Feasibility of Radical Prostatectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy for Patients With High Risk or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase I/II Study

Clinicopathological Significances of Positive Surgical Resection Margin after Radical Prostatectomy for Prostatic Cancers: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: This study aims to elucidate the positive rate and the clinicopathological significance of surgical margin after radical prostatectomy (RP) through a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis finally used 59 studies, including the information about the positive surgical margin (PSM) and those clinicopathological significances after RP. The subgroup analysis for the estimated rates of PSM was evaluated based on types of surgery, grade groups, and pathological tumor (pT) stages. We compared the clinicopathological correlations between positive and negative surgical margins (NSM). Results: The estimated PSM rate was 25.3% after RP (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.9-29.0%). The PSM rates were 26.0% (95% CI 21.5-31.1%) 28.0% (95% CI 20.2-37.5%) in robot-assisted RP and nerve-sparing RP, respectively. The PSM rate was significantly higher in high-grade groups than in low-grade groups. In addition, the higher pT stage subgroup had a high PSM rate compared to the lower pT stage subgroups. Patients with PSM showed significantly high PSA levels, frequent lymphovascular invasion, lymph node metastasis, and extraprostatic extension. Biochemical recurrences (BCRs) were 28.5% (95% CI 21.4-36.9%) and 11.8% (95% CI 8.1-16.9%) in PSM and NSM subgroups, respectively. Patients with PSM showed worse BCR-free survival than those with NSM (hazard ratio 2.368, 95% CI 2.043-2.744%). Conclusions: Our results showed that PSM was significantly correlated with worse clinicopathological characteristics and biochemical recurrence-free survival. Among the results in preoperative evaluations, grade group and tumor stage are useful for the prediction of PSM.

A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We provide a systematic analysis of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) to assess and summarize the risks and benefits of NSS in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have undertaken a systematic search of original articles using 3 databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Original articles in English containing outcomes of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk PCa were included. The primary outcomes were oncological results: the rate of positive surgical margins and biochemical relapse. The secondary outcomes were functional results: erectile function (EF) and urinary continence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The rate of positive surgical margins differed considerably, from zero to 47%. The majority of authors found no correlation between NSS and a positive surgical margin rate. The rate of biochemical relapse ranged from 9.3% to 61%. Most of the articles lacked data on odds ratio (OR) for positive margin and biochemical relapse. The presented results showed no effect of nerve sparing (NS) on positive margin (OR=0.81, 0.6-1.09) or biochemical relapse (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 0.52-1.64). A strong association between NSS and potency rate was observed. Without NSS, between 0% and 42% of patients were potent, with unilateral 79-80%, with bilateral - up to 90-100%. Urinary continence was not strongly associated with NSS and was relatively good in both patients with and without NSS.

CONCLUSIONS

NSS may provide benefits for patients with urinary continence and significantly improves EF in high-risk patients. Moreover, it is not associated with an increased risk of relapse in short- and middle-term follow-up. However, the advantages of using such a surgical technique are unclear.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

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

The addition of chemotherapy in the definitive management of high risk prostate cancer

In attempt to improve long-term disease control outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer, numerous clinical trials have tested the addition of chemotherapy (CTX)-either adjuvant or neoadjuvant-to definitive local therapy, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT). Neoadjuvant trials generally confirm safety, feasibility, and pre-RP PSA reduction, but rates of pathologic complete response are rare, and no indications for neoadjuvant CTX have been firmly established. Adjuvant regimens have included CTX alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Here we provide a review of the relevant literature, and also quantify utilization of CTX in the definitive management of localized high-risk prostate cancer by querying the National Cancer Data Base. Between 2004 and 2013, 177 patients (of 29,659 total) treated with definitive RT, and 995 (of 367,570 total) treated with RP had CTX incorporated into their treatment regimens. Low numbers of RT + CTX patients precluded further analysis of this population, but we investigated the impact of CTX on overall survival (OS) for patients treated with RP +/- CTX. Disease-free survival or biochemical-recurrence-free survival are not available through the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity-score matching was conducted as patients treated with CTX were a higher-risk group. For nonmatched groups, OS at 5-years was 89.6% for the CTX group vs. 95.6%, for the no-CTX group (P < 0.01). The difference in OS between CTX and no-CTX groups did not persist after propensity-score matching, with 5-year OS 89.6% vs. 90.9%, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.99; P = 0.88). In summary, CTX was not shown to improve OS in this retrospective study. Multimodal regimens-such as RP followed by ADT, RT, and CTX; or RT in conjunction with ADT followed by CTX-have shown promise, but long-term follow-up of randomized data is required.

Role of chemotherapy in prostate cancer

Chemotherapy in prostate cancer (PCa) has undergone dramatic landscape changes. While earlier studies utilized varying chemotherapy regimens which were found to be largely palliative in nature and hardly resulted in durable or meaningful responses, docetaxel resulted in the first chemotherapy agent that showed improvement in overall survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, combination chemotherapy or any agents added to docetaxel have failed to yield incremental benefits. The improvement in overall survival as well as secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and time to recurrence when using docetaxel in the metastatic hormone-sensitive state has changed the standard of care for treatment of newly diagnosed de novo metastatic PCa. There are also promising results in locally advanced PCa and high-risk PCa in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. This review summarizes the historical as well as the more contemporary use of chemotherapeutic agents in PCa in varying states and phases of disease.

Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Localized or Node-Positive Prostate Cancer: Removing the Primary

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the literature to determine what role, if any, radical prostatectomy should play in the treatment of high-risk and/or node-positive prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The AUA, NCCN, and EAU all include radical prostatectomy as a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer based on evidence that has shown improvements in biochemical-free and disease-specific survival. Lymph node-positive patients may also derive benefit from radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection, however, only retrospective studies with high risk of selection bias have been published to date. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease representing a wide range of disease characteristics. Radical surgery, historically avoided in such patients, may now be considered a valid treatment option for select cases. The adverse effects of surgery using modern techniques lead to similar quality of life outcomes as radiation therapy, and treatment of the primary tumor is likely beneficial when compared to ADT alone.

Integrating chemohormonal therapy and surgery in known or suspected lymph node metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer persisting in the primary site after systemic therapy may contribute to emergence of resistance and progression. We previously demonstrated molecular characteristics of lethal cancer in the prostatectomy specimens of patients presenting with lymph node metastasis after chemohormonal treatment. Here we report the post-treatment outcomes of these patients and assess whether a link exists between surgery and treatment-free/cancer-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with either clinically detected lymph node metastasis or primaries at high risk for nodal dissemination were treated with androgen ablation and docetaxel. Those responding with PSA concentration <1 ng ml(-1) were recommended surgery 1 year from enrollment. ADT was withheld postoperatively. The rate of survival without biochemical progression 1 year after surgery was measured to screen for efficacy.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled and 39 were evaluable. Three patients (7.7%) declined surgery. Of the remaining 36, 4 patients experienced disease progression during treatment and 4 more did not reach PSA <1. Twenty-six patients (67%) completed surgery, and 13 (33%) were also progression-free 1 year postoperatively (8 with undetectable PSA). With a median follow-up of 61 months, time to treatment failure was 27 months in the patients undergoing surgery. The most frequent patterns of first disease recurrence were biochemical (10 patients) and systemic (5).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the patients undergoing surgery were off treatment and progression-free 1 year following completion of all therapy. These results suggest that integration of surgery is feasible and may be superior to systemic therapy alone for selected prostate cancer patients presenting with nodal metastasis.

Long-term oncological outcomes of a phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localised, high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) after neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) for clinically localised, high-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this phase II multicentre trial of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PSA level >20 ng/mL, Gleason ≥8, or clinical stage ≥T3), androgen-deprivation therapy (goserelin acetate depot) and paclitaxel, carboplatin and estramustine were administered before RP. We report the long-term oncological outcomes of these patients and compared them to a contemporary cohort who met oncological inclusion criteria but received RP only.

RESULTS

In all, 34 patients were enrolled and followed for a median of 13.1 years. Within 10 years most patients had biochemical recurrence (BCR-free probability 22%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-37%). However, the probability of disease-specific survival at 10 years was 84% (95% CI 66-93%) and overall survival was 78% (95% CI 60-89%). The CHT group had higher-risk features than the comparison group (123 patients), with an almost doubled risk of calculated preoperative 5-year BCR (69% vs 36%, P < 0.01). After adjusting for these imbalances the CHT group had trends toward improvement in BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.43-1.34; P = 0.3) and metastasis-free survival (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.24-1.29; P = 0.2) although these were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP was associated with lower rates of BCR and metastasis compared with the RP-only group; however, these results were not statistically significant. Because this treatment strategy has known harms and unproven benefit, this strategy should only be instituted in the setting of a clinical trial.

Chemotherapy and novel therapeutics before radical prostatectomy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer

Although both surgery and radiation are potential curative options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, a significant proportion of men with high-risk and locally advanced disease will demonstrate biochemical and potentially clinical progression of their disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy before radical prostatectomy (RP) is a logical strategy to improve treatment outcomes for men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. Furthermore, delivery of chemotherapy and other systemic agents before RP affords an opportunity to explore the efficacy of these agents with pathologic end points. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel (with or without androgen deprivation therapy), has demonstrated feasibility and safety in men undergoing RP, but no study to date has established the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapies. Other novel agents, such as those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, clusterin, and immunomodulatory therapeutics, are currently under investigation.

Evolving treatment paradigms for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer

While men with early stage prostate cancer typically enjoy long-term survival after definitive management, for those who present with locally advanced or metastatic disease, survival is compromised. Multimodality therapy can prolong survival in these patients, with state-of-the-art options including intensity-modulated radiation or brachytherapy in conjunction with androgen ablation, adjuvant androgen ablation and/or chemotherapy with radical retropubic prostatectomy. In addition, novel biological therapies are being explored to target the unique molecular changes in prostate cancer cells and their interactions with the microenvironment. With these advances the outlook will undoubtedly improve, even for patients presenting with advanced disease. Careful application of these emerging therapies to a select group of prostate cancer patients most likely to obtain benefit from them is the challenge for urologists, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists for the future.

Rationale for and review of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer

Despite state of the art local therapy, a significant portion of men with high-risk prostate cancer develop progressive disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) is an approach that can potentially maximize survival outcomes in patients with localized disease. This approach is under investigation with a wide array of agents and provides an opportunity to assess pathologic and biologic activity of novel treatments. The aim of this review is to explore the past and present role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to definitive therapy with RP in patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced disease. The results of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), including use of newer agents such as abiraterone, are promising. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel, with or without ADT has also demonstrated efficacy in men with high-risk disease. Other novel agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), clusterin, and the immune system are currently under investigation and have led to variable results in early clinical trials. Despite optimistic data, approval of neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP in patients with high-risk prostate cancer will depend on positive results from well designed phase III trials.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy prior to Radical Prostatectomy for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

High-risk prostate cancer represents a pretentious clinical problem since a significant number of its patients will relapse and progress after radical prostatectomy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be valuable since its efficacy in hormone-resistant prostate cancer has been established. In this paper, we report studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapies that have been used in high-risk patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Even though the results regarding the prognostic surrogates are not significant, the effects on clinical and pathological outcomes are promising, while toxicity in most of the studies is in the expected field.

A systematic review of the role of adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmacotherapy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Between 25 and 30% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer are classified as high risk for an adverse prognosis. A significant number of these will progress to biochemical or clinical relapse. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of these cases, a multimodal therapeutic approach, including radical prostatectomy, remains an option.

AREAS COVERED

The Pubmed/Medline database was searched to identify trials that have evaluated adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmaceutical protocols combined with radical prostatectomy and provided information regarding efficacy and safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Improvements in adverse pathological findings, following operations in patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, have been reported in the majority of the reviewed studies. Furthermore, the addition of pharmacotherapy to radical prostatectomy has produced beneficial results in survival surrogates. However, no benefits in overall survival were observed with adjuvant or neoadjuvant protocols and toxicity was a concern, especially in combination regimens. New studies on the effects of current pharmacotherapy and of new agents on overall survival and quality of life, after defining well-established criteria for patient stratification and inclusion, are required urgently.

The role of surgery in high-risk localised prostate cancer

• The optimal management of high-risk localised prostate cancer is a major challenge for urologists and oncologists. It is clear that multimodal therapy including radical local treatment is needed in these men to achieve the best outcomes. • External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an essential component of therapy either as a primary or adjuvant treatment. However, the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) is more controversial. Both methods are currently valid therapy options. • There have been many individual studies of EBRT and RP in high-risk disease, but no good quality large prospective randomized trials. • In EBRT, combination with neoadjuvant plus long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been conclusively shown to improve outcomes and is widely considered the standard of care. • However, the role of RP has achieved recent prominence with several important studies. Published data from prospective randomized trials in patients after RP have shown that in men with adverse pathological features at surgery, the addition of adjuvant RT improves biochemical-free and progression-free survival. • More recently, studies from large-volume centres comparing EBRT and RP have provided intriguing suggestions of better outcomes with RP as the primary treatment. • An important question therefore, is which of the two methods provides the best outcome in men with localised high-risk disease. Crucially, does the combination of RP and selective adjuvant EBRT provide clinically significant better outcomes compared with EBRT alone? • In this review we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP for high-risk localised prostate cancer and define the parameters and urgent need for a prospective trial to test the role of surgery for this group of patients.

Contemporary management of high-risk localized prostate cancer

The management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer remains a formidable challenge despite significant technical advances in surgery and radiation therapy. Treatment outcomes of radiation therapy are improved by the addition of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy, whereas, with surgery, oncologic results are enhanced with either postoperative radiation therapy or androgen deprivation therapy in select cases. In high-risk prostate cancer, disease recurrence after primary therapy may occur at either distant or local sites. Ongoing studies are in the process of evaluating systemic therapy for the eradication of local and micrometastatic disease. Neoadjuvant therapies offer the opportunity to maximize local control as a path to improved outcomes and critically evaluate agent effectiveness in the target tissue. The treatment for high-risk localized prostate cancer is in evolution. It is likely that the development of effective strategies based on understanding prostate tumor biology will lead to significant advances in the treatment of this disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy preceding prostatectomy for prostate cancer: rationale and current trials

Neoadjuvant therapy improves outcomes for a number of malignancies and provides intermediate pathologic outcomes, which correlate with long-term outcomes. Neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, alone or with docetaxel chemotherapy, preceding prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer is feasible and demonstrates pathologic activity, but evidence for improved long-term outcomes is lacking. Data in support of the further exploration of neoadjuvant therapy for localized prostate cancer preceding prostatectomy are reviewed. Ongoing randomized trials are elucidating the impact of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined with docetaxel chemotherapy on pathologic and long-term outcomes. The correlation of pathologic and biologic outcomes with long-term outcomes in this setting is unknown. The neoadjuvant therapy approach followed by prostatectomy is feasible with a wide array of agents and provides a paradigm for evaluating the activity, and mechanism of action and resistance to new treatments. This promising modality may aid the rapid development of novel therapeutic agents. A multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, urologists and pathologists is critical to the success of this model.

Phase 1/2 study of preoperative docetaxel and mitoxantrone for high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

: A study was conducted to determine the 5-year recurrence-free survival in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy followed by surgery. Secondary endpoints included safety, pathologic effects of chemotherapy, and predictors of disease recurrence.

METHODS

: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in a phase 1/2 study of weekly docetaxel 35 mg/m(2) and escalating mitoxantrone to 4 mg/m(2) before prostatectomy. Patients were treated with 16 weeks of chemotherapy administered weekly on a 3 of every 4 week schedule. A tissue microarray, constructed from the prostatectomy specimens, served to facilitate the exploratory evaluation of biomarkers. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Disease recurrence was defined as a confirmed serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >0.4 ng/mL.

RESULTS

: Of the 57 patients, 54 received 4 cycles of docetaxel and mitoxantrone before radical prostatectomy. Grade 4 toxicities were limited to leukopenia, neutropenia, and hyperglycemia. Serum testosterone levels remained stable after chemotherapy. Negative surgical margins were attained in 67% of cases. Lymph node involvement was detected in 18.5% of cases. With a median follow-up of 63 months, 27 of 57 (47.4%) patients recurred. The Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival at 2 years was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.0%-78.0%) and was 49.8% at 5 years (95% CI, 35.5%-64.1%). Pretreatment serum PSA, lymph node involvement, and postchemotherapy tissue vascular endothelial growth factor expression were independent predictors of early recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

: Preoperative chemotherapy with docetaxel and mitoxantrone is feasible. Approximately half of the high-risk patients remain free of disease recurrence at 5 years, and clinical and molecular predictors of early recurrence were identified. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Neoadjuvant docetaxel/estramustine prior to radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy in high risk localized prostate cancer: a phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with locally advanced or organ confined, high risk, prostate cancer are at significant risk of having disease recurrence despite definitive local therapy. We evaluated the 2-year progression-free survival of subjects treated with chemotherapy administered prior to definitive therapy with surgery or radiation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 24) with locally advanced and high risk localized prostate cancer were treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel 36 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 weeks and estramustine 140 mg orally 3 times daily for 3 consecutive days every 28 days prior to definitive treatment with prostatectomy or radiation.

RESULTS

All evaluable patients, except 1, completed the proposed cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with minimal dose reductions or delays. Of the 22 evaluable patients, 12 underwent radical prostatectomy and 10 underwent external beam radiation therapy. Twenty-one of 22 patients achieved a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction > 25%. There were no pathologic complete responses. With a median follow-up of 24 months, the 2-year progression-free survival was 45%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with men with high risk, locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma, although the relative contributions of androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel cannot be determined. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in preventing prostate cancer relapses should be studied in a randomized trial.

The multi-disciplinary management of high-risk prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Such men can experience a continuum of disease presentations from indolent to highly aggressive. For physicians who care for these men, a significant challenge has been and continues to be identifying and treating those men with localized cancer who are at a higher risk of dying from their disease. We discuss the risk stratification of patients in order to better identify those patients at higher risk of progression. A comprehensive review of the literature was then performed reviewing the roles of surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and chemotherapy, as well as combinations of these modalities, in treating these challenging patients. An integrated approach combining local and systemic therapies can be beneficial in the management of high-risk localized prostate cancer. The choice of therapy or combination of therapies is dependant upon many considerations, including patient preference and quality of life aspects. It is becoming clearer that the addition of hormonal therapies or chemotherapies to established therapies, such as radiotherapy or surgery, will have significant benefits. As evidence accumulates regarding the efficacy of these new regimens, our hope is that the challenge of optimizing the management of high-risk prostate cancer will be delivered. However, many important questions remain unresolved regarding the optimal type, combination, timing of therapy, and duration of therapy. Such questions will only be answered with large, well-designed prospective clinical trials.

Intraoperative radiotherapy during radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer: technical and dosimetric aspects

PURPOSE

To analyze the feasibility of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and candidates for radical prostatectomy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 38 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were enrolled. No patients had evidence of lymph node or distant metastases, probability of organ-confined disease >25%, or risk of lymph node involvement >15% according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram. The IORT was delivered after exposure of the prostate by a dedicated linear accelerator with beveled collimators using electrons of 9 to 12 MeV to a total dose of 10-12 Gy. Rectal dose was measured in vivo by radiochromic films placed on a rectal probe. Adminstration of IORT was followed by completion of radical prostatectomy and regional lymph node dissection. All cases with extracapsular extension and/or positive margins were scheduled for postoperative radiotherapy. Patients with pT3 to pT4 disease or positive nodes received adjuvant hormonal therapy.

RESULTS

Mean dose detected by radiochromic films was 3.9 Gy (range, 0.4-8.9 Gy) to the anterior rectal wall. The IORT procedure lasted 31 min on average (range, 15-45 min). No major intra- or postoperative complications occurred. Minor complications were observed in 10/33 (30%) of cases. Of the 27/31 patients who completed the postoperative external beam radiotherapy, 3/27 experienced Grade 2 rectal toxicity and 1/27 experienced Grade 2 urinary toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of IORT during radical prostatectomy is feasible and allows safe delivery of postoperative external beam radiotherapy to the tumor bed without relevant acute rectal toxicity.

Does chemotherapy have a role before hormone-resistant disease develops?

Recent studies have demonstrated a survival benefit for chemotherapy in metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer. In other malignancies such as breast or colorectal cancer, use of active chemotherapy regimens earlier in the course of the disease has resulted in improvements in disease-free and overall survival. This review discusses the status of chemotherapy in prostate cancer and addresses evidence regarding the use of chemotherapy in hormone-sensitive disease, alone and in combination with androgen deprivation therapy.

Role of radical prostatectomy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer

Controversy remains regarding the preferred therapy for high-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. High-risk prostate cancer represents a diverse disease entity for which accurate risk assessment is critical to informed counseling and clinical decision making. For men with high-risk features, electing surgery as a local definitive therapy should be based on the best available evidence rather than a surgeon's bias and experience. Patients classified with high-risk prostate cancer by common definitions do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Many cancers that are clinically categorized as high risk are actually pathologically confined to the prostate, and most of these men do not require additional long-term therapy after surgery. For some high-risk patients, an integrated approach combining local and systemic therapy may be advantageous. Available studies using adjuvant and neoadjuvant strategies have their individual strengths and weaknesses; unfortunately, none has provided persuasive evidence to dictate the standard of care in the high-risk setting. Therefore, results are eagerly anticipated from ongoing randomized trials exploring the merits of perioperative chemohormonal therapy in high-risk patients. This review discusses current limitations and challenges in accurately identifying high-risk patients and focuses on radical prostatectomy alone or as part of multimodal therapy for men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant platelet derived growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy combined with docetaxel and androgen ablation for high risk localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Platelet derived growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy improves the efficacy of taxane chemotherapy in preclinical models of prostate cancer. Men with high risk localized prostate cancer were treated with platelet derived growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy, docetaxel and hormone ablation in the preoperative setting, and clinicopathological outcomes were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 36 men with cT2 or greater disease, Gleason grade 8-10, serum prostate specific antigen more than 20 ng/ml or cT2b and prostate specific antigen more than 10 ng/ml and Gleason 7 disease, without radiological evidence of metastases, were scheduled to receive intramuscular leuprolide, 600 mg daily oral imatinib and 30 mg/m(2) weekly docetaxel x 4 every 42 days for 3 cycles before radical prostatectomy (beta [0.02, 1.98] prior on the possibility of pathological complete remission). Unresectable disease, postoperative prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/ml or greater, or administration of postoperative radiation or hormones were defined as treatment failure.

RESULTS

A total of 39 men were registered over 15 months. Median patient age was 57 years (range 44 to 71). Risk factors included T3 disease (22 of 39), Gleason 8-10 disease (31 of 39) and prostate specific antigen more than 20 ng/ml (12 of 39). Three men were ineligible or declined therapy, 29 of 36 (81%) received 3 cycles of therapy and 7 of 36 (19%) discontinued therapy related to toxicity. Grades 3-4 toxicity included rash (4), diarrhea (4), fatigue (6) and neutropenia (1). The surgical approach was feasible, without excessive or unusual complications such as wound dehiscence. No pathological complete remissions were defined. At a median followup of 39 months 53% were free from progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for a favorable impact of platelet derived growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy on the efficacy of neoadjuvant docetaxel and hormonal ablation in high risk localized prostate cancer was not obtained.

Surgical management of high risk prostate cancer: the Mayo Clinic experience

Although the prostate specific antigen (PSA) era has altered the clinical and demographic characteristics of men with newly-diagnosed prostate cancer, the impact on patients with high risk disease has been less predictable. We have long advocated aggressive surgical resection for patients with high risk prostate cancer at the Mayo Clinic, including patients with clinical T3 tumors, and have reported our results as well of radical prostatectomy with adjuvant hormonal therapy in the setting of lymph node positive disease. At the same time, multiple predictive models have been developed to assess the risk of disease progression following definitive therapy for prostate cancer. One such model is pretreatment risk group stratification, based on patients' PSA at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical stage. Here, we will review our institution's experience with surgical treatment for men with high risk prostate cancer, and will address the benefits and potential pitfalls of the pretreatment risk group classification model for high risk patients.

Update in systemic therapy of prostate cancer: improvement in quality and duration of life

Overall survival benefit with a docetaxel and prednisone regimen in metastatic androgen-independent prostate cancer marked a major advance in the management of prostate cancer. Immunotherapy, antiangiogenic therapies and targeted agents are areas of active research interest. Simultaneous progress in palliative and supportive care has enabled us to improve the quality of life of advanced prostate cancer patients. Multiple predictors of outcome have been reported, and systemic therapy is being actively explored in localized disease. This review attempts to summarize the risk profiling strategy in prostate cancer and the existing therapies in high-risk prostate cancer, including some of the novel agents under investigation.

Effect of neoadjuvant epirubicin and total androgen blockade on complete pathological response in patients with clinical stage T3/T4 prostate cancer

AIMS

Most patients with stage T3-T4 prostate cancer experience disease relapse despite radiation and/or hormonal therapy, and their management remains controversial. We investigated the feasibility of, and the pathological response induced by neoadjuvant chemo-hormonal treatment in men with clinical stage T3/T4.

METHODS

Fifteen patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy consisting of weekly intravenous infusions of epirubicin 30mg/m(2) and total androgen blockade (TAB) for three months before undergoing radical prostatectomy, after which all received locoregional conformal radiotherapy (66Gy) and then continued with TAB and three additional months of epirubicin.

RESULTS

After neoadjuvant therapy, PSA levels decreased in all 15 patients and became undetectable in two. None of the patients achieved a complete pathological response, but a 35-75% reduction in tumour size was observed in all cases, and all the patients were able to undergo successful prostatectomy. Pathological assessments of the surgical specimens revealed negative margins in 13 patients. After a median follow-up of 34 months (range 11-62), 14 patients (93%) are still clinically and biochemically disease free. No grade 3 or 4 complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that neoadjuvant treatment with epirubicin and TAB is feasible and well tolerated in patients with clinical stage T3-T4 prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer

The results of this assessment of the literature indicated that neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy may improve long-term outcomes for patients with high-risk localized disease. In addition, this approach provides a paradigm for evaluating the activity and mechanism of action of new agents as correlative studies are facilitated by the availability of tumor tissue before and after therapy. The authors determined that a multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, urologists, and pathologists is critical to the success of this model. Recent and ongoing studies of neoadjuvant therapy followed by prostatectomy were reviewed.

Androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer and the risk of cardiovascular mortality

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use is associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes in patients treated for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

From the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database, data on 3262 patients treated with radical prostatectomy and 1630 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer were included in this analysis. Competing risks regression analyses were performed to assess whether use of ADT was associated with a shorter time to death from cardiovascular causes after controlling for age (as a continuous variable) and the presence of baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. All tests for statistical significance were two-sided.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 3.8 years (range = 0.1-11.3 years). Among the 1015 patients who received ADT, the median duration of ADT use was 4.1 months (range = 1.0-32.9 months). In a competing risks regression analysis that controlled for age and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, both ADT use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 4.7; P = .002) and age (adjusted HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.1; P = .003) were associated with statistically significantly increased risks of death from cardiovascular causes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Among patients 65 years or older treated with radical prostatectomy, the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% (95% CI = 1.2% to 9.8%) in those who received ADT and 2.0% (95% CI = 1.1% to 3.0%) in those who did not. Among patients 65 years or older treated with external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy, ADT use was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ADT appears to be associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

Effects of sustained antiangiogenic therapy in multistage prostate cancer in TRAMP model

Antiangiogenic therapy is a promising alternative for prostate cancer growth and metastasis and holds great promise as an adjuvant therapy. The present study evaluated the potential of stable expression of angiostatin and endostatin before the onset of neoplasia and during the early and late stages of prostate cancer progression in transgenic adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate (TRAMP) mice. Groups of 5-, 10-, and 18-week-old male TRAMP mice received recombinant adeno-associated virus-6 encoding mouse endostatin plus angiostatin (E+A) by i.m. injection. The effects of therapy were determined by sacrificing groups of treated mice at defined stages of tumor progression and following cohorts of similarly treated mice for long-term survival. Results indicated remarkable survival after recombinant adeno-associated virus-(E+A) therapy only when the treatment was given at an earlier time, before the onset of high-grade neoplasia, compared with treatment given for invasive cancer. Interestingly, early-stage antiangiogenic therapy arrested the progression of moderately differentiated carcinoma to poorly differentiated state and distant metastasis. Immunohistochemical analysis of the prostate from treated mice indicated significantly lower endothelial cell proliferation and increased tumor cell apoptosis. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2 expression was significantly down-regulated in tumor endothelium after treatment but not VEGFR-1. Analysis of the neuroendocrine marker synaptophysin expression indicated that antiangiogenic therapy given at an early-stage disease reduced neuroendocrine transition of the epithelial tumors. These studies indicate that stable endostatin and angiostatin gene therapy may be more effective for minimally invasive tumors rather than advanced-stage disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy and prostate cancer: what a urologist should know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer is curable only when treated at an early stage, when the tumor is still localized to the prostate gland. However, even in apparent cases of clinically localized disease, unsuspected extracapsular disease may significantly increase the risk of primary treatment failure. This risk is especially high if the patient has one or more of the following risk factors: a serum prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/ml, a Gleason score >7, locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3/T4), and extensive disease on prostate biopsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various regimens of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and/or chemotherapy have produced mixed results and generally have not influenced the rate of disease relapse (defined by prostate-specific antigen level) in high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition, antiangiogenic agents, gene therapy, molecular targeting agents, and other promising new therapies have been investigated in a neoadjuvant setting with limited results.

SUMMARY

Despite considerable advances, high-risk localized prostate cancer remains an extremely refractory disease. In patients with high-risk prostate cancer, single-modality treatment in the form of surgery offers a 5-year biochemical disease-free survival rate of no better than 50%. To further elucidate optimal treatment regimens for these patients we must actively enrol patients in clinical trials.

Is Radical Prostatectomy Feasible in All Cases of Locally Advanced Non-Bone Metastatic Prostate Cancer? Results of a Single-Institution Study

OBJECTIVES

Previous prospective studies of the surgical treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer have enrolled patients selected on the basis of a limited T3 disease extension. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility and the oncologic outcome of radical prostatectomy administered to a consecutive unselected series of advanced, non-bone metastatic prostate cancers.

METHODS

Between March 1998 and February 2003 radical prostatectomy was offered at our institution to any patient diagnosed with prostate cancer with no sign of extranodal metastatic disease. Data on morbidity and survival for 51 clinically advanced cases (any T>/=3, N0-N1, or any N1 or M1a disease according to the TNM 2002 classification system) operated on by a single expert surgeon were compared with a series of 152 radical prostatectomies performed during the same period by the same operator for clinically organ-confined disease. Adjuvant treatment was administered according to current guidelines.

RESULTS

The two groups did not differ significantly in surgical morbidity except for blood transfusion, operative time, and lymphoceles, which showed a higher rate in patients with advanced disease. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival at 7 yr were 76.69% and 90.2% in the advanced disease group and 88.4% and 99.3% in the organ-confined disease group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the scenario of extensive surgical indications up to M1a disease, radical prostatectomy proved to be technically feasible and to have an acceptable morbidity rate compared with organ-confined disease. Our initial survival data strengthen the role for surgery as an essential part in the multimodal approach to treating advanced prostate cancer.

Long-term follow-up of a neoadjuvant chemohormonal taxane-based phase II trial before radical prostatectomy in patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and activity of a neoadjuvant treatment combining a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-analogue, estramustine and docetaxel before radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

High-risk patients were defined as clinical stage > or =T3 and/or a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of > or =15 ng/mL, and/or biopsy a Gleason sum of > or =8. Patients received LHRH analogue treatment until the PSA nadir (a stable PSA level for two consecutive determinations) and then, continuing hormone therapy, a combined regimen of estramustine and docetaxel. Patients had RRP within a month of completing the neoadjuvant regimen. All patients were assessed for toxicity and surgical complications. A clinical response was defined as complete (CR, the disappearance of all palpable and radiological abnormalities and a decline in PSA level of > or =90%) or partial (PR, a decline in PSA level of half or more with stable or improved palpable and/or radiological abnormalities). A pathological response was defined as 'complete' (undetectable cancer), 'substantial' (residual cancer in < or =10% of the surgical specimen) or 'minimal' (residual cancer in >10% of the surgical specimen). The biomarkers p53, bcl-2, MIB1, erbB2 and factor VIII were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 22 patients enrolled between March 1999 and January 2002, 21 (mean age 63 years; mean PSA level 61 ng/mL; median biopsy Gleason sum 8) completed the neoadjuvant therapy. The clinical stage was organ-confined in three patients (15%); five (25%) had pelvic lymphadenopathy on computed tomography. The neoadjuvant treatment was well tolerated, with only one grade 2 toxicity (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group grading). All PSA values decreased by >90% from baseline after hormonal therapy only, and the mean reduction from before to after chemotherapy was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Three patients (15%) had a CR, 16 (80%) had a PR and one (5%), with sarcomatoid tumour, had progression; 19 had non-nerve-sparing RRP and there were no major complications during or after RRP. The pathological assessment showed that one patient (5%) had no tumour (pT0) and six (32%) had a 'substantial' response. The overall rate of organ-confined disease was 58%, vs a mean 8% predicted likelihood from the Kattan nomogram. Five patients (26%) had positive surgical margins and four (21%) had positive lymph nodes. At a median follow-up of 53 months, eight patients (42%) were disease-free. Organ-confined disease (P = 0.022), residual cancer at pathology in < or =10% of the surgical specimen (P = 0.007) and no seminal vesicle invasion (P = 0.001) correlated with disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

A neoadjuvant chemohormonal regimen before RRP is feasible and active in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The rate of pathological organ-confined disease was higher than expected and responding patients had an 85% disease-free survival rate at 5 years.

A randomized comparative study of endocrine monotherapy and a combination of estramustine phosphate with the endocrine therapy in patients with untreated stage D prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We investigated the clinical efficacy and the prolongation of survival with combination therapy of estramustine phosphate (EMP) and endocrine therapy in untreated patients with progressive prostate cancer.

METHODS

We randomly divided 57 patients with untreated stage D prostate cancer into two groups, an endocrine monotherapy group and a group receiving combination treatment, consisting of endocrine therapy plus EMP. Treatment was continued until deterioration.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the improvement rating for subjective/objective symptoms or in progression-free survival between the two groups. However, overall survival was significantly prolonged in the combination therapy group (log-rank test, P = 0.0394; generalized Wilcoxon's test, P = 0.0145). In particular, overall survival was significantly prolonged, compared to that in the endocrine monotherapy group, in patients in the combination therapy group who were less than 74 years old, those with a performance status (PS) of 1 to 3, a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of more than 20 ng/ml, moderately or poorly differentiated carcinoma, or a partial response (PR) based on the PSA level 12 weeks after the start of treatment. There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects between the combination therapy and the endocrine monotherapy groups.

CONCLUSION

A combination of EMP with endocrine therapy may be useful for initial treatment in younger patients (aged 73 or younger) and in patients at high risk of progressive prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy: Where have we been? Where are we going?

Prostate cancer is curable only when treated at an early stage, when the tumor is still localized to the prostate gland. However, even in apparent cases of clinically localized disease, unsuspected extracapsular disease may significantly increase the risk of primary treatment failure. This risk is especially high if the patient has > or =1 of the following risk factors: a serum prostate-specific antigen level of >20 ng/ml, a Gleason score of >7, locally advanced disease (clinical stage T3/T4), and extensive disease on prostate biopsy. Various regimens of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, or both have produced mixed results and, in general, have not significantly influenced the rate of disease relapse (as defined by prostate-specific antigen level) in high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition, anti-angiogenic agents, gene therapy, molecular targeting agents, and other promising new therapies have been investigated in a neoadjuvant setting with limited results. Therefore, this patient population continues to pose a therapeutic dilemma for physicians.

Current Indications for Chemotherapy in Prostate Cancer Patients

Recently, data from two randomized studies, TAX327 and SWOG 9916, which compared docetaxel-based chemotherapy to mitoxantrone-based therapy, have demonstrated that treatment with docetaxel can prolong life in a statistically significant way in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). In the TAX237 trial the median overall survival rates for patients treated with docetaxel every 3 wk was 18.9 mo, compared with 16.4 mo for the patients in the control arm (p=0.009). Patients treated with the combination of docetaxel and estramustine in the SWOG trial had a significant improvement in median survival (18 mo vs 16 mo, p=0.01), longer progression-free survival (6 mo compared with 3 mo, p<0.0001), and a 20% reduction in the risk of death. The optimal timing of docetaxel-based chemotherapy is still unknown because there are no prospective clinical trials indicating whether earlier treatment is more effective than delayed treatment. There are now increasing options also for second-line therapies in the palliative treatment of HRPC, and ongoing studies on new drugs such as satraplatin and ixabepilone will define the role of these agents in this setting. Preliminary neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy studies in high-risk prostate cancer patients have demonstrated that these approaches are feasible and do not add morbidity to surgery or radiotherapy, but their impact on survival still needs to be proven in randomized studies.

Comparing results after surgery in patients with clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results in patients with unilateral cT3 prostate cancer treated with or with no neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (nADT), as nADT might have benefit in cT2 prostate cancer, but for cT3 tumours its use remains controversial, and it is unclear whether it can prevent or delay progression after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 1987 and 2004, 235 patients were assessed as having unilateral cT3 disease by a digital rectal examination; before surgery, 200 patients were not treated with nADT and 35 were. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rates.

RESULTS

With no nADT the biochemical progression-free survival (PFS) was 59.5%, the clinical PFS was 95.9%, the cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 98.7%, and overall survival was 95.9% at 5 years. With nADT, the biochemical PFS was 43.4%, clinical PFS was 77.6%, CSS was 88.7%, and overall survival was 79.8% at 5 years. The positive surgical margin rate with no nADT and with nADT was 33.5% and 57.1%, respectively, and the respective mean cancer volume was 6.6 mL and 4.0 mL.

CONCLUSION

nADT can decrease tumour size but does not reduce the positive surgical margin rate, nor improve the survival rate in unilateral cT3a disease. Because of side-effects and treatment costs, we do not advise nADT in patients with unilateral cT3a prostate cancer.

Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We evaluated patients at our institution who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer to determine their long-term clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed our prospective surgical database and identified 176 men who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer from 1983 to 2003. Clinical and pathological data were reviewed and evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model to determine preoperative predictors of biochemical recurrence. Clinical progression following biochemical recurrence was evaluated and clinical failure was defined as the development of clinical metastases or progression to hormone refractory prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 176 patients with cT3 prostate cancer 64 (36%) received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. At a mean followup of 6.4 years 84 (48%) patients had disease recurrence with a median time to biochemical recurrence of 4.6 years. The actuarial 10-year probability of freedom from recurrence was 44%. On multivariate analysis biopsy Gleason score, pretreatment serum prostate specific antigen and year of surgery were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was not a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence. Following biochemical recurrence clinical failure developed in 30 of 84 (36%) men with a median time of 11 years. Overall the 5, 10 and 15-year probabilities of death from prostate cancer were 6%, 15% and 24%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half (52%) of our patients remained free of disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. In our series neoadjuvant hormonal therapy offered no advantage with respect to disease recurrence. Radical prostatectomy remains an integral component in the treatment of select patients with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer.