The role of palliative surgery in castration-resistant prostate cancer

[Palliative surgery for metastatic prostate cancer]

Androgen deprivation in combination with novel hormonal agents, docetaxel, or in combination with abiraterone/prednisone plus docetaxel or darolutamid plus docetaxel represent the standard therapeutic approach in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Patients with low-risk prostate cancer also benefit from additional radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy in terms of progression-free and overall survival. Despite favorable response rates, basically all patients will develop castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 2.5 to 4 years. In addition to systemic chemotherapy, second-line hormonal treatment of systemic application of radionuclides such as radium223 or 177Lu-PSMA represent salvage management options. However, nowadays about 50-65% of patients will develop symptoms due to local progression of prostate cancer which is the result of improved oncological outcomes with significantly prolonged survival times due to the new medical treatment options. Management of such symptomatic local progression will become more important in upcoming years so that all uro-oncologists need to be aware of the various surgical management options. Complications of the lower urogenital tract such as recurrent gross hematuria ± bladder clotting and with the necessity for red blood cell transfusions, subvesical obstruction and acute urinary retention, rectourethral or rectovesical fistulas might be managed by palliative surgery such as palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), radical cystectomy, radical cystoprostatectomy with urinary diversion, and pelvic exenteration. Symptomatic or asymptomatic obstruction of the upper urinary tract might be managed by endoluminal or percutaneous urinary diversion, ureteral reimplantation, ileal ureter replacement, or implantation of the Detour® system (Coloplast GmbH, Hamburg, Germany).

Efficacy and tolerability of metallic stent in patients with malignant prostatic obstruction secondary to prostatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a self-expandable covered metallic stent in patients with malignant prostatic obstruction secondary to prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

We reviewed 22 cases of insertion of self-expandable covered metallic stents with barbs. Data were collected about PC status. Uroflowmetry variables, residual urine volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), and duration from stent insertion to removal were surveyed. These clinical parameters were compared before and after stent insertion.

RESULTS

The patients with PC showed a mean age of 75.5 ± 6.5 years and mean 5.1 ± 1.9 Charlson comorbidity index. The average flow rate (2.4 ± 1.9 vs 5.9 ± 2.4 mL/s, P = .005), peak flow rate (6.9 ± 6.2 vs 14.1 ± 5.5 mL/s, P = .003), flow time (54.6 ± 29.1 vs 23.6 ± 13.7 s, P = .002), residual urine volume (178.7 ± 195.5 vs 7.0 ± 7.1 mL, P = .004), IPSS (26.2 ± 8.1 vs 8.0 ± 6.5 points, P = .001), and QOL (4.7 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 2.1 points, P = .030) improved between before and after stent insertion, respectively. Pain was the most common complication, but 60% of the patients were managed without any intervention. There were hematuria, urinary retention, urinary frequency, obstruction, and urinary incontinence. However, there was no urinary tract infection due to the stent. The median time to stent removal was 5.7 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The stent was maintained for about 6 months with improved objective and subjective outcomes. The patients with PC, who had a poor comorbidity index and advanced PC status showed a tolerable maintenance period. Self-expandable covered metallic stents can be used for PC patients with a short life expectancy and unsuitability for general anesthesia.

Treatment of the primary in metastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is systemic, based on androgen deprivation therapy recommended in different forms, alone or combined with abiraterone acetate or docetaxel. The aim of this review is to synthesize the available data from literature regarding the optimal treatment of the primary in patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multimodal treatments offer the best chance for survival for these patients, but the optimal strategy lacks consensus. Using retrospective studies as an argument, recent articles sustain the clinical and oncological benefits of local therapies in hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer, represented by radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Through these procedures, local control of disease can be achieved, thus avoiding potential complications and further surgical interventions. Even if the current results are not evenly relevant, the treatment of the primary along with metastasis-directed therapy could improve survival and even cure-selected patients.

SUMMARY

This article emphasizes important aspects regarding a feasible management of mPCa, with possible impact on subsequent guidelines. The expected results from ongoing trials may provide another perspective in treatment of these cases.

[Limits of surgery in uro-oncology]

The limits of cancer surgery in uro-oncology are characterized by a carefully weighed risk of surgical feasibility and oncological necessity. The limits of uro-oncological cancer surgery do not represent fixed dogmas but ideally these more or less cognitive boundaries move based on new scientific findings, improved imaging modalities, optimized surgical techniques and perioperative care. The limits of cancer surgery are defined by patient-specific parameters, the biological aggressiveness of the tumor itself, the skills and expertise of the surgeon, and adequate perioperative care of the patient. Dependent on the origin of the cancers of the upper and lower urogenital tract, the specific particularities of each individual cancer in terms of prognosis need to be known, taking into consideration the newest molecular insights and modern multimodality treatment regimes. Only the consideration of the above mentioned basics will allow the best decision to be made with the patient concerning the optimal individual treatment. The current article highlights general parameters of the patient, tumor and surgeon which might define the limits of cancer surgery in uro-oncology. In addition, specific clinical scenarios are discussed with regard to surgery limits in cancer of the kidney, the prostate and the testis.

Local Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer: What is the Evidence So Far?

Background

Advances in technological, laboratorial, and imaging studies and new treatments available in the last decades significantly improved prostate cancer survival rates. However, this did not occur in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) at diagnosis which, in young and fit patients, will become invariably resistant to the established treatments. Progression will lead to an impairment in patients' quality of life and disease-related death.

Methods

The authors intend to perform a literature review of the advantages of primary treatment of mPCa. Articles were retrieved and filtered for relevance from PubMed, SciELO, and ScienceDirect until March 2017.

Results

Primary treatment is currently indicated only in cases of nonmetastatic PCa. Nonetheless, there might be some benefits in doing local treatment in mPCa in order to control local disease, prevent new metastasis, and improve the efficacy of chemotherapy and hormonotherapy with similar complications rate when compared to locally confined cancer. Independent factors that have a negative influence are age above 70 years, cT4 stage or high-grade disease, PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml, and pelvic lymphadenopathies. The presence of 3 or more of these factors conditions CSS and OS is the same between patients who performed local treatment and those who did not. Metastasis degree and location number can also influence outcome. Meanwhile, patients with visceral metastases have worse results.

Conclusions

There is growing evidence supporting local treatment in cases of metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis in the context of a multimodal approach. However, it should be kept in mind that most of the existing studies are retrospective and it would be important to make consistent prospective studies with well-defined patient selection criteria in order to sustain the existing data and understand the main indications to select patients and perform primary treatment in mPCa.

Comparison of Surgery and Radiation as Local Treatments in the Risk of Locoregional Complications in Men Subsequently Dying From Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Late locoregional complications in prostate cancer (PCa) affect quality of life and require medical interventions. Our objective was to compare late locoregional complications in men dying of castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) who previously received external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to radical prostatectomy (RP). No group without previous primary local treatment was included.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The cohort consists of CRPC patients who died between 2001 and 2013 and who underwent previous EBRT or RP. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec administrative databases were used to identify late locoregional complications (urologic procedures, minor rectal procedures, and other major surgical procedures) and PCa-related hospitalizations occurring in the last 2 years of life. Multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 1189 patients; 535 (45%) and 654 (55%) received EBRT and RP, respectively. Overall, 46.4% of patients experienced at least 1 late locoregional complication. Primary local treatment type was not associated with the odds of late locoregional complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72, 1.16). RP was associated with greater odds of PCa-related hospitalization (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23, 2.17) relative to EBRT, as were the usage of a CRPC treatment (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.83, 5.53) and the occurrence of a late locoregional complication (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.05, 3.69). For the number of PCa-related hospitalization days, RP was not found to be significant (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90, 1.32).

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort, the risk of late locoregional complications in CRPC was not associated with the type of primary local treatment (RP or EBRT).

Whole body MRI (WB-MRI) assessment of metastatic spread in prostate cancer: Therapeutic perspectives on targeted management of oligometastatic disease

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with oligometastatic disease (≤3 synchronous lesions) using whole body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging (WB-MRI/DWI). To determine the proportion of patients with nodal disease confined within currently accepted target areas for extended lymph node dissection (eLND) and pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Two radiologists reviewed WB-MRI/DWI studies in 96 consecutive newly diagnosed metastatic PCa patients; 46 patients with newly diagnosed castration naive PCa (mHNPC) and 50 patients with first appearance of metastasis during monitoring for non-metastatic castration resistant PCa (M0 to mCRPC). The distribution of metastatic deposits was assessed and the proportions of patients with oligometastatic disease and with LN metastases located within eLND and EBRT targets were determined.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent of mHNPC and 50% of mCPRC entered the metastatic disease with ≤3 sites. Bone metastases (BM) were identified in 68.8% patients; 71.7% of mHNPC and 66% mCRPC patients. Most commonly involved areas were iliac bones and lumbar spine. Enlarged lymph nodes (LN) were detected in 68.7% of patients; 69.6% of mHNPC and 68.0% of mCRPC. Most commonly involved areas were para-aortic, inter-aortico-cava, and external iliac areas. BM and LN were detected concomitantly in 41% of mHNPC and 34% of mCRPC. Visceral metastases were detected in 6.7%. Metastatic disease was confined to LN located within the accepted boundaries of eLND or pelvic EBRT target areas in only ≤25% and ≤30% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-invasive mapping of metastatic landing sites in PCa using WB-MRI/DWI shows that 28% of the mHNPC patients, and 52% of the mCRPC can be classified as oligometastatic, thus challenging the concept of metastatic targeted therapy. More than two thirds of metastatic patients have LN located outside the usually recommended targets of eLND and pelvic EBRT. Prophylactic or salvage treatments of these sole areas in patients with high-risk prostate cancer may not prevent the emergence of subsequent metastases. Prostate 76:1024-1033, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Treatment of the Primary Tumor in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives

CONTEXT

Multimodal treatment for men with locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) using neoadjuvant/adjuvant systemic therapy, surgery, and radiation therapy is being increasingly explored. There is also interest in the oncologic benefit of treating the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic PCa (mPCa).

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the literature regarding the treatment of the primary tumor in the setting of mPCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, PubMed, and Scopus electronic databases were queried for English language articles from January 1990 to September 2014. Prospective and retrospective studies were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There is no published randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing local therapy and systemic therapy to systemic therapy alone in the treatment of mPCa. Prospective studies of men with locally advanced PCa and retrospective studies of occult node-positive PCa have consistently shown the addition of local therapy to a multimodal treatment regimen improves outcomes. Molecular and genomic evidence further suggests the primary tumor may have an active role in mPCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the primary tumor in mPCa is being increasingly explored. While preclinical, translational, and retrospective evidence supports local therapy in advanced disease, further prospective studies are under way to evaluate this multimodal approach and identify the patients most likely to benefit from the inclusion of local therapy in the setting of metastatic disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review we explored preclinical and clinical evidence for treatment of the primary tumor in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). We found evidence to support clinical trials investigating mPCa therapy that includes local treatment of the primary tumor. Currently, treating the primary tumor in mPCa is controversial and lacks high-level evidence sufficient for routine recommendation.