Survival benefit of definitive therapy in patients with clinically advanced prostate cancer: estimations of the number needed to treat based on competing-risks analysis

Definitive local therapy for T4 prostate cancer associated with improved local control and survival

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patients with clinical (c)T4 prostate cancer (PCa), which represent both a heterogenous and understudied population, who often present with locally advanced disease and obstructive symptoms causing significant morbidity and mortality. We analysed whether receiving definitive local therapy influenced symptomatic and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 154 patients with cT4 PCa treated at a single institution in 1996-2020. Systemic therapy with or without local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy [RT], or both). Uni- and multivariate analyses of associations between clinicopathological features (including obstructive symptoms) and receipt of local therapy on overall survival (OS) and disease control were done with Cox regression.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 5.9 years. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (88%), Gleason score 9-10 (77%), and median baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 20 ng/mL; most (54%) had metastatic cT4N0-1M1 disease; 24% regionally advanced cT4N1M0, and 22% localised cT4N0M0. Local therapies were RT (n = 44), surgery (n = 28), or both (n = nine). Local therapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3, P < 0.001), longer freedom from local recurrence (HR 0.39, P = 0.002), less local progression (HR 0.41, P = 0.02), fewer obstructive symptoms with progression (HR 0.31, P = 0.01), and less death from local disease (HR 0.25, P = 0.002). On multivariate, local therapy was associated with improved survival (HR 0.58, P = 0.02), and metastatic disease (HR 2.93, P < 0.001) or high-risk pathology (HR 2.05, P = 0.03) was associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSION

Definitive local therapy for cT4 PCa was associated with improved symptomatic outcomes and survival even among men with metastatic disease. Pending prospective evaluation, these findings support definitive treatment with local therapy for cT4 disease in select cases.

Clinical factors associated with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group)

Locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) with pathological seminal vesicle invasion (pT3b) is a very-high-risk disease associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR), local recurrence, distant metastases, or mortality following definitive therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with BCR following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in PCa patients with pT3b. A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted on 3,195 patients with PCa who underwent RARP at nine domestic centers between September 2011 and August 2021. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) after RARP in PCa patients with pT3b was the primary end-point of the study. The secondary end-point was to determine the association between BCR and covariates. We enrolled 188 PCa patients with pT3b. The median follow-up period was 32.8 months. At the end of the follow-up period, 76 patients (40.4%) developed BCR, of whom 15 (8.0%) were BCR at the date of surgery. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year BRFS rates were 76.4, 65.9, and 50.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified initial prostate-specific antigen level and positive surgical margins (PSM) as significant predictors of BCR in PCa patients with pT3b undergoing RARP. In this study, we investigated the BRFS in PCa patients with pT3b. As PSM was an independent predictor of BCR in PCa patients with pT3b, these patients may require a combination of therapies to improve the BCR.

The Impact of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy on Surgical and Oncological Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic study aimed to assess and compare the comprehensive evidence regarding the impact of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) on surgical and oncological outcomes of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) before radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Literature searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases, we identified relevant studies published before July 2020. The pooled effect sizes were calculated in terms of the odds ratios (ORs)/standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed or random-effects model.

Results

We identified 22 clinical trials (6 randomized and 16 cohort) including 20,199 patients with PCa. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences in body mass index (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.08-0.29, p = 0.274) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35 p = 0.321) between the two groups. However, the NHT group had a higher mean age (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31, p = 0.001), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19-0.75, p = 0.001), and clinic tumor stage (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.53-3.29, p < 0.001). Compared to the RP group, the NHT group had lower positive surgical margins (PSMs) rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p < 0.001) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.83, p = 0.009). Between both groups, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.24-0.13, p = 0.556), operation time (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: -0.12-0.51, p = 0.219), pathological tumor stage (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54-1.06, p = 0.104), specimen GS (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.49-1.68, p = 0.756), and lymph node involvement (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.40-1.45, p = 0.404).

Conclusions

NHT prior to RP appeared to reduce the tumor stage, PSMs rate, and risk of BCR in patients with PCa. According to our data, NHT may be more suitable for older patients with higher tumor stage. Besides, NHT may not increase the surgical difficulty of RP.

Management of cT4 Prostate Cancer

While radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy is the current standard of care for the treatment of stage cT4 prostate cancer (PC), surgery may also be an appropriate option in selected patients as part of a multimodal approach. The role and the sequence with which to optimize therapy combinations in this setting are still unknown. This mini review summarizes the current evidence for management of cT4 PC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This mini review examines current evidence for the treatment options for locally advanced prostate cancer. The role of surgery in these patients can be considered as part of a combination treatment strategy along with other modalities such as radiotherapy and hormone therapy.

Is Primary Androgen Deprivation Therapy a Suitable Option for Asian Patients With Prostate Cancer Compared With Radical Prostatectomy?

BACKGROUND

We conducted a comparative survival analysis between primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) based on nationwide Korean population data that included all patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 4,538 patients with prostate cancer from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database linked with Korean Central Cancer Registry data who were treated with PADT or RP between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2014. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate survival analyses stratified by stage (localized and locally advanced) and age (<75 and ≥75 years) were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate treatment effects.

RESULTS

Among 18,403 patients from the NHIS database diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study period, 4,538 satisfied inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. Of these, 3,136 and 1,402 patients underwent RP or received PADT, respectively. Risk of death was significantly increased for patients who received PADT compared with those who underwent RP in the propensity score-matched cohort. In subgroup analyses stratified by stage and age, in every subgroup, patients who received PADT had a significantly increased risk of death compared with those who underwent RP. In particular, a much greater risk was observed for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a nationwide survival analysis of nonmetastatic prostate cancer, this study provides valuable clinical implications that favor RP over PDAT for treatment of Asian populations. However, the possibility that survival differences have been overestimated due to not accounting for potential confounding characteristics must be considered.

Elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years with locally advanced prostate cancer may benefit from local treatment: a population-based propensity score-adjusted analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) may benefit from local treatment (LT).

METHODS

Elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years with non-metastatic cT3-4 LAPC who were treated with LT [radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT)] or non-LT (NLT) were identified. After propensity score matching (PSM), cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) rates were assessed. In the assessment of LT vs. NLT and RP vs. RT, multivariable competing risk regression (MVA CRR) analysis was used.

RESULTS

368 and 482 paired patients were matched for LT vs. NLT and RP vs. RT, respectively. 5 and 10 years CSM rates were 9.4 vs. 18.5% in LT and 24.9 vs. 29.3% in NLT-treated patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). 5 and 10 years CSM rates were 3.4% vs. 8.6% in RP and 6.7% vs. 15.1% in RT-treated patients, respectively (P = 0.10). In the MVA CRR model, after PSM, NLT resulted in higher CSM rates in Gleason score 8-10 [subhazard ratio (sHR) = 2.83, P < 0.001], cT3b/4 (sHR = 3.97/2.56, P = 0.003/0.002), cN0 (sHR = 2.52, P < 0.001) or PSA > 10 ng/ml [sHR (PSA = 10.1-20 ng/ml) = 4.59, P = 0.03; sHR (PSA > 20 ng/ml) = 2.77, P = 0.001] patients compared with LT. However, no statistically significant difference in CSM was observed between RP and RT, except for cT3a patients in whom higher CSM rates were noted for RT compared with RP (sHR = 3.91, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

LAPC patients may benefit from local treatment despite advanced age. However, this benefit was only seen in patients with cT3b/4, Gleason score 8-10, cN0 or PSA > 10 ng/ml.

Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for prostate cancer is primarily based on randomized controlled trials. Long-term outcomes are generally difficult to evaluate within experimental studies and may benefit from large pools of observational data. We conducted a systematic review of administrative and registry studies to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer on overall and prostate-cancer specific mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P, 2015), we conducted a systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase (1946-February 2017) and identified studies that evaluated the relationship between types of treatment for localized prostate cancer and mortality. Additional articles were identified through manual search. Randomized, prospective, and single institution studies were excluded. The risk of bias for each study was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were reported to evaluate overall and cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

We screened 4,721 studies and included for review, 19 that were published between 2001 and 2015. The pooled population included 228,444 patients. Countries of origin included the United States, Canada, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, and the sources included administrative (n = 6) and cancer registry or prostate databases (n = 11). Overall and cancer-specific mortality were lowest among definitive treatment arms as compared to conservative therapy with no treatment, observation, or active surveillance. Radiotherapy was associated with worse overall and cancer-specific mortality than radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Although observational studies using large, population-based cohorts have the potential for bias, we found consistent evidence that high-quality observational studies may be used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment. Methodologic limitations of observational data should be considered.

[Radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

Due to an inverse stage migration, the proportion of patients with more aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) has increased over the last few years. The natural history in these patients shows a higher risk of local complications and worse oncologic outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the impact of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with locally advanced PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the literature was performed using PubMed and MEDLINE databases focusing on articles addressing locally advanced PCa.

RESULTS

Current guidelines recommend local therapy in patients with locally advanced PCa among other treatment options. Thereby no strong evidence favoring radiotherapy or RP is present. Compared to patients without local treatment, RP may improve oncologic outcome and decrease the risk of local complications. Due to more difficult surgery and an increased need of multimodal therapy, higher perioperative morbidity and worse functional outcomes compared to patients with localized PCa are reported. No reliable prospective data indicating a widespread use of neoadjuvant treatment exists. Indication for further adjuvant or salvage therapies depends on pathologic results and postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

RP is one of the treatment options with good long-term results which can be offered to patients with locally advanced PCa. Nevertheless, patients need to be counselled especially about the worse postoperative functional outcome compared to patients with localized PCa.

Overall survival of high-risk prostate cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy at a single institution

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains to be established. We previously reported favorable, biochemical recurrence-free survival in high-risk PCa patients treated with a neoadjuvant gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist and estramustine phosphate (EMP) (chemohormonal therapy; CHT) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). We conducted a retrospective study to elucidate the clinical benefit of neoadjuvant CHT for high-risk PCa patients.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and pathological records of 1254 PCa patients who underwent RP and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy between July 1996 and April 2016 at Hirosaki University. According to the D'Amico risk classification, we focused on 613 patients in the high-risk group. The high-risk PCa patients were further divided into two groups based on whether the patients received neoadjuvant CHT before RP (EMP group) or not (non-EMP group). The endpoint was overall survival (OS) after surgery.

RESULTS

The 5- and 10-year OS rates were 98.5 and 92.6%, respectively. The 10-year OS rate in the EMP group was significantly higher compared to the non-EMP group (P = 0.021). In multivariate analysis, administration of neoadjuvant CHT, lymph node involvement, and castration-resistant PCa status were significantly associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

RP with neoadjuvant CHT using EMP for high-risk PCa patients provided excellent long-term OS.

Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Results of a Single-institution Series with Long-term Follow-up

In the absence of data from randomized trials, the role of local treatment in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest. Our study aimed to assess perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in a selected cohort of 11 patients with oligometastatic disease treated with RP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection between 2006 and 2011. Oligometastatic disease was defined as the presence of five or fewer bone lesions at bone scan with or without suspicious pelvic or retroperitoneal nodal involvement at preoperative imaging. The minimum follow-up for survivors was 5 yr. Perioperative outcomes, clinical progression, and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) were evaluated. Median age was 72 yr. Median operative time, blood loss, and length of hospitalization were 170min, 750ml, and 13 d, respectively. Overall, two patients (18%) experienced grade 3 complications in the postoperative period, and eight (73%) received blood transfusions. Overall, 10 (91%) and 8 (73%) patients had lymph node invasion and positive surgical margins, respectively. Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was administered to 10 patients (91%). Median follow-up for survivors was 63 mo. The 7-yr clinical progression- and CSM-free survival rates were 45% and 82%, respectively. Our findings support the safety and effectiveness of RP in a highly selected cohort of PCa patients with bone metastases and long-term follow-up.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the outcomes of patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy with a minimum of 5-yr follow-up. This surgical procedure performed with a multimodal approach might represent a safe and feasible option in selected men and provide acceptable oncologic outcomes at long-term follow-up.

Cytoreductive prostatectomy: evidence in support of a new surgical paradigm (Review)

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second ranked cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The current standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) includes systemic therapies with no option for surgery. In contrast, in other malignancies such as breast and kidney cancer, cyto-reduction plays an integral role in the treatment of metastatic disease. In this framework, there are emerging data that suggest a potential oncologic benefit to cytoreduction in mPCa. The majority of the data are retrospective in nature suggesting that patients with mPCa who had prior radical prostatectomy (RP) had a better survival, as well as improved response to systemic therapy. Similarly, patients who presented with metastatic disease and received definitive local therapy (RP or radiation) had greater survival than patients who received no treatment. In order to confer maximum potential benefit, operating in the setting of mPCa must be technically feasible with acceptable morbidity. It has been demonstrated in many studies that operating on locally advanced disease (T3a/b) does have similar morbidity as lower stage cancer. This may be applicable in the metastatic setting, because although PCa may have metastasized, it may remain locally advanced. On the molecular level there are a number of explanations concerning the potential benefit of cytoreduction. However, these ideas remain speculative with no concrete evidence to date.