinically significant PCa and their potential use for precision medicine have been explored in this review.

Clinical Applications of Molecular Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

There is clinically relevant molecular heterogeneity in prostate cancer (PCa), but this biological diversity has had only a minimal impact on clinical practice. Treatment outcomes in patients with localised PCa are often highly variable, even among patients stratified to the same risk group or disease state based on standard clinical and pathological parameters. In recent years, the development of gene panels has provided valuable data on the differential expression of genes in patients with PCa. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to identify and validate prognostic and predictive biomarkers that can be applied across clinical scenarios, ranging from localised disease to metastatic castration-resistant PCa. The availability of such tools would allow for precision medicine to finally reach PCa patients. In this review, we evaluate current data on molecular biomarkers for PCa, with an emphasis on the biomarkers and gene panels with the most robust evidence to support their application in routine clinical practice.

Hormono-Radiotherapy in Prostatic Carcinoma: Prognostic Factors and Implications for Combined Modality Treatment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of several clinical variables in a patient population undergoing neoadjuvant hormonotherapy (NHT) with external beam radiotherapy (ERT) to identify subsets of patients with an unfavorable prognosis who require intensified therapy. Eighty-four patients (mean age, 68.2 +/– 6.1 years; range, 52–81 years) underwent ERT (45 Gy to pelvic volume; 65 Gy mean dose to prostate volume) and NHT (oral flutamide: 250 mg three times daily for 30 days; LH-RH analogue: one vial every 28 days starting two months before radiotherapy and for its entire duration). The distribution according to clinical stage was T2: 46.4%, T3: 50.0%, T4: 3.6%. The distribution according to the Gleason score was grade 2–4: 17.9%; grade 5–7: 53.6%; grade 8–10: 28.5%. The distribution according to pretreatment PSA levels (in ng/mL) was 0–4: 5.9%; 4–10: 26.2%; 10–20: 16.7%; ≥20: 51.2%. With a median follow-up of 36 months, 3.6% of patients died; hematogenous metastases and local disease progression were found in 16.7% and 6% of patients, respectively. Overall, the incidence of disease progression was 17.9%. 32.9% of patients showed biochemical failure during follow-up. Overall, metastasis-free, local progression-free and biochemical failure-free actuarial survival at five years was 89.2%, 66.5%, 85.0% and 41.9%, respectively. At univariate analysis (log-rank) clinical stage (cT) was shown to be significantly correlated with the incidence of metastasis (P = 0.0004), local progression (P <0.0001) and disease-free survival (P = 0.0005). At multivariate analysis (Cox) the correlations between clinical stage and metastasis (P = 0.0175), local progression (P = 0.0200) and disease-free survival (P = 0.0175) were confirmed. Gleason score and pretreatment PSA levels did not show any significant correlation with these endpoints. These results confirm the indications of the recent literature, which, in prostate carcinoma at higher clinical stages, suggest the use of prolonged hormonal therapy after radiotherapy.

Non‑invasive prostate cancer detection by measuring miRNA variants (isomiRs) in urine extracellular vesicles

In many cancer types, the expression and function of ~22 nucleotide-long microRNAs (miRNA) is deregulated. Mature miRNAs can be stably detected in extracellular vesicles (EVs) in biofluids, therefore they are considered to have great potential as biomarkers. In the present study, we investigated whether miRNAs have a distinct expression pattern in urine-EVs of prostate cancer (PCa) patients compared to control males. By next generation sequencing, we determined the miRNA expression in a discovery cohort of 4 control men and 9 PCa patients. miRNAs were validated by using a stemloop RT-PCR in an independent cohort of 74 patients (26 control and 48 PCa-patients). Whereas standard mapping protocols identified > 10 PCa associated miRNAs in urinary EVs, miR-21, miR-375 and miR-204 failed to robustly discriminate for disease in a validation study with RT-PCR-detection of mature miRNA sequences. In contrast, we observed that miRNA isoforms (isomiRs) with 3' end modifications were highly discriminatory between samples from control men and PCa patients. Highly differentially expressed isomiRs of miR-21, miR-204 and miR-375 were subsequently validated in an independent group of 74 patients. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of three isomiRs, resulting in a 72.9% sensitivity with a high (88%) specificity and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.866. In comparison, prostate specific antigen had an AUC of 0.707 and measuring the mature form of these miRNAs yielded a lower 70.8% sensitivity and 72% specificity (AUC 0.766). We propose that isomiRs may carry discriminatory information which is useful to generate stronger biomarkers.

Impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging on risk group assessment of patients with prostate cancer addressed to external beam radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on risk group assessment of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) initially addressed to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively performed mpMRI (3.0Tsystem) in 44 patients addressed to EBRT, using a multiparametric protocol (high-resolution multiplanar T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging). Risk group was assessed in accordance with the National comprehensive cancer network (NCCN) categories, by combining prostate-specific-antigen level, Gleason score and the T-stage as established by digital rectal examination (clinical risk assessment; c-RA) versus mpMRI (mpMRI-risk assessment; mpMRI-RA). The agreement between c-RA and mpMRI-RA was investigated using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Patients were included in very low/low risk, intermediate risk, high risk, very high risk and metastatic NCCN categories in 10 (22.7%), 18 (40.9%), 15 (34.1%), 1 (2.3%) and 0 cases using c-RA vs. 8 (18.2%), 14 (31.8%), 14 (31.8%), 4 (9.1%) and 4 (9.1%) cases using mpMRI-RA, respectively, with only moderate agreement (k=0.43). mpMRI-RA determined risk downgrading in 2/44 patients (4.5%), and risk upgrading in 16/44 patients (36.3%). After mpMRI, EBRT remained indicated in all patients.

CONCLUSION

mpMRI changed clinical risk stratification in about 41% of patients with PCa, with potential impact on EBRT planning.

[Comparative study of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy (75.6 Gy) combined with hormone therapy for prostate cancer of intermediate D'Amico risk classification]

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-three percent of the localized cancers belongs initially to the group of intermediate risk of D'Amico. The standard treatments validated by the French Association of Urology are the radical prostatectomy and the external beam radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We retrospectively compared the carcinologic results of the radical prostatectomy±adjuvant treatment (RP) and the external beam radiotherapy combining high dose (75.6 Gy) and short hormonotherapy (RH), in the treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer. The series consisted of 143 patients treated between 2000 and 2006 in the department of Urology and Kidney transplantation of the Conception Hospital, Marseilles. The main assessment criteria was the survival without biological recurrence (SBR).

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 90 months [59-51]. The 5 years and 8 years SBR were 85% and 73% in the RH group, versus 74% and 65% with RP (P=0.196). There was a significant difference between the series: on the age of diagnosis (63.9 versus 73.3 years, P<0.001), the Charlson score of comorbidity (2 versus 3, P<0.001) and the number of intermediate criteria per patients (one intermediate criteria: RP 74% versus 57%, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

According to our study, there was no superiority of the radical prostatectomy±adjuvant treatment or the external radiotherapy combining high dose and concomitant short hormonotherapy on the survival without biological recurrence at 5 and 8 years. Many studies confirm that a concomitant hormonotherapy increases the carcinologic control, even with a high rate external beam radiotherapy.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® definitive external beam irradiation in stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer

PURPOSE

: External beam radiation therapy is a standard of care treatment for men who present with clinically localized (T1-T2) prostate cancer. The purpose of this review was to provide clarification on the appropriateness criteria and management considerations for the treatment of prostate cancer with external beam radiation therapy.

METHODS

: A panel consisting of physicians with expertise on prostate cancer was assembled and provided with a number of clinical scenarios for consensus treatment and management guidelines. Prostate cancer patient vignettes were presented along with specific management recommendations based on an extensive review of the modern external beam radiotherapy literature. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances, where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

RESULTS

: Modern external beam radiation therapy series demonstrate favorable biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer. Morbidity profiles are also favorable and it is clear that this is enhanced by modern techniques like 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. An active area of investigation is evaluating the use of hypofractionated dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

: Continued investigation to refine patient selection, external beam radiation technology application, and alternative dosing schedules should result in further improvements in biochemical outcome and decreased morbidity with external beam radiation treatment for localized prostate cancer.

A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes

CONTEXT

The optimal management strategy for men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancer remains a matter of debate. Numerous series have reported cancer control and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes following treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

Critically review published oncologic and functional outcomes after RP, and evaluate factors associated with these outcome measures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A review of the literature was performed using the Medline and Web of Sciences databases. Relevant reports published between 1980 and 2011 identified using the keywords prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, prostate-specific antigen, biochemical recurrence, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction were reviewed and summarized.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Cancer control rates following RP largely depend on the definition of treatment efficacy. While up to 40% of men have been reported to experience postoperative biochemical recurrence on long-term follow-up, death from prostate cancer has been noted in <10% of men at 15 yr after surgery in contemporary series. For men with high-risk disease, surgery affords pathologic staging, thereby facilitating the selective application of secondary therapies, and has been associated with decreased mortality risk versus radiation in retrospective series. Reported functional outcomes after surgery, particularly urinary continence and erectile dysfunction, have varied greatly to date. These assessments have been limited by nonstandardized reporting methodology. The use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has increased in recent years, and while follow-up is thus far short, available data do not suggest the superiority of either approach in terms of functional or oncologic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

RP is associated with excellent long-term cancer control. Continued efforts to conduct prospective assessments of postoperative functional outcomes are necessary using validated QoL instruments. The importance of surgical approach will also require further study, incorporating comparative oncologic, functional, and economic data.

Low-dose rate brachytherapy for men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Localized prostate cancer is a slow growing tumor for many years for the majority of affected men. Low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) is short-distance radiotherapy using low-energy radioactive sources. LDR-BT has been recommended for men with low risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of LDR-BT compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and no primary therapy (NPT) in men with localized prostatic cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1950), and EMBASE (from 1980) were searched in June 2010 as well as online trials registers and reference lists of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, controlled trials comparing LDR-BT versus RP, EBRT, and NPT in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on study methods, participants, treatment regimens, observation period and outcomes were recorded by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified only one RCT (N = 200; mean follow up 68 months). This trial compared LDR-BT and RP. The risk of bias was deemed high. Primary outcomes (overall survival, cause-specific mortality, or metastatic-free survival) were not reported. Biochemical recurrence-free survival at 5 years follow up was not significantly different between LDR-BT (78/85 (91.8%)) and RP (81/89 (91.0%)); P = 0.875; relative risk 0.92 (95% CI: 0.35 to 2.42).For severe adverse events reported at 6 months follow up, results favored LDR-BT for urinary incontinence (LDR-BT 0/85 (0.0%) versus RP 16/89 (18.0%); P < 0.001; relative risk 0) and favored RP for urinary irritation (LDR-BT 68/85 (80.0%) versus RP 4/89 (4.5%); P < 0.001; relative risk 17.80, 95% CI 6.79 to 46.66). The occurrence of urinary stricture did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (LDR-BT 2/85 (2.4%) versus RP 6/89 (6.7%); P = 0.221; relative risk 0.35, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.68). Long-term information was not available.We did not identify significant differences of mean scores between treatment groups for patient-reported outcomes function and bother as well as generic health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rate brachytherapy did not reduce biochemical recurrence-free survival versus radical prostatectomy at 5 years. For short-term severe adverse events, low-dose rate brachytherapy was significantly more favorable for urinary incontinence, but radical prostatectomy was significantly more favorable for urinary irritation. Evidence is based on one RCT with high risk of bias.

Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiotherapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer was compared after radical prostatectomy (RRP) and after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

In total, 1238 patients underwent RRP, and 609 patients received with EBRT (344 received EBRT plus ADT, and 265 received EBRT alone) between 1988 and 2004 who had a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥ 20 ng/mL, a biopsy Gleason score between 8 and 10, or clinical tumor classification ≥ T3. The median follow-up was 10.2 years, 6.0 years, and 7.2 years after RRP, EBRT plus ADT, and EBRT alone, respectively. The impact of treatment modality on systemic progression, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival was evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and a competing risk-regression model.

RESULTS

The 10-year cancer-specific survival rate was 92%, 92%, and 88% after RRP, EBRT plus ADT, and EBRT alone, respectively (P = .06). After adjustment for case mix, no significant differences in the risks of systemic progression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.18; P = .23) or prostate cancer death (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.68-1.91; P = .61) were observed between patients who received EBRT plus ADT and patients who underwent RRP. The risk of all-cause mortality, however, was greater after EBRT plus ADT than after RRP (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.25-2.05; P = .0002).

CONCLUSIONS

RRP alone and EBRT plus ADT provided similar long-term cancer control for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The authors concluded that continued investigation into the differing impact of treatments on quality-of-life and noncancer mortality will be necessary to determine the optimal management approach for these patients.

Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting: how localized prostate cancer treatments affect patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel, and sexual function

PURPOSE

Although it is the most powerful predictor of early prostate cancer treatment-related complications and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, most studies do not stratify results by baseline function. Further, reporting functional outcomes as averaged numerical results may obscure informatively disparate courses. Using levels of treatment-related dysfunction, we address these problems and present the final QOL outcomes of our prospective cohort study of patients with early prostate cancer.

METHODS

We created categories for sexual, bowel, and urinary function, measured using numerical scores of the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices and stratified into "normal," "intermediate" and "poor" levels of function by incorporating patient-reported symptom and distress information. We present QOL outcomes for 409 patients 36 months after radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiation therapy, and brachytherapy.

RESULTS

Different levels of baseline sexual, bowel, and urinary function produced distinctive treatment-related changes from baseline to 36 months. In general, the average scale increases in dysfunction were greatest among patients with normal baseline function, although patients with normal and intermediate baseline function had similar increases in sexual dysfunction. For patients whose baseline urinary obstruction/irritation was poor, both average scale scores and most patients' level of function improved after treatment, particularly after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The use of functional levels to stratify treatment-related outcomes by pretreatment functional status and to display the proportions of patients with improved, stable, or worsened function after treatment provides information that more specifically conveys the expected impact of treatment to patients choosing among localized prostate cancer treatments.

Combined curative radiotherapy including HDR brachytherapy and androgen deprivation in localized prostate cancer: a prospective assessment of acute and late treatment toxicity

Self-reported symptoms including urinary, bowel and sexual side effects were investigated prospectively at multiple assessment points before and after combined radiotherapy of prostate cancer including HDR brachytherapy and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Between April 2000 and June 2003, patients with predominantly advanced localized prostate tumours subjected to this treatment were asked before treatment and on follow-up visits to complete a questionnaire covering urinary, bowel and sexual problems. The mainly descriptive analyses included 525 patients, responding to at least one questionnaire before or during the period 2-34 months after radiotherapy. Adding androgen deprivation before radiotherapy significantly worsened sexual function. During radiotherapy, urinary, bowel and sexual problems increased and were reported at higher levels up to 34 months, although there seemed to be a general tendency to less pronounced irritative bowel and urinary tract symptoms over time. No side effects requiring surgery were reported. Classic late irradiation effects such as mucosal bleeding were demonstrated mainly during the second year after therapy, but appear less pronounced in comparison with dose escalated EBRT series. In conclusion, despite the high radiation dose given, the toxicity seemed comparable with that of other series but long term (5-10 years) symptom outcome has to be determined.

Retrospective comparison of external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy in high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Because of the lack of conclusive and well-conducted randomized studies, the optimal therapy for prostate tumors remains controversial. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the results of radical surgery vs. a conservative approach such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy using an intent-to-treat analysis on two pretreatment defined, concurrently treated, high-risk patient populations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 2003 and December 2007, 162 patients with high-risk prostate cancer underwent an EBRT plus androgen deprivation therapy program at the RT department of our institute. In the same period, 122 patients with the same high-risk disease underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the urologic department of our institute. Patients with adverse pathologic factors also underwent adjuvant EBRT with or without androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical failure.

RESULTS

The two groups of high-risk patients were homogeneous in terms of freedom from biochemical failure on the basis of the clinical T stage, biopsy Gleason score, and initial prostate-specific antigen level. The median follow-up was 38.6 and 33.8 months in the EBRT and RP groups, respectively. The actuarial analysis of the freedom from biochemical failure showed a 3-year rate of 86.8% and 69.8% in the EBRT and RP group, respectively (p = .001). Multivariate analysis of the whole group revealed the initial prostate-specific antigen level and treatment type (EBRT vs. RP) as significant covariates.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly better outcome after EBRT than after RP in patients with high-risk prostate cancer, although a well-conducted randomized comparison would be the best procedure to confirm these results.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Late morbidity and results on biochemical control

PURPOSE

To report on late morbidity and biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2005 133 patients were treated with IMRT for T(1-4) N0 M0 prostate cancer. The median follow-up time was 36 months. In a first cohort, patients received a median planning target volume (PTV) dose of 74 Gy with a hard constraint on maximum rectum dose of 72 Gy (74R72, n=51). Later, median PTV and maximum rectum dose were increased to 76 and 74 Gy, respectively (76R74; n=82). We defined low-risk (n=20), intermediate-risk (n=70) and high-risk (n=43) groups. Androgen deprivation was given to patients in the intermediate- and high-risk group. Late gastro-intestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) morbidity and biochemical relapse, in accordance with the ASTRO consensus, were recorded.

RESULTS

We observed grade 2 GI (17%) and GU (19%), grade 3 GI (1%) and GU (3%) late toxicities. Except for hematuria, the median duration of side-effects was 6 months. Biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) at 3 and 5 years was 88% and 83%, respectively, with a significantly better 3-year bRSF for the 76R74 than for the 74R72 group (p=0.01). Five-year bRFS for patients in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk group was 100%, 94% and 74%, respectively (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

IMRT for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer combines low morbidity with excellent biochemical control.

Results of radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for stage III prostate cancer: comparison of two different definitions of PSA failure

BACKGROUND

We herein report the clinical outcome of radical radiation therapy combined with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) for stage III (International Union Against Cancer [UICC] 1997: UICC 97) prostate cancer. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure-free survival was assessed according to two different definitions, and the appropriateness of each definition is discussed.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and December 2000, 27 patients with stage III prostate cancer were enrolled in this study. The median pretreatment PSA level was 29 ng/ml (range, 7.4-430 ng/ml). The Gleason score (GS) was 7 or more in 22 patients (81%). All patients received 3 months of NHT with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) analogue, in combination with an antiandrogen (flutamide), given during the first 2 weeks, followed by 70-Gy external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in 35 fractions. The initial 46 Gy was given with a four-field technique, while the remainder was given with a dynamic conformal technique. No adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) was given.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 63 months. PSA levels decreased to the normal range (<4 ng/ml) after irradiation in all but one patient. The 5-year PSA failure-free survival was 34.8% according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) definition and it was 43.0% according to the "nadir plus 2" definition. Discordance of the results between the two definitions was seen in two patients. The 5-year overall and cause-specific survivals were 83.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No severe acute or late adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

Seventy Gy of EBRT following 3 months of NHT produced therapeutic results comparable to those reported in other studies which used long-term AHT. The value of long-term AHT for Japanese men should be tested in a clinical trial.

Use of different definitions of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy changes conclusions about relative treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To report biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) after radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer with two separate failure definitions and compare the results with those after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

The study sample comprised 2516 patients with a median follow-up of 78 months. Biochemical relapse after RT was defined as either the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology definition (definition A [DefA]) or a prostate-specific antigen elevation of more than 2 ng/mL greater than the nadir prostate-specific antigen level (definition N [DefN]). Failure after RP was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level greater than 0.2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Compared with DefA, DefN resulted in a 13% greater bRFS rate at 5 years and a 12% lower bRFS rate at 10 years. On multivariate analysis, the treatment modality (RP versus RT) was a significant predictor of bRFS using DefA in favor of RP (P <0.001), but was not with DefN (P = 0.87). Higher radiation doses were independently associated with a better outcome with either definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with DefA, DefN resulted in better outcomes for up to 7 years after RT, but worse outcomes thereafter. The use of DefA versus DefN resulted in opposite conclusions about the relative efficacies of RT and RP, with DefN suggesting RT is equivalent to RP and DefA that it is worse than RP. Different definitions of biochemical failure after RT can result in differences in the conclusions about treatment efficacy in men with localized prostate cancer, thereby potentially affecting clinical decisions.

Prospective evaluation of quality of life after interstitial brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Permanent interstitial brachytherapy (IB) has become an increasingly appealing therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer (LPC) among physicians and patients because it involves short hospitalization and treatment and its postulated low degree of toxicity may reduce its impact on the patients' quality of life (QoL). The aim of this prospective study was to assess the impact of IB on the QoL of patients with LPC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A validated self-completed questionnaire was administered to the patients before and after IB and then at yearly intervals. The items allowed the identification of seven subscales exploring physical well-being (PHY), physical autonomy (POW), psychological well-being (PSY), relational life (REL), urinary function (URI), rectal function (REC), and sexual function (SEX).

RESULTS

The assessment of the QoL of 147 patients treated between May 2000 and February 2005 revealed no relevant differences in the PHY scale scores 1 month after IB or later, and the same was true of the POW, PSY, and REL scales. Urinary function significantly worsened after IB and returned to pretreatment levels only after 3 years; the impact of the treatment on the URI scale was greater in the patients with good baseline urinary function than in those presenting more urinary symptoms before IB. Rectal and sexual functions were significantly worse only at the post-IB evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study confirm that the impact of IB on the patients' QoL is low despite its transient negative effects on some function, and extend existing knowledge concerning QoL after IB.

Radical versus postoperative radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a 10-year experience of an academic hospital

This study is a presentation of our department's experience in the treatment of localized prostate cancer with either radical or postoperative radiotherapy (RT). Fifty-five patients with clinical localized prostate cancer were reviewed. Thirty-three patients (T1-T2AN0M0 stage) were treated with radical RT and 22 (T2B-T3N0M0 stage) with postoperative RT. All patients received hormonal therapy. Primary end points of the study were the incidence of clinical and biochemical recurrences and death in the whole group and according to treatment modality. Within a median follow-up of 18 months the overall incidence of clinical relapse was 16.9%, of biochemical relapse 12.7% and of death 10.9%. Both treatment options achieved similar outcomes despite the fact that the patients in the postoperative RT group were of higher stage. Radical RT group tended to have better overall and disease-free survival compared to postoperative RT group, but there was no statistically significant evidence. Long-term toxicity was negligible.

Systematic review of the effect of radiation dose on tumor control and morbidity in the treatment of prostate cancer by 3D-CRT

PURPOSE

A higher radiation dose is believed to result in a larger probability of tumor control and a higher risk of side effects. To make an evidence-based choice of dose, the relation between dose and outcome needs to be known. This study focuses on the dose-response relation for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic review was carried out on the literature from 1990 to 2003. From the selected studies, the radiation dose, the associated 5-year survival, 5-year bNED (biochemical no evidence of disease), acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) morbidity Grade 2 or more, and sexual dysfunction were extracted. With logistic regression models, the relation between dose and outcome was described.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met our criteria, describing 87 subgroups and involving up to 3000 patients per outcome measure. Between the (equivalent) dose of 70 and 80 Gy, various models estimated an increase in 5-year survival (ranging from 10% to 11%), 5-year bNED for low-risk patients (5-7%), late GI complications (12-16%), late GU complications (8-10%), and erectile dysfunction (19-24%). Only for the overall 5-year bNED, results were inconclusive (range, 0-18%).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest a relationship between dose and outcome measures, including survival. However, the strength of these conclusions is limited by the sometimes small number of studies, the incompleteness of the data, and above all, the correlational nature of the data. Unambiguous proof for the dose-response relationships can, therefore, only be obtained by conducting randomized trials.

The efficacy of conventional external beam, three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, particle beam radiation, and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Technologic advances in radiation treatment planning and delivery have generated popular interest in the different radiation therapy techniques used in treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Throughout the past decade, high-energy (> 4 MV) linear accelerators have largely replaced Cobalt machines in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) delivery. Conventional EBRT has been used to treat prostate cancer successfully since the 1950s. By switching to computed tomography-based planning, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy provides better relative conformality of dose than does conventional EBRT. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has further refined dose conformality by spreading the low-dose region to a larger volume. However, the potential long-term risks of larger volumes of normal tissues receiving low doses of radiation in IMRT are unknown. Particle-beam radiation therapy offers unique dose distributions and characteristics with higher relative biologic effect and linear energy transfer. Transperineal prostate brachytherapy offers the shortest treatment time with equivalent efficacy without significant risk of radiation exposure. The addition of hormonal therapy to radiation therapy has been shown to improve the outcome of radiation therapy.

The impact of age and comorbidity on survival outcomes and treatment patterns in prostate cancer

The management of localized prostate cancer is based on stage, grade, PSA, and subjective assessment of comorbidity and life expectancy. Over the last 15 y, stage migration and the improved use of Gleason sum, PSA and TNM staging have led to many treatment options for patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. At the same time, advances in treatment techniques have helped decrease the long-term complications of surgery and radiotherapy. However, the importance of age and comorbidity, in survival outcomes and treatment decision-making has been largely overlooked. Currently, stage, grade, and PSA are the only quantifiable variables consistently used in research and treatment decision-making. Comorbidity and life expectancy have remained largely subjective variables. Increasing longevity and a rapidly aging population have made age and comorbidity increasingly important factors in clinical research and treatment decision-making. This article reviews the importance of age and comorbidity on treatment decisions and survival outcomes in prostate cancer, as well as their use as objectively quantifiable variables. Examples from the general oncology literature are given. The overview also examines validated comorbidity indices and advocates the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) in research outcomes and treatment decision-making in prostate cancer. Several clinical vignettes are provided to demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the CCI as applied to prostate cancer.

Health-related quality of life in men after treatment of localized prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy combined with 192ir brachytherapy: A prospective study of 93 cases using the EORTC questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25

PURPOSE

To describe prospectively the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment-related symptoms in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and radical radiotherapy (RT), including external beam RT and iridium high-dose-rate brachytherapy, and to compare them with age-matched normative data.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 93 patients with T1-T3a tumors consecutively treated with definitive RT at our institution completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-prostate specific 25-item (PR25) module twice at an 18-month interval 0-18 months after RT. Subgroups were analyzed regarding acute and late effects on symptoms and quality of life.

RESULTS

The main analysis included 80 patients who were disease free at the final assessment. The levels of HRQOL were generally high, did not change over time, and were comparable to the normative data. Symptom development (urinary, bowel, and sexual) correlated well with the known acute and late effects of radical RT and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy.

CONCLUSION

Combining external beam RT and HDR brachytherapy when treating prostate cancer did not appear to impair HRQOL and was comparable to that of other brachytherapy methods. The negative contribution from late neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy on symptom development seemed to be substantial but mostly transitory. Additional research is needed to determine the long-term HRQOL (3-5 years), and interventional randomized studies are suggested.

Prognostic significance of percent positive biopsies in clinically organ-confined prostate cancer treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the relationship between the percentage of positive biopsies and the biochemical outcome in hormone-naive patients undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy with or without supplemental external-beam radiation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred thirteen hormone-naive patients underwent prostate brachytherapy for clinical T1c-T2b NxM0 (1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer classification) adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland from April 1995 through June 2001. The median patient age was 66.9 years, and the median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen value was 6.8 ng/mL. The median follow-up was 52 months. Patients were stratified by percentage of positive biopsy results into the following cohorts: < 34%, 34%-50%, and > 50%. The influences of percentage of positive biopsy results, patient age, clinical T stage, Gleason score, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen value, risk group, prostate volume, supplemental external-beam radiation therapy, isotope, percentage of prescribed dose covering 90% of the target volume (D90), and volume receiving 100%, 150%, and 200% of the prescribed dose (V100/150/200) were evaluated. Biochemical disease-free survival was defined by the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology consensus definition.

RESULTS

For all 413 patients, the 7-year actuarial freedom from biochemical progression rate was 99.4%, 94.3%, and 89.2% when stratified by percentage of positive biopsy results in the < 34%, 34%-50%, and > 50% groups, respectively. When low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients were stratified by percentage of positive biopsy results, a nonsignificant trend for increased biochemical progression was noted with increasing positive biopsy results. In multivariate analysis, percentage of positive biopsy results and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen value were the only significant predictors of biochemical outcome. The median postimplantation prostate-specific antigen value for all biochemically disease-free patients was < 0.1 ng/mL, regardless of risk group or percentage of positive biopsy results cohort.

DISCUSSION

Multivariate analysis demonstrated that percentage of positive biopsy results and pretreatment prostate-specific antigen value were statistically significant predictors of 7-year biochemical progression-free survival. However, the relatively small absolute differences in biochemical outcome based on percentage of positive biopsy results may be a result of radiation dose escalation with the utilization of generous periprostatic treatment margins.

Radiotherapy in cT3 prostatic carcinoma: retrospective comparison between neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the clinical outcomes achieved in 2 groups of patients with cT3 prostatic carcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant hormonotherapy and neoadjuvant hormonotherapy plus adjuvant hormonotherapy with external beam radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred patients with cT3N0M0 prostatic carcinoma underwent radiotherapy to pelvic lymph nodes (45 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fraction) with a booster dose (65-70 Gy) to the prostatic cavity. Forty-four patients received neoadjuvant hormonotherapy (goserelin, starting 2 months before radiotherapy and continuing until the end of irradiation); 56 patients received neoadjuvant hormonotherapy plus adjuvant goserelin until disease progression, if present.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing adjuvant hormonotherapy as compared to those who received exclusive neoadjuvant therapy showed a higher reduction in PSA level below 1.0 ng/ml (p = 0.0211), a lower incidence of biochemical failures (p = 0.0170), a lower incidence of hematogenous metastases (p = 0.0320) and a trend suggestive of a better disease-free survival (p = 0.0660). At univariate analysis (logrank), Gleason score did not show a significant correlation with any of the end points analyzed. To the contrary, patients with tumor <15 mm showed a better local control (p = 0.0347) and biochemical failure-free survival (p = 0.0102). Furthermore, a trend between initial PSA level and incidence of hematogenous metastases was observed (p = 0.0519). Patients with a posttreatment PSA level <1.0 ng/ml had a lower incidence of metastases (p = 0.0237) and a better survival (p = 0.0178); patients with complete clinical response showed a lower incidence of biochemical failures (p = 0.0469). Radiotherapy doses >70 Gy showed a trend with biochemical failure-free survival (p = 0.0554). At multivariate analysis, a correlation between Gleason score and incidence of metastases (p = 0.0232), and between tumor diameter and local control (p = 0.0178) and biochemical failure-free survival (p = 0.0290) was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cT3N0M0 prostate carcinoma, prolonged hormonotherapy was shown to be significantly correlated with biochemical failure-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival. Furthermore, tumor size had a significant impact on biochemical failure-free survival as well as on local control.

Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72 Gy, external beam radiotherapy ≥72 Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1–T2 prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To review the biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rates after treatment with permanent seed implantation (PI), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) <72 Gy (EBRT <72), EBRT > or =72 Gy (EBRT > or =72), combined seeds and EBRT (COMB), or radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinical Stage T1-T2 localized prostate cancer treated between 1990 and 1998.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study population comprised 2991 consecutive patients treated at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation or Memorial Sloan Kettering at Mercy Medical Center. All cases had pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (iPSA) levels and biopsy Gleason scores (bGSs). Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for < or =6 months was given in 622 cases (21%). No adjuvant therapy was given after local therapy. RP was used for 1034 patients (35%), EBRT <72 for 484 (16%), EBRT > or =72 for 301 (10%), PI for 950 (32%), and COMB for 222 patients (7%). The RP, EBRT <72, EBRT > or =72, and 154 PI patients were treated at Cleveland Clinic Foundation. The median radiation doses in EBRT <72 and EBRT > or =72 case was 68.4 and 78.0 Gy, respectively. The median follow-up time for all cases was 56 months (range 12-145). The median follow-up time for RP, EBRT <72, EBRT > or =72, PI, and COMB was 66, 75, 49, 47, and 46 months, respectively. Biochemical relapse was defined as PSA levels >0.2 for RP cases and three consecutive rising PSA levels (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology Oncology consensus definition) for all other cases. A multivariate analysis for factors affecting the bRFS rates was performed using the following variables: clinical T stage, iPSA, bGS, androgen deprivation, year of treatment, and treatment modality. The multivariate analysis was repeated excluding the EBRT <72 cases.

RESULTS

The 5-year bRFS rate for RP, EBRT <72, EBRT > or =72, PI, and COMB was 81%, 51%, 81%, 83%, and 77%, respectively (p <0.001). The 7-year bRFS rate for RP, EBRT <72, EBRT > or =72, PI, and COMB was 76%, 48%, 81%, 75%, and 77%, respectively. Multivariate analysis, including all cases, showed iPSA (p <0.001), bGS (p <0.001), year of therapy (p <0.001), and treatment modality (p <0.001) to be independent predictors of relapse. Because EBRT <72 cases had distinctly worse outcomes, the analysis was repeated after excluding these cases to discern any differences among the other modalities. The multivariate analysis excluding the EBRT <72 cases revealed iPSA (p <0.001), bGS (p <0.001), and year of therapy (p = 0.001) to be the only independent predictors of relapse. Treatment modality (p = 0.95), clinical T stage (p = 0.09), and androgen deprivation (p = 0.56) were not independent predictors for failure.

CONCLUSION

The biochemical failure rates were similar among PI, high-dose (> or =72 Gy) EBRT, COMB, and RP for localized prostate cancer. The outcomes were significantly worse for low-dose (<72 Gy) EBRT.

Improved Biochemical Disease-Free Survival of Men Younger Than 60 Years With Prostate Cancer Treated With High Dose Conformal External Beam Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

We report the long-term prostate specific antigen relapse-free survival rates and predictors of biochemical outcome for patients 60 years or younger with prostate cancer treated with high dose conformal external beam radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 740 patients with prostate cancer treated with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated external beam radiotherapy. Patients who also received androgen deprivation therapy were excluded from this analysis. Median radiation dose was 75.6 Gy and median followup was 88 months with a minimum followup of 24 months. Median followup for patients 60 years or younger in this report was 54 months (range 24 to 132). Biochemical failure was defined according to the criteria recommended by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel.

RESULTS

Biochemical failure developed in 20 (21%) of the 96 men 60 years or younger, which was similar to the 22% failure rate observed in 644 patients older than 60. The 5 and 7-year biochemical disease-free survival rates were 82% and 79% in younger men, and 79% and 78% in older men, respectively (p = 0.48). For younger patients who received 81 Gy or greater, the 7-year prostate specific antigen relapse-free survival rates for favorable, intermediate and unfavorable risk patients were 96%, 87% and 50%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that among patients 60 years or younger the most important predictor of biochemical relapse was radiation doses less than 75.6 Gy followed by Gleason score greater than 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with prostate cancer 60 years or younger treated with high dose radiotherapy have an excellent biochemical outcome and fare as well as older patients. The use of conventional dose levels in patients 60 years or younger was associated with an 8-fold increase in the biochemical relapse rate and these doses should not be considered appropriate for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment and radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Adjuvant hormone treatment with radiotherapy has been demonstrated in two studies (Bolla and RTOG 8531) to be beneficial in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. However, the vast majority of patients with early prostate cancer can be cured with radiotherapy alone. Subset analysis combining RTOG 8610 and RTOG 8531 has demonstrated a survival benefit only for patients with a biopsy Gleason score < or =6 after short-term neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. The results of ongoing research will further clarify the use of hormone treatment with radiotherapy in patients with low and intermediate risk.

Early prostate cancer: clinical decision-making

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases for which health-care intervention is sought worldwide, and in many developed countries it is the most common. Some patients with early-stage prostate cancer, especially those who are elderly and have comorbidities, can be observed without treatment. Surgery (radical prostatectomy) and radiotherapy (external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or both) are the most widely accepted curative options for patients with early-stage disease who need intervention. All these local treatments have been refined, resulting in comparable cure rates; however, they all have different side-effect profiles. Adjuvant systemic treatments (hormones or chemotherapy), which are effective for advanced-stage disease, might have a greater role in early-stage disease. Selecting the best option for individuals from the available options is challenging--the decision on whether and how to treat is based on many disease and patient factors. Here, we review the major treatment options, discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages, and provide a general approach to management of patients with early-stage prostate cancer.

An interinstitutional and interspecialty comparison of treatment outcome data for patients with prostate carcinoma based on predefined prognostic categories and minimum follow-up

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma remains undefined due in part to the absence of well-designed, prospective, randomized trials. The current study was conducted to compare and contrast outcomes with different forms of therapy for patients with prostate carcinoma who were treated at several institutions using predefined prognostic categories.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 6877 men with prostate carcinoma who were treated between 1989 and 1998 at 7 different institutions with 6 different types of therapy was conducted. Five-year actuarial rates of prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure were calculated based on predefined prognostic categories, which included combinations of pretreatment PSA level, tumor stage, and Gleason score. In addition, outcome was calculated using consistent biochemical failure definitions and a minimum, median length of follow-up.

RESULTS

Substantial differences in outcome were observed for the same type of treatment and at the same institution, depending on the number of prognostic variables used to define treatment groups. However, estimates of 5-year PSA outcomes after all forms of therapy for low-risk and intermediate-risk patient groups were remarkably similar (regardless of the type of treatment) when all three pretreatment variables were used to define prognostic categories. For patients in high-risk groups, the 5-year PSA outcomes were suboptimal, regardless of the treatment technique used.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data suggest that interinstitutional and interspecialty comparisons of treatment outcome for patients with prostate carcinoma are possible but that results must be based on all major prognostic variables to be meaningful. Analyzed in this fashion, 5-year PSA results were similar for patients in low-risk and intermediate-risk groups, regardless of the form of therapy. Findings from prospective, randomized trials using survival (cause specific and overall) as the end point for judging treatment efficacy and longer follow-up will be needed to validate these findings and to identify the most appropriate management option for patients with all stages of disease.

Primary radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer in men is similar to breast cancer in women; both cancers rank first, respectively, in incidence and are normally responsive to radiation therapy. In addition, advances in mammography help detect earlier breast cancers, and the development and refinement of prostatic specific antigen (PSA) has resulted in early detection of low-stage localized prostate cancers. This has generated debate over the proper management of localized prostate cancer. While there have not been any controlled, prospective, randomized trials of sufficient power to compare the various local therapies, based on the current available data, the three commonly used local modalities, surgery, and external beam radiation therapy and brachytherapy (radioactive seed implant), have similar efficacy controlling the disease up to 10 years in many patients. Technological advances in treatment delivery and planning have improved the treatment of prostate cancer with external-beam radiotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), ultrasound-guided transperineal implant, or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), as well as proton or neutron beam based therapies.

Impact of race on prostate-specific antigen outcome after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

To compare prostate-specific antigen (PSA) outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer in African-American and white men using previously established risk groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1989 and 2000, 2,036 men (n = 162 African-American men, n = 1,874 white men) underwent RP for clinically localized prostate cancer. Using pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, clinical T stage, and percentage of positive biopsy specimens, patients were stratified into low- and high-risk groups. For each risk group, PSA outcome was estimated using the actuarial method of Kaplan and Meier. Comparisons of PSA outcome between African-American and white men were made using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median age and PSA level for African-American and white men were 60 and 62 years old and 8.8 and 7.0 ng/mL, respectively. African-Americans had a statistically significant increase in PSA (P =.002), Gleason score (P =.003), clinical T stage (P =.004), and percentage of positive biopsy specimens (P =.04) at presentation. However, there was no statistical difference in the distribution of PSA, clinical T stage, or Gleason score between racial groups in the low- and high-risk groups. The 5-year estimate of PSA outcome was 87% in the low-risk group for all patients (P =.70) and 28% versus 32% in African-American and white patients in the high-risk group (P =.28), respectively. Longer follow-up is required to confirm if these results are maintained at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Even though African-American men presented at a younger age and with more advanced disease compared with white men with prostate cancer, PSA outcome after RP when controlled for known clinical predictive factors was not statistically different. This study supports earlier screening in African-American men.

Relationship between percent positive biopsies and biochemical outcome after permanent interstitial brachytherapy for clinically organ-confined carcinoma of the prostate gland

PURPOSE

Recently, the percentage of positive prostate biopsies has been reported to be statistically significant in predicting the biochemical outcome after either radical prostatectomy or 3-dimensional conformal external beam radiotherapy. In this study, we evaluated the impact of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in predicting the 5-year biochemical outcome for patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer undergoing permanent interstitial brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two hundred sixty-two hormone naive patients underwent transperineal ultrasound-guided permanent prostate brachytherapy with generous periprostatic margins, using either 103Pd or 125I for clinical T1b/T2b NXM0 (1997 AJCC) adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland from April 1995 to October 1999. No patient was lost to follow-up. The actual percentage of positive biopsies (number of positive biopsies/total number of biopsies) was determinable for 255 of the 262 patients. Of the evaluated cases, 133 patients were implanted with 103Pd and 122 patients with 125I. The median patient age was 68 years (range 48-81). The median follow-up was 38.6 months (range 6-73). Follow-up was calculated from the day of implantation. Patients were stratified by the percentage of positive biopsies into the following groups: <34%, 34-50%, and >50%. Additional clinical parameters evaluated included patient age, clinical T-stage, Gleason score, pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA), risk group, and prostate volume. Low-risk patients were staged as clinical T1c/T2a, Gleason score < or =6, and pretreatment PSA < or =10 ng/mL, intermediate-risk patients presented with one unfavorable prognostic parameter, and high-risk patients presented with two or more unfavorable prognostic parameters (clinical stage T2b, PSA >10 ng/mL, Gleason score > or =7). Treatment parameters included the use of supplemental external beam radiation and choice of isotope. Biochemical disease-free survival was defined by the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology consensus definition.

RESULTS

For the 255 evaluated patients, the 5-year actuarial biochemical no evidence of disease survival rate was 92.5%. For patients with low, intermediate, and high-risk disease, 95.8%, 98.1%, and 79.4% of patients were free of biochemical failure, respectively. When each risk group was stratified into the percent positive biopsy categories of <34%, 34-50%, and >50%, no statistical difference was found in biochemical outcome for the biopsy subgroups. In multivariate analysis, none of the clinical or treatment parameters predicted for failure in the low-risk group; only Gleason score was predictive for intermediate-risk patients and only PSA for high-risk patients. In the overall population, PSA and Gleason score were both found to be predictors of biochemical failure, but not risk group, clinical stage, or percentage of positive biopsies. There was no significant dependence between the percent positive biopsy group and the Kaplan-Meier biochemical survival rates for any of the various subgroups of clinical and treatment parameters, except for clinical stage T1c-T2a (p = 0.006). The median postimplant PSA was 0.2 ng/mL for patients with either low-risk disease or <34% positive biopsies and 0.1 ng/mL for all other risk groups or percent positive biopsy subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Although a significant trend was found for biochemical failure with increasing percent positive biopsies in the overall population, our results suggest that the percentage of positive biopsies is not statistically significant in predicting the 5-year biochemical disease-free outcome for patients with low, intermediate, and high-risk disease undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy. Only the Gleason score in intermediate-risk patients and the pretreatment PSA level in high-risk patients was predictive of biochemical failure. We believe this relative lack of significance for the percentage of positive biopsies is a result of dose escalation far exceeding other radiotherapy modalities and the ability to aggressively treat the periprostatic region compared with radical prostatectomy by way of the accurate placement of periprostatic seeds.

Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era

PURPOSE

We evaluated the ability of previously defined risk groups to predict prostate specific antigen (PSA) outcome 10 years after radical prostatectomy in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer during the PSA era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1989 and 2000, 2,127 men with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy, including 1,027 at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (study cohort) and 1,100 at Brigham and Women's Hospital (validation cohort). Cox regression analysis was done to calculate the relative risk of PSA failure with the 95% confidence interval (CI) in patients at intermediate and high versus low risk. The Kaplan-Meier actuarial method was used to estimate PSA outcome 10 years after radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Compared with low risk patients (stages T1c to 2a disease, PSA 10 ng./ml. or less and Gleason score 6 or less) the relative risk of PSA failure in those at intermediate (stage T2b disease or PSA greater than 10 to 20 ng./ml. or less, or Gleason score 7) and high (stage T2c disease, or PSA greater than 20 ng./ml. or Gleason score 8 or greater) risk was 3.8 (95% CI 2.6 to 5.7) and 9.6 (95% CI 6.6 to 13.9) in the study cohort, and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.8) and 6.3 (95% CI 4.3 to 9.4) in the validation cohort. The 10-year PSA failure-free survival rate in the 1,020 patients in the low, 693 in the intermediate and 414 in the high risk groups was 83%, 46% and 29%, respectively (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 10-year actuarial estimates of PSA outcome after radical prostatectomy 3 groups of patients were identified using preoperative PSA, biopsy Gleason score and 1992 clinical T category.