Current evidence for focal laser ablation and vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for localized prostate cancer: review of literature published in the last 2 years

Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer After Focal Therapy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive focal therapy of low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer is becoming more common and has demonstrated lower morbidity compared to other treatments. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to be an effective posttreatment evaluation method for residual/recurrent neoplasm.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to detect residual/recurrent neoplasm after focal therapy treatment of prostate cancer using a 3-point Likert scale.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent focal therapy utilizing cryoablation, high-frequency ultrasound, and radiofrequency ablation for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer with baseline mpMRI and biopsy and a 6- to 12-month follow-up mpMRI and biopsy. Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers were asked to evaluate the follow-up mpMRI utilizing a 3-point Likert scale based on the level of suspicion as "nonviable," "equivocal," or "viable." Diagnostic statistics and Light's κ for interreader variability were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were included (mean age, 65 ± 7 years). When considering "equivocal" or "viable" as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting recurrent grade group (GG) 2 or greater disease for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.83, 0.24, 0.93, and 0.65; for Reader 2, 0.73, 0.75, 0.26, 0.96, and 0.74; and for Reader 3, 0.73, 0.57, 0.17, 0.95, and 0.65. When considering "viable" as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.92, 0.41, 0.94, and 0.69; for Reader 2, 0.33, 0.97, 0.56, 0.93, and 0.65; and for Reader 3, 0.53, 0.84, 0.29, 0.94, and 0.69. κ was 0.39.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that DCE and DWI are the most important sequences in mpMRI and demonstrates the efficacy of utilizing a 3-point grading system in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer after focal therapy.

CLINICAL IMPACT

mpMRI can be used to monitor for residual/recurrent disease after focal therapy.

Follow-up of vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy in a real-world setting

PURPOSE

Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is an approved treatment option for unilateral low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

Patients with unilateral low- or intermediate-risk PCa undergoing hemiablation by VTP were evaluated in a real-world setting. Oncological outcome after VTP was measured by MRI-based re-biopsy at 12 and 24 months. Functional outcome after 1 year was investigated by IIEF-5 and IPSS questionnaires. Progression was defined as the evidence3 of ISUP ≥ 2 PCa.

RESULTS

At any control biopsy (n = 46) after VTP, only 37% of patients showed no evidence of PCa. Recurrence-free survival was 20 months (95% CI 4.9-45.5) and progression-free survival was 38.5 months (95% CI 33.5-43.6 months). In-field and out-field recurrent PCa occurs in 37% (55% ISUP ≥ 2 PCa) and 35% (56% ISUP ≥ 2 PCa). Seventy-nine percent of patients preserved erectile function, respectively. Ten percent of patients presented long-term bladder outlet obstruction. None of the patients presented incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Due to the high-recurrence in- and out-field recurrence rate in a mainly low-risk prostate cancer cohort, VTP has to be regarded critically as a therapy option in these patients. Pre-interventional diagnostic evaluation is the main issue before focal therapy to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and progression.

Dual-Pronged Attack: pH-Driven Membrane-Anchored NIR Dual-Type Nano-Photosensitizer Excites Immunogenic Pyroptosis and Sequester Immune Checkpoint for Enhanced Prostate Cancer Photo-Immunotherapy

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a frustrating immunogenic "cold" tumor and generally receives unsatisfied immunotherapy outcomes in the clinic. Pyroptosis is an excellent immunogenic cell death form that can effectively activate the antitumor immune response, promote cytotoxic T-lymphocyte infiltration, and convert tumors from "cold" to "hot." However, the in vivo application of pyroptosis drugs is seriously limited, and the upregulation of tumor PD-L1 caused by photo-immunotherapy further promotes immune escape. Herein, a new nano-photosensitizer (YBS-BMS NPs-RKC) with pH-response integrating immunogenic pyroptosis induction and immune checkpoint blockade is developed. The pH-responsive polymer equipped with the cell membrane anchoring peptide RKC is used as the carrier and further encapsulated with the near-infrared-activated semiconductor polymer photosensitizer YBS and a PD-1/PD-L1 complex small molecule inhibitor BMS-202. The pH-driven membrane-anchoring and pyroptosis activation of YBS-BMS NPs-RKC is clearly demonstrated. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that this dual-pronged therapy stimulates a powerful antitumor immune response to suppress primary tumor progression and evokes long-term immune memory to inhibit tumor relapse and metastasis. This work provides an effective self-synergistic platform for PCa immunotherapy and a new idea for developing more biocompatible photo-controlled pyroptosis inducers.

Research progress in inducing immunogenic cell death of tumor cells

Immunogenic cell death (ICD) is a regulated cell death (RCD) pathway. In response to physical and chemical signals, tumor cells activate specific signaling pathways that stimulate stress responses in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and expose damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which promote antitumor immune responses. As a result, the tumor microenvironment is altered, and many tumor cells are killed. The ICD response in tumor cells requires inducers. These inducers can be from different sources and contribute to the development of the ICD either indirectly or directly. The combination of ICD inducers with other tumor treatments further enhances the immune response in tumor cells, and more tumor cells are killed; however, it also produces side effects of varying severity. New induction methods based on nanotechnology improve the antitumor ability and significantly reduces side effects because they can target tumor cells precisely. In this review, we introduce the characteristics and mechanisms of ICD responses in tumor cells and the DAMPs associated with ICD responses, summarize the current methods of inducing ICD response in tumor cells in five distinct categories: chemical sources, physical sources, pathogenic sources, combination therapies, and innovative therapies. At the same time, we introduce the limitations of current ICD inducers and make a summary of the use of ICD responses in clinical trials. Finally, we provide an outlook on the future of ICD inducer development and provide some constructive suggestions.