Preservation of bone health in prostate cancer

Review of imaging techniques for evaluating morphological and functional responses to the treatment of bone metastases in prostate and breast cancer

Bone metastases are very common complications associated with certain types of cancers that frequently negatively impact the quality of life and functional status of patients; thus, early detection is necessary for the implementation of immediate therapeutic measures to reduce the risk of skeletal complications and improve survival and quality of life. There is no consensus or universal standard approach for the detection of bone metastases in cancer patients based on imaging. Endorsed by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and the Spanish Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SEMNIM) a group of experts met to discuss and provide an up-to-date review of our current understanding of the biological mechanisms through which tumors spread to the bone and describe the imaging methods available to diagnose bone metastasis and monitor their response to oncological treatment, focusing on patients with breast and prostate cancer. According to current available data, the use of next-generation imaging techniques, including whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI, PET/CT, and PET/MRI with novel radiopharmaceuticals, is recommended instead of the classical combination of CT and bone scan in detection, staging and response assessment of bone metastases from prostate and breast cancer.Clinical trial registration: Not applicable.

The Cohesive Metastasis Phenotype in Human Prostate Cancer

A critical barrier for the successful prevention and treatment of recurrent prostate cancer is detection and eradication of metastatic and therapy-resistant disease. Despite the fall in diagnoses and mortality, the reported incidence of metastatic disease has increased 72% since 2004. Prostate cancer arises in cohesive groups as intraepithelial neoplasia, migrates through muscle and leaves the gland via perineural invasion for hematogenous dissemination. Current technological advances have shown cohesive-clusters of tumor (also known as microemboli) within the circulation. Circulating tumor cell (CTC) profiles are indicative of disseminated prostate cancer, and disseminated tumor cells (DTC) are found in cohesive-clusters, a phenotypic characteristic of both radiation- and drug-resistant tumors. Recent reports in cell biology and informatics, coupled with mass spectrometry, indicate that the integrin adhesome network provides an explanation for the biophysical ability of cohesive-clusters of tumor cells to invade thorough muscle and nerve microenvironments while maintaining adhesion-dependent therapeutic resistance. Targeting cohesive-clusters takes advantage of the known ability of extracellular matrix (ECM) adhesion to promote tumor cell survival and represents an approach that has the potential to avoid the progression to drug- and radiotherapy-resistance. In the following review we will examine the evidence for development and dissemination of cohesive-clusters in metastatic prostate cancer.

Zoledronic acid therapy impacts risk and frequency of skeletal complications and follow-up duration in prostate cancer patients with bone metastasis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of timing and length of zoledronic acid (ZA) treatment on outcomes for patients with prostate cancer in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with prostate cancer and first bone metastasis diagnosed from January 2003 to October 2006 were included. Patients were considered 'untreated' if no ZA was given, 'early ZA-treated' if ZA was initiated before skeletal complication (SC) occurrence or 'late ZA-treated' if one or more SC was documented before or at ZA initiation. Patients were classified with short (≤ 90 days), medium (91-180 days) or long (>180 days) treatment persistence. Assessments included follow-up duration (FUP) and risk of developing one or more SC.

RESULTS

Among eligible patients, 847 were untreated, 243 were early ZA-treated and 218 were late ZA-treated. For untreated versus early ZA-treated groups, median FUP was 263 versus 357 days (p < 0.0001), respectively, and time to first SC was 199 versus 273 days (p < 0.0001), respectively. ZA treatment was associated with significantly longer FUP and lower SC risk. The early ZA-treated group had significantly longer FUP versus the late ZA-treated group (median days, 357 vs. 299.5); the late ZA-treated group experienced significantly higher SC risk vs. the early ZA-treated group (odds ratio, 1.51). Compared with the long-persistence group, FUP was 56% and 40% shorter in the short and medium groups, respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with and early initiation of ZA for patients with prostate cancer and bone metastasis significantly prolonged time to and reduced risk of developing SC, while extending FUP.