Partial gland ablation in the management of prostate cancer: a review

Radiation therapy and IRreversible electroporation for intermediate risk prostate cancer (RTIRE)

INTRODUCTION

Radiation Therapy and IRreversible Electroporation for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer (RTIRE) is a phase II clinical trial testing combination of radiation therapy and irreversible electroporation for intermediate risk prostate cancer BACKGROUND: PCa is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer death in men. PCa treatment is associated with long term side effects including urinary, sexual, and bowel dysfunction. Management of PCa is based on risk stratification to prevent its overtreatment and associated treatment-related toxicity. There is increasing interest in novel treatment strategies, such as focal therapy, to minimize treatment associated morbidity. Focal therapy alone has yet to be included in mainstream guidelines, given ongoing concerns with potentially higher risk of recurrence. We hypothesize combining focal therapy with whole gland, reduced dose radiotherapy will provide acceptable oncologic efficacy with minimal treatment associated morbidity. RTIRE is a phase II single institution, investigator-initiated study combining a local ablative technique though local irreversible electroporation (IRE) with MR guided RT (MRgRT) to treat the entire prostate. The goal is to provide excellent oncologic outcomes and minimize treatment related side effects through leveraging benefits of locally ablative therapy with established radiation treatment techniques.

METHODS

A total of 42 men with intermediate risk PCa per NCCN guidelines and focal grade group (GG) 2 or 3, Gleason Score (GS) 3 + 4 or GS 4 + 3, cancer in an MRI target will be enrolled. Patients with MRI visible foci of GG2/GG3 will undergo focal therapy with IRE of this lesion. Following successful focal therapy, patients will then undergo a course of reduced dose, whole gland MRgRT with either 32.5 Gy in 5 Fractions or 22 Gy in 2 fractions. The primary objective of the study is to determine safety. Secondary outcomes include evaluation of oncologic efficacy (as measured by the proportion of patients free of clinically significant cancer as defined as > Grade Group 1 at 1-year follow-up biopsy), imaging characteristics of patients pre and post RTIRE, impact on quality of life (QoL), and PSA kinetics.

DISCUSSION

Combining IRE with a reduced dose radiotherapy may offer a new treatment paradigm for PCa by both reducing treatment effects of full dose radiotherapy and minimizing the risk of recurrence observed with focal therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05345444. Date of registration: April 25, 2022.

PROTOCOL VERSION

6.0, July 7, 2023.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

BACKGROUND

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.

METHODS

Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Focal therapy, time to join the multi-disciplinary team discussion?

Organ preserving management is common place in renal cancer, breast cancer and many other solid organ tumours. Current strategies in managing intermediate risk prostate cancer include either whole gland treatment, in the form of radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, or active surveillance. The former is associated with significant post-treatment functional morbidity, whilst the latter associated with the burden of surveillance activity and patient anxiety. Focal therapy would logically fit as a middle ground for suitable patients in whom treatment would be recommended, but where much better functional outcomes may be possible. Ideally this comes without restricting the successful prevention of harm from the cancer. Historically limitations in developing tissue preserving focal therapy strategies in prostate cancer, were due to inaccuracies in tumour characterisation prior to treatment and during follow up. Consequently for example many patients undergoing an active surveillance strategy were being upgraded and upstaged within a short period. Recently high level evidence supporting the use of MRI and targeted biopsies, in particular the PROMIS and PRECISION trials have strengthened clinician confidence in accurate disease characterisation, thus making focal therapy to become a more feasible management option. With improved diagnostic strategies and the publication of reassuring medium term oncological and functional outcomes after focal therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer, has the time come to require consideration of focal therapy within our multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings and with patients? In this review we will consider patient selection and the evidence for the various focal ablation options as well as the surveillance of these patients after treatment. The forthcoming trials to determine comparative effectiveness will be discussed.

Histotripsy: The Next Generation of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Focal Prostate Cancer Therapy

This article reviews the most current methods and technological aspects of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), which is termed histotripsy. The rationale for focal therapy for prostate carcinoma rather than prostatectomy, which is being used extensively throughout Europe and Asia, is presented, and an argument for why HIFU is the modality of choice for primary therapy and recurrent disease is offered. The article presents a review of the technical advances including higher ultrasound beam energy than current thermal HIFU which allows for more accurate tissue targeting, less collateral tissue damage, and faster treatment times. Finally, the article presents a discussion about the advantage of ultrasound guidance for histotripsy in preference to magnetic resonance imaging guidance primarily based on cost, ease of application, and portability.

Prostate cancer treated with irreversible electroporation: MRI-based volumetric analysis and oncological outcome

BACKGROUND

To assess multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) characteristics in prostate cancer (PCa) before and after irreversible electroporation (IRE) and to investigate their correlation with the presence of post-operative recurrence of PCa.

METHODS

MpMRI was performed in 30 men with PCa prior to treatment, after 10 days and at 6 months. An additional scan at 1 year was available for 18 men. Two radiologists assessed retrospectively the following parameters by planimetry: tumour volume, necrotic volume (early post-treatment scan) and residual fibrosis. Residual tumour/recurrence were defined as a suspicious area within the treatment field scored ≥ 4 on a 1-to-5 scale. Oncological outcome was also assessed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up of the entire study was 16 months. Six men were undertreated and showed mpMRI recurrence after 6 months. At 1-year, three additional men had recurrence. Overall, four of these 9 men (44%) were retreated. The other five men did not receive any further treatment. Median time to re-treatment was 15 months. Median pre-treatment lesion volume was 0.65 cc, 0.66 cc and 0.43 cc on the different mpMRI sequences (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging). Median necrotic volume was 10.77 cc. Median overall residual fibrosis volumes were 0.84 cc and 0.95 cc at 6-month and 1-year mpMRI. Pre-treatment, necrotic and residual fibrosis volumes were significantly different (p < 0.001). Pre-treatment tumour volumes on diffusion-weighted imaging and necrotic volumes were correlated (r = 0.18; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

MpMRI is able to visualise the IRE ablation effects in men with PCa. MpMRI-derived parameters - such as tumour, necrotic and fibrosis volumes - can be measured and are potentially useful for assessing efficacy in the medium term, as with other ablative techniques.

miR-483-5p promotes prostate cancer cell proliferation and invasion by targeting RBM5

OBJECTIVE

miR-483-5p has been identified as a miRNA oncogene in certain cancers. However, its role in prostate cancer has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we investigated the role of miR-483-5p in prostate cancer and examined RBM5 regulation by miR-483-5p.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Expression levels of miR-483-5p were determined by quantitative real-time PCR. The effect of miR-483-5p on proliferation was evaluated by MTT assay, cell invasion was evaluated by trans-well invasion assays, and target protein expression was determined by western blotting in LNCaP, DU-145, and PC-3 cells. Luciferase reporter plasmids were constructed to confirm the action of miR-483-5p on downstream target gene RBM5 in HEK-293T cells.

RESULTS

we observed that miR-483-5p was upregulated in prostate cancer cell lines and tissues. A miR-483-5p inhibitor inhibited prostate cancer cell growth and invasion in DU-145 and PC-3 cells. miR-483-5p directly bound to the 3' untranslated region (3'UTR) of RBM5 in HEK-293T cells. RBM5 overexpression inhibited prostate cancer cell growth and invasion in LNCaP cells. Enforced RBM5 expression alleviated miR- 483-5p promotion of prostate cancer cell growth and invasion in LNCaP cells.

CONCLUSION

The present study describes a potential mechanism underlying a miR-483- 5p/RBM5 link that contributes to prostate cancer development.

MR Imaging-Guided Focal Treatment of Prostate Cancer: An Update

Focal treatment of prostate cancer has evolved from a concept to a practice in the recent few years and is projected to fill an existing need, bridging the gap between conservative and radical traditional treatment options. With its low morbidity and rapid recovery time compared with whole-gland treatment alternatives, focal therapy is poised to gain more acceptance among patients and health care providers. As our experience with focal treatment matures and evidence continues to accrue, the landscape of this practice might look quite different in the future.