1
|
Kohjimoto Y, Uemura H, Yoshida M, Hinotsu S, Takahashi S, Takeuchi T, Suzuki K, Shinmoto H, Tamada T, Inoue T, Sugimoto M, Takenaka A, Habuchi T, Ishikawa H, Mizowaki T, Saito S, Miyake H, Matsubara N, Nonomura N, Sakai H, Ito A, Ukimura O, Matsuyama H, Hara I. Japanese clinical practice guidelines for prostate cancer 2023. Int J Urol 2024. [PMID: 39078210 DOI: 10.1111/iju.15545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 07/31/2024]
Abstract
This fourth edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2023 is compiled. It was revised under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, with members selected from multiple academic societies and related organizations (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, the Department of EBM and guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Japanese Society of Pathology, and the patient group (NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association)), in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2020 ver. 3.0). The most important feature of this revision is the adoption of systematic reviews (SRs) in determining recommendations for 14 clinical questions (CQs). Qualitative SRs for these questions were conducted, and the final recommendations were made based on the results through the votes of 24 members of the guideline development group. Five algorithms based on these results were also created. Contents not covered by the SRs, which are considered textbook material, have been described in the general statement. In the general statement, a literature search for 14 areas was conducted; then, based on the general statement and CQs of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer 2016, the findings revealed after the 2016 guidelines were mainly described. This article provides an overview of these guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasuo Kohjimoto
- Department of Urology, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
| | - Hiroji Uemura
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Masahiro Yoshida
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic and Gastrointestinal Surgery, School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Chiba, Japan
- Department of EBM and Guidelines, Japan Council for Quality Health Care (Minds), Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shiro Hinotsu
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Management, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Satoru Takahashi
- Department of Urology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tsutomu Takeuchi
- NPO Prostate Cancer Patients Association, Takarazuka, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Kazuhiro Suzuki
- Department of Urology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Shinmoto
- Department of Radiology, National Defense Medical College, Tokorozawa, Tochigi, Japan
| | - Tsutomu Tamada
- Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan
| | - Takahiro Inoue
- Department of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie, Japan
| | - Mikio Sugimoto
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan
| | - Atsushi Takenaka
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan
| | - Tomonori Habuchi
- Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan
| | - Hitoshi Ishikawa
- QST Hospital, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | - Takashi Mizowaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Shiro Saito
- Department of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center Ofuna Chuo Hospital, Kamakura, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Hideaki Miyake
- Division of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Nobuaki Matsubara
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
| | - Norio Nonomura
- Department of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hideki Sakai
- Department of Urology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan
- Nagasaki Rosai Hospital, Sasebo, Nagasaki, Japan
| | - Akihiro Ito
- Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
| | - Osamu Ukimura
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Hideyasu Matsuyama
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi University, Ube, Yamaguchi, Japan
- Department of Urology, JA Yamaguchi Kouseiren Nagato General Hospital, Yamaguchi, Japan
| | - Isao Hara
- Department of Urology, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ono T, Sato H, Miyasaka Y, Hagiwara Y, Yano N, Akamatsu H, Harada M, Ichikawa M. Correlation between dose-volume parameters and rectal bleeding after 12 fractions of carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer. World J Radiol 2024; 16:256-264. [PMID: 39086610 PMCID: PMC11287435 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v16.i7.256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2024] [Revised: 07/08/2024] [Accepted: 07/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) is currently used to treat prostate cancer. Rectal bleeding is a major cause of toxicity even with CIRT. However, to date, a correlation between the dose and volume parameters of the 12 fractions of CIRT for prostate cancer and rectal bleeding has not been shown. Similarly, the clinical risk factors for rectal bleeding were absent after 12 fractions of CIRT. AIM To identify the risk factors for rectal bleeding in 12 fractions of CIRT for prostate cancer. METHODS Among 259 patients who received 51.6 Gy [relative biological effectiveness (RBE)], in 12 fractions of CIRT, 15 had grade 1 (5.8%) and nine had grade 2 rectal bleeding (3.5%). The dose-volume parameters included the volume (cc) of the rectum irradiated with at least x Gy (RBE) (Vx) and the minimum dose in the most irradiated x cc normal rectal volume (Dx). RESULTS The mean values of D6cc, D2cc, V10 Gy (RBE), V20 Gy (RBE), V30 Gy (RBE), and V40 Gy (RBE) were significantly higher in the patients with rectal bleeding than in those without. The cutoff values were D6cc = 34.34 Gy (RBE), D2cc = 46.46 Gy (RBE), V10 Gy (RBE) = 9.85 cc, V20 Gy (RBE) = 7.00 cc, V30 Gy (RBE) = 6.91 cc, and V40 Gy (RBE) = 4.26 cc. The D2cc, V10 Gy (RBE), and V20 Gy (RBE) cutoff values were significant predictors of grade 2 rectal bleeding. CONCLUSION The above dose-volume parameters may serve as guidelines for preventing rectal bleeding after 12 fractions of CIRT for prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takashi Ono
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Hiraku Sato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Yuya Miyasaka
- Department of Heavy Particle Medical Science, Yamagata University Graduate School of Medical Science, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Yasuhito Hagiwara
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Natsuko Yano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Hiroko Akamatsu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Mayumi Harada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| | - Mayumi Ichikawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Waraich TA, Khalid SY, Kathia UM, Ali A, Qamar SSS, Yousuf A, Saleem RMU. Assessing the Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Intervention Versus Radiotherapy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Treatment Modalities. Cureus 2024; 16:e58842. [PMID: 38784314 PMCID: PMC11115355 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024] Open
Abstract
There is controversy regarding the most effective primary treatment of choice for prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of patient outcomes, such as surgery or radiotherapy (RT). This study evaluated the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) and RT for PCa treatment. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies published from 2019 onwards. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational studies comparing survival outcomes in patients treated with surgery and RT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to provide an overview of the data. We selected 19 studies based on the inclusion criteria. Of the total 19 studies, 12 advocated RP as the preferred treatment to improve survival outcomes in patients with PCa. The results of our synthesis showed that prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was lower in patients treated with RT. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated as Z=1.19 (p-value=0.23). The heterogeneity in the studies was as follows: Tau2=0.09, Chi2=20.25, df=4, I2=80%. Moreover, overall survival (OS) was shown to be higher in patients who underwent prostatectomy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be: HR=0.97 (0.93, 1.01). The total effect was calculated as Z=1.33 (p-value= 0.18). The heterogeneity was found to be Tau2=0.00, Chi2=1.33, df=2, and I2=0%. However, overall mortality (OM) was shown to be independent of the treatment modality. RT is the preferred strategy for PCa treatment, as it balances efficacy and long-term outcomes. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine the treatment guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Syed Yousaf Khalid
- Department of Urology, Letterkenny University Hospital, Letterkenny, IRL
- Department of General Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital, Letterkenny, IRL
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, IRL
| | - Usama Muhammad Kathia
- Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
| | - Azfar Ali
- Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK
| | | | - Ammar Yousuf
- Department of Urology, Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Center, Lahore, PAK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Efstathiou JA, Morgans AK, Bland CS, Shore ND. Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2024; 122:102630. [PMID: 38035646 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/02/2023]
Abstract
Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason A Efstathiou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
| | - Alicia K Morgans
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 850 Brookline Ave, Dana 09-930, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
| | - Christopher S Bland
- US Oncology Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc., 66 Hudson Boulevard, Hudson Yards, Manhattan, New York, NY 10001, USA.
| | - Neal D Shore
- Carolina Urologic Research Center, GenesisCare US, 823 82nd Pkwy, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fang AM, Jackson J, Gregg JR, Chery L, Tang C, Surasi DS, Siddiqui BA, Rais-Bahrami S, Bathala T, Chapin BF. Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2024; 25:66-83. [PMID: 38212510 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-023-01162-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew M Fang
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Jamaal Jackson
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Justin R Gregg
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Lisly Chery
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Genitourinary Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Devaki Shilpa Surasi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bilal A Siddiqui
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Soroush Rais-Bahrami
- Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA
- Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Tharakeswara Bathala
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Brian F Chapin
- Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1373, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Heesterman BL, Aben KKH, de Jong IJ, Pos FJ, van der Hel OL. Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:398. [PMID: 37142955 PMCID: PMC10157926 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10842-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed. RESULTS Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported. CONCLUSIONS Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berdine L Heesterman
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Katja K H Aben
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Igle Jan de Jong
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Floris J Pos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olga L van der Hel
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bauckneht M, Marini C, Cossu V, Campi C, Riondato M, Bruno S, Orengo AM, Vitale F, Carta S, Chiola S, Chiesa S, Miceli A, D’Amico F, Fornarini G, Terrone C, Piana M, Morbelli S, Signori A, Barboro P, Sambuceti G. Gene's expression underpinning the divergent predictive value of [18F]F-fluorodeoxyglucose and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in primary prostate cancer: a bioinformatic and experimental study. J Transl Med 2023; 21:3. [PMID: 36600265 PMCID: PMC9811737 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03846-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 12/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) and Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) represent promising biomarkers for risk-stratification of Prostate Cancer (PCa). We verified whether the expression of genes encoding for PSMA and enzymes regulating FDG cellular uptake are independent and additive prognosticators in PCa. METHODS mRNA expression of genes involved in glucose metabolism and PSMA regulation obtained from primary PCa specimens were retrieved from open-source databases and analyzed using an integrative bioinformatics approach. Machine Learning (ML) techniques were used to create predictive Progression-Free Survival (PFS) models. Cellular models of primary PCa with different aggressiveness were used to compare [18F]F-PSMA-1007 and [18F]F-FDG uptake kinetics in vitro. Confocal microscopy, immunofluorescence staining, and quantification analyses were performed to assess the intracellular and cellular membrane PSMA expression. RESULTS ML analyses identified a predictive functional network involving four glucose metabolism-related genes: ALDOB, CTH, PARP2, and SLC2A4. By contrast, FOLH1 expression (encoding for PSMA) did not provide any additive predictive value to the model. At a cellular level, the increase in proliferation rate and migratory potential by primary PCa cells was associated with enhanced FDG uptake and decreased PSMA retention (paralleled by the preferential intracellular localization). CONCLUSIONS The overexpression of a functional network involving four glucose metabolism-related genes identifies a higher risk of disease progression since the earliest phases of PCa, in agreement with the acknowledged prognostic value of FDG PET imaging. By contrast, the prognostic value of PSMA PET imaging is independent of the expression of its encoding gene FOLH1. Instead, it is influenced by the protein docking to the cell membrane, regulating its accessibility to tracer binding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matteo Bauckneht
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Cecilia Marini
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.428490.30000 0004 1789 9809CNR, Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology (IBFM), 20054 Milan, Italy
| | - Vanessa Cossu
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Cristina Campi
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065LISCOMP Lab, Department of Mathematics (DIMA), University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Mattia Riondato
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia Bruno
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Experimental Medicine, Human Anatomy, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Anna Maria Orengo
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Francesca Vitale
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Sonia Carta
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia Chiola
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Sabrina Chiesa
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Alberto Miceli
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Francesca D’Amico
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Fornarini
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Medical Oncology Unit 1, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Department of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Michele Piana
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065LISCOMP Lab, Department of Mathematics (DIMA), University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.482259.00000 0004 1774 9464CNR-SPIN Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia Morbelli
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Alessio Signori
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Paola Barboro
- grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Proteomic and Mass Spectrometry Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| | - Gianmario Sambuceti
- grid.5606.50000 0001 2151 3065Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy ,grid.410345.70000 0004 1756 7871Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, 16132 Genoa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hu Q, Hong X, Xu L, Jia R. A nomogram for accurately predicting the pathological upgrading of prostate cancer, based on 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Prostate 2022; 82:1077-1087. [PMID: 35468221 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Revised: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and validate a nomogram for preoperative predicting the pathological upgrading of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS The prediction model was developed in a primary cohort that consisted of 208 PCa patients. All patients included in the study possessed both biopsy pathology specimens and radical prostatectomy pathology specimens, and completed the (68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) detection. The R function "createDataPartition" was used in a 7:3 ratio to randomly divide the patients into training and validation cohorts. In the training cohort, the independent predictors of pathological upgrading of PCa were determined by univariate analysis, univariate regression analysis and multivariate regression analysis. Based on these independent predictors, a nomogram was developed, and its performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the curve (AUC) and calibration curve of training cohort and validation cohort. RESULTS The nomogram incorporated five independent predictors including prostate volume (PV), SUVmax of the 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT examination on prostate lesions (SUVmax ), body mass index (BMI); percentage of cancer positive biopsy cores (PPC) and biopsy International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade. The nomogram showed good diagnostic accuracy for the pathological upgrading of both the training cohort and the validation cohort (AUC = 0.818 and 0.806, respectively). The calibration curves for the two cohorts both showed optimal agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation. CONCLUSIONS We developed and validated a nomogram to accurately predict the risk of pathological upgrading after radical PCa surgery, which can provide accurate basis for therapeutic schedule and prognostic data of PCa patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiang Hu
- School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Xi Hong
- Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Luwei Xu
- Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Ruipeng Jia
- School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
- Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Chan VWS, Asif A, Koe JSE, Ng A, Ng CF, Teoh JYC. Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2022; 32:311-317. [PMID: 35142745 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vinson Wai-Shun Chan
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London
| | - Aqua Asif
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London
- Leicester Medical School, University of Leicester, Leicester
| | - Jasmine Sze-Ern Koe
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Alexander Ng
- UCL Medical School, University College London, London, UK
| | - Chi Fai Ng
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
- S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Aydh A, Motlagh RS, Abufaraj M, Mori K, Katayama S, Grossmann N, Rajawa P, Mostafai H, Laukhtina E, Pradere B, Quhal F, Schuettfort VM, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, Fajkovic H, Shariat SF. Radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy as first-line definitive therapy for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol 2022; 20:71-80. [PMID: 35530569 PMCID: PMC9067961 DOI: 10.1080/2090598x.2022.2026010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To present an update of the available literature on external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy (BT) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing the survival outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa who received EBRT with or without BT compared to RP as the first-line therapy with curative intent. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database in January 2021. Moreover, we used random or fixed-effects meta-analytical models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity per the I2 statistic, respectively. We performed six meta-analyses for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results A total of 27 studies were selected with 23 studies being eligible for both OS and CSS. EBRT alone had a significantly worse OS and CSS compared to RP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–1.65; and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25–1.93). However, there was no difference in OS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.76–1.34) and CSS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45–1.06) between EBRT plus BT compared to RP. Conclusion While cancer control affected by EBRT alone seems inferior to RP in patients with high-risk PCa, BT additive to EBRT was not different from RP. These data support the need for BT in addition to EBRT as part of multimodal RT for high-risk PCa. Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; BT: brachytherapy; CSS: cancer-specific survival; HR: hazard ratio; MFS, metastatic-free survival; MOOSE: Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; OR: odds ratio; OS: overall survival; PCa: prostate cancer; RR: relative risk; RP: radical prostatectomy; RCT: randomised controlled trials; (EB)RT: (external beam) radiation therapy
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abdulmajeed Aydh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Faisal Medical City, Abha, Saudi Arabia
| | - Reza Sari Motlagh
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Men’s Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mohammad Abufaraj
- The National Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Genetics, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Keiichiro Mori
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Satoshi Katayama
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
| | - Nico Grossmann
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Pawel Rajawa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Hadi Mostafai
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
| | - Ekaterina Laukhtina
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Benjamin Pradere
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
| | - Fahad Quhal
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
| | - Victor M. Schuettfort
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada
| | - Haron Fajkovic
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Terrone C, Saad F, Tilki D, Graefen M, Roos FC, A Kluth L, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Assessment of the optimal number of positive biopsy cores to discriminate between cancer-specific mortality in high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer patients. Prostate 2021; 81:1055-1063. [PMID: 34312910 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Revised: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa. METHODS Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2-≥12) were tested in Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models. RESULTS Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa. CONCLUSIONS The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic
- Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Frederik C Roos
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Lama DJ, Kasson M, Hoge C, Guan T, Rao M, Struve T, Verma S, Sidana A. Current Opinion Regarding Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinic Utilization for the Management of Prostate Cancer. J Clin Imaging Sci 2021; 11:29. [PMID: 34221638 PMCID: PMC8248076 DOI: 10.25259/jcis_73_2021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Multidisciplinary cancer clinic (MDC) is an evaluation option for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of MDC is to provide the patient with a comprehensive assessment and risk/benefit discussion of all pertinent treatment options. Our objective was to obtain a contemporary measure and analysis of urologists’ opinion regarding PCa MDC. Material and Methods: We created a 14-item questionnaire for respondent baseline characteristics, subjective and objective inquiries regarding MDC for PCa management. The survey was distributed through email to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology and the Endourological Society. Data were analyzed using R (R Core team, 2017). Results: One hundred and seven (51%) respondents reported participation in MDC; the majority of which were male (97.6%), academic (61.4%) urologists with urologic oncology fellowship training (50%), and >20 years in practice (40.3%). MDC patients were most commonly referrals (78.5%) and with high-risk disease (Gleason sum 8–10) (83.2%). A majority of the respondents felt that MDC was very or extremely beneficial for PCa research (45% and 19%, respectively) and treatment (35% and 20%, respectively). Responses dissuading the use of MDC included lack of infrastructure (41%) and time commitment (21%). On multivariate analysis, urologists with >10 years in practice were less likely to find MDC beneficial in the management of PCa (11–20 years, P = 0.028 and >20 years P = 0.009). Conclusion: A contemporary sampling of urologists’ opinion and practice patterns alludes to the benefits that advocate for and the resource demand that hinders routine use of MDC for PCa evaluation. Urologist training and practice environment can affect participation in PCa MDC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel J Lama
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Matthew Kasson
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Connor Hoge
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Tian Guan
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Marepalli Rao
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Timothy Struve
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Sadhna Verma
- Department of Radiology Section of Abdominal Imaging, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Abhinav Sidana
- Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Koerber SA, Boesch J, Kratochwil C, Schlampp I, Ristau J, Winter E, Zschaebitz S, Hofer L, Herfarth K, Kopka K, Holland-Letz T, Jaeger D, Hohenfellner M, Haberkorn U, Debus J, Giesel FL. Predicting the Risk of Metastases by PSMA-PET/CT-Evaluation of 335 Men with Treatment-Naïve Prostate Carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13071508. [PMID: 33805971 PMCID: PMC8037082 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13071508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Prostate carcinoma is the most common visceral cancer for men and the second most common cause of death. The early detection of micrometastasis may improve clinical outcome due to individual treatment approaches like early intensified therapy. Imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) has a high potential of detecting even small metastases. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze data of 335 men with primary diagnosed prostate cancer and available PSMA-PET/CT with regard to characteristic PET-parameters and the detection of metastases. We observed that an increased accumulation of the PET-tracer measured in the primary tumor significantly correlates with the presence of distant metastases. The current results may be helpful in decision making of individual treatment escalation for a variety of men with aggressive disease which should improve clinical outcome. Abstract Men diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer are at high risk of local relapse or systemic progression after definitive treatment. Treatment intensification is highly needed for that patient cohort; however, no relevant stratification tool has been implemented into the clinical work routine so far. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to analyze the role of initial PSMA-PET/CT as a prediction tool for metastases. In total, 335 men with biopsy-proven prostate carcinoma and PSMA-PET/CT for primary staging were enrolled in the present, retrospective study. The number and site of metastases were analyzed and correlated with the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the intraprostatic, malignant lesion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine sensitivity and specificity and a model was created using multiple logistic regression. PSMA-PET/CT detected 171 metastases with PSMA-uptake in 82 patients. A statistically significant higher SUVmax was found for men with metastatic disease than for the cohort without distant metastases (median 16.1 vs. 11.2; p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) in regard to predicting the presence of any metastases was 0.65. Choosing a cut-off value of 11.9 for SUVmax, a sensitivity and specificity (factor 1:1) of 76.0% and 58.4% was obtained. The current study confirms, that initial PSMA-PET/CT is able to detect a relatively high number of treatment-naïve men with metastatic prostate carcinoma. Intraprostatic SUVmax seems to be a promising parameter for the prediction of distant disease and could be used for treatment stratification—aspects which should be verified within prospective trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan A. Koerber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (I.S.); (J.R.); (K.H.); (J.D.)
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Correspondence:
| | - Johannes Boesch
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (J.B.); (C.K.); (E.W.); (U.H.); (F.L.G.)
| | - Clemens Kratochwil
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (J.B.); (C.K.); (E.W.); (U.H.); (F.L.G.)
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ingmar Schlampp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (I.S.); (J.R.); (K.H.); (J.D.)
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jonas Ristau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (I.S.); (J.R.); (K.H.); (J.D.)
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Erik Winter
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (J.B.); (C.K.); (E.W.); (U.H.); (F.L.G.)
| | - Stefanie Zschaebitz
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (S.Z.); (D.J.)
| | - Luisa Hofer
- Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (L.H.); (M.H.)
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (I.S.); (J.R.); (K.H.); (J.D.)
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Kopka
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, 01328 Dresden, Germany;
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, 01328 Dresden, Germany
- Faculty of Chemistry and Food Chemistry, Technische Universität Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany
| | - Tim Holland-Letz
- Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
| | - Dirk Jaeger
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (S.Z.); (D.J.)
| | - Markus Hohenfellner
- Department of Urology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (L.H.); (M.H.)
| | - Uwe Haberkorn
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (J.B.); (C.K.); (E.W.); (U.H.); (F.L.G.)
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juergen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (I.S.); (J.R.); (K.H.); (J.D.)
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Frederik L. Giesel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (J.B.); (C.K.); (E.W.); (U.H.); (F.L.G.)
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shepherd C, Cookson M, Shore N. The Growth of Integrated Care Models in Urology. Urol Clin North Am 2021; 48:223-232. [PMID: 33795056 DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2020.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
With heightened awareness of health care outcomes and efficiencies and reimbursement-based metrics, it is ever more important that urologists consider the effects of integrated care models on physicians/staff/clinics fulfillment and patient outcomes, and whether and how to optimally implement these models within their unique practice settings. Despite growing evidence that integrating care improves outcomes, uncertainty persists regarding which approach is most efficient and achievable in terms of specialty considerations and financial resources. In this article, we discuss strategies for integrating urologic care and its impact on current and future health care delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin Shepherd
- University of Oklahoma, 920 Stanton L. Young Boulevard, WP 2140, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA.
| | - Michael Cookson
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma, 920 Stanton L. Young Boulevard, WP 2140, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Neal Shore
- CPI, Carolina Research Center, 823 82nd Parkway, Myrtle Beach, SC 29572, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
16
|
Taguchi S, Shiraishi K, Fukuhara H. Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020; 50:963-969. [PMID: 32580211 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Satoru Taguchi
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kenshiro Shiraishi
- Department of Radiology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroshi Fukuhara
- Department of Urology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Palmer NR, Shim JK, Kaplan CP, Schillinger D, Blaschko SD, Breyer BN, Pasick RJ. Ethnographic investigation of patient-provider communication among African American men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e035032. [PMID: 32759241 PMCID: PMC7409964 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2019] [Revised: 06/02/2020] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the USA, African American men bear a disproportionate burden of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with all other groups, having a higher incidence and mortality, poorer quality of life and higher dissatisfaction with care. They are also less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (eg, undertreatment of aggressive disease). Inadequate patient-provider communication contributes to suboptimal care, which can be exacerbated by patients' limited health literacy, providers' lack of communication skills and time constraints in low-resource, safety net settings. This study is designed to examine the communication experiences of African American patients with PCa as they undertake treatment decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Using an ethnographic approach, we will follow 25 African American men newly diagnosed with PCa at two public hospitals, from diagnosis through treatment decision. Data sources include: (1) audio-recorded clinic observations during urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology and primary care visits, (2) field notes from clinic observations, (3) patient surveys after clinic visits, (4) two in-depth patient interviews, (5) a provider survey, and (6) in-depth interviews with providers. We will explore patients' understanding of their diagnoses and treatment options, sources of support in decision-making, patient-provider communication and treatment decision-making processes. Audio-recorded observations and interviews will be transcribed verbatim. An iterative process of coding and team discussions will be used to thematically analyse patients' experiences and providers' perspectives, and to refine codes and identify key themes. Descriptive statistics will summarise survey data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine in-depth patient-provider communication among African American patients with PCa. For a population as marginalised as African American men, an ethnographic approach allows for explication of complex sociocultural and contextual influences on healthcare processes and outcomes. Study findings will inform the development of interventions and initiatives that promote patient-centred communication, shared decision-making and guideline-concordant care. This study was approved by the University of California San Francisco and the Alameda Health System Institutional Review Boards.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nynikka R Palmer
- Division of General Internal Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Janet K Shim
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Celia P Kaplan
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Dean Schillinger
- Division of General Internal Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Sarah D Blaschko
- Division of Urology, Highland Hospital, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Benjamin N Breyer
- Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Rena J Pasick
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang Y, Song P, Wang J, Shu M, Wang Q, Li Q. Superior survival benefits of Radical Prostatectomy than External Beam Radiotherapy in aging 75 and older men with high-risk or very high-risk Prostate Cancer: a population-matched study. J Cancer 2020; 11:5371-5378. [PMID: 32742483 PMCID: PMC7391190 DOI: 10.7150/jca.46069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2020] [Accepted: 06/29/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the survival difference of radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in elderly men (75 years and older) with high-risk (HR) or very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Elderly men diagnosed with HR/VHR PCa from 2004-2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were identified. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance the covariates; Kaplan-Meier and Cox analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS). Results: 11698 patients with HR PCa and 4415 patients with VHR PCa were identified and divided into RP and EBRT group. After PSM, 964 patients with HR PCa and 538 patients with VHR PCa were included in each group. The 10-year OS and PCSS of men with HR PCa were 60.1% vs 40.9% and 90.6% vs 83.4%, respectively. The 10-year rate of OS and PCSS in men with VHR PCa were 55.9% vs 33.3% and 82.4% vs 75.6%, respectively. The OS curve of patients with HR PCa revealed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in both overall cohort [HR: 0.533, 95%CI (0.485~0.586), p<0.001] and the matched cohort [HR: 0.703, 95%CI (0.595~0.832), p<0.001]. However, the PCSS curve of patients with HR PCa showed that RP was significantly better than EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.453, 95%CI (0.368~0.559), p<0.001] but was similar to EBRT in matched cohort [HR: 0.820, 95%CI (0.552~1.218), p=0.327]. As for patients with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS than EBRT whether in overall cohort [HR: 0.520, 95%CI (0.457~0.592), p<0.001] or matched cohort [0.695, 95%CI (0.551~0.876), p=0.002]. The PCSS of RP was significantly better than that of EBRT in overall cohort [HR: 0.538, 95%CI (0.422~ 0.685), p<0.001], but was similar in matched cohort [HR: 0.787, 95%CI (0.510 ~1.214), p=0.281]. Conclusions: RP has more survival benefits than EBRT in men aged 75 years and older with HR or VHR PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Wang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China
| | - Pan Song
- Department of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610000, Sichuan Province, China
| | - Jiaxiang Wang
- The first Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China
| | - Mengxuan Shu
- The first Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China
| | - Qingwei Wang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China
| | - Qi Li
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Tang C, Hoffman K, Kuban D. Reply to Multidisciplinary clinics: A possible means to help to eliminate racial disparities in prostate cancer. Cancer 2020; 126:2939-2940. [PMID: 32160318 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2020] [Accepted: 02/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Karen Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Deborah Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Moris L, Cumberbatch MG, Van den Broeck T, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Kelly B, Pal R, Briers E, Cornford P, De Santis M, Fanti S, Gillessen S, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Lam TBL, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason MD, Omar MI, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, van Der Kwast TH, van Der Poel HG, Willemse PPM, Yuan CY, Konety B, Dorff T, Jain S, Mottet N, Wiegel T. Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2020; 77:614-627. [PMID: 32146018 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.01.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2019] [Accepted: 01/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| | | | | | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Brian Kelly
- Department of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
| | - Raj Pal
- Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Philip Cornford
- Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie, Manchester, UK
| | - Jeremy P Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Thomas B L Lam
- Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK; Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Henk G van Der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Cathy Y Yuan
- Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Tanya Dorff
- Department of Medical Oncology and Developmental Therapeutics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine and Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCC), Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Suneil Jain
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK; Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Bagley AF, Anscher MS, Choi S, Frank SJ, Hoffman KE, Kuban DA, McGuire SE, Nguyen QN, Chapin B, Aparicio A, Pezzi TA, Smith GL, Smith BD, Hess K, Tang C. Association of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Factors With Receipt of Nondefinitive Therapy Among Younger Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e201255. [PMID: 32191331 PMCID: PMC7082722 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Multiple randomized clinical trials have shown that definitive therapy improves overall survival among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. However, many patients do not receive definitive therapy because of sociodemographic and health-related factors. OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with receipt of nondefinitive therapy (NDT) among patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study identified 72 036 patients aged 70 years and younger with high-risk prostate cancer and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less who were entered in the National Cancer Database between January 2004 and December 2014. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to December 2019. EXPOSURE Receipt of NDT as an initial treatment approach. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival rates were compared based on receipt of definitive therapy or NDT, and sociodemographic and health-related factors were associated with the type of therapy received. Residual life expectancy was estimated from the National Center for Health Statistics to calculate person-years of life lost. RESULTS A total of 72 036 men with a median (range) age of 63 (30-70) years, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 2 or less, and high-risk prostate cancer without regional lymph node or distant metastatic disease were analyzed. Among eligible patients, 5252 (7.3%) received NDT as an initial therapeutic strategy. On univariate and multivariate analyses, NDT was associated with worse overall survival (univariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.40-2.69; P < .001; multivariate analysis hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 2.26-2.56; P < .001). Compared with patients with private insurance or managed care, those with no insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (no insurance: odds ratio [OR], 3.34; 95% CI, 2.81-3.98; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.48-3.43; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.53; P < .001) or no treatment (no insurance: OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.24-3.08; P < .001; Medicaid: OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.45-2.01; P < .001; Medicare: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P = .004). Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.74-2.14; P < .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.61; P < .001), and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive systemic therapy only (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.64; P = .001) or no treatment (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.60; P < .001). Between 2004 and 2014, patients without insurance or enrolled in Medicaid had 1.83-fold greater person-years of life lost compared with patients with private insurance (area under the curve, 77 600 vs 42 300 person-years of life lost). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, receipt of NDT was associated with insurance status and race/ethnicity. While treatment decisions should be individualized for every patient, younger men with high-risk prostate cancer and minimal comorbidities should be encouraged to receive definitive local therapy regardless of other factors. These data suggest that significant barriers to life-extending treatment options for patients with prostate cancer remain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander F. Bagley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Mitchell S. Anscher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Steven J. Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E. Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Deborah A. Kuban
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sean E. McGuire
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Brian Chapin
- Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Ana Aparicio
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Todd A. Pezzi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Grace L. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D. Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Kenneth Hess
- Department of Statistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Wang Z, Ni Y, Chen J, Sun G, Zhang X, Zhao J, Zhu X, Zhang H, Zhu S, Dai J, Shen P, Zeng H. The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2020; 18:42. [PMID: 32093688 PMCID: PMC7041271 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01824-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments. Results A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain. Conclusion RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhipeng Wang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yuchao Ni
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Junru Chen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Guangxi Sun
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xingming Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jinge Zhao
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Xudong Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Haoran Zhang
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Sha Zhu
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Jindong Dai
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Pengfei Shen
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Hao Zeng
- Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Lin J, Den RB, Greenspan J, Showalter TN, Hoffman-Censits JH, Lallas CD, Trabulsi EJ, Gomella LG, Hurwitz MD, Leiby B, Dicker AP, Kelly WK. Phase I Trial of Weekly Cabazitaxel with Concurrent Intensity Modulated Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy for the Treatment of High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 106:939-947. [PMID: 32029346 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.11.418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Revised: 11/01/2019] [Accepted: 11/21/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cabazitaxel has been demonstrated to improve the overall survival for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose for concurrent cabazitaxel with androgen deprivation and intensity modulated radiation therapy in men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty men were enrolled in this institutuional review board-approved phase I clinical trial using a 3 + 3 design. Patients were followed prospectively for safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite). Efficacy was assessed biochemically using the Phoenix definition. RESULTS With a median follow-up time of 56 months, the maximum tolerated dose of concurrent cabazitaxel was 6 mg/m2. The 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was 73%, despite 75% of patients having very high risk prostate cancer per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Four patients were unable to complete chemotherapy owing to dose-limiting toxicities (eg, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and elevated transaminase). There was no significant minimally important difference in Expanded Prostate Index Composite patient-reported outcomes for either the urinary or bowel domains; however, there was a significant decrease in the sexual domain. CONCLUSIONS This is the first clinical trial of prostate cancer to report on the combination of cabazitaxel and radiation therapy. The maximum tolerated dose of concurrent cabazitaxel with radiation and androgen deprivation therapy was determined to be 6 mg/m2. Despite the aggressive nature of the disease, robust biochemical control was observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianqing Lin
- Department of Medical Oncology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Robert B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Jacob Greenspan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Timothy N Showalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Jean H Hoffman-Censits
- Department of Medical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Costas D Lallas
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Edouard J Trabulsi
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Leonard G Gomella
- Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Mark D Hurwitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Benjamin Leiby
- Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Adam P Dicker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - W Kevin Kelly
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
|
25
|
Greenberger BA, Chen VE, Den RB. Combined Modality Therapies for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review of Current Understanding and New Directions. Front Oncol 2019; 9:1273. [PMID: 31850194 PMCID: PMC6896415 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite the many prospective randomized trials that have been available in the past decade regarding the optimization of radiation, hormonal, and surgical therapies for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), many questions remain. There is currently a lack of level I evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant radiation compared to radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk PCa. Current retrospective series have also described an improvement in biochemical outcomes and PCa-specific mortality through the use of augmented radiation strategies incorporating brachytherapy. The relative efficacy of modern augmented RT compared to RP is still incompletely understood. We present a narrative review regarding recent advances in understanding regarding comparisons of overall and PCa-specific mortality measures among patients with high-risk PCa treated with either an RP/adjuvant RT or an RT/ADT approach. We give special consideration to recent trends toward the assembly of multi-institutional series targeted at providing high-quality data to minimize the effects of residual confounding. We also provide a narrative review of recent studies examining brachytherapy boost and systemic therapies, as well as an overview of currently planned and ongoing studies that will further elucidate strategies for treatment optimization over the next decade.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin A Greenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Victor E Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Robert B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College and Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Greenberger BA, Zaorsky NG, Den RB. Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy Strategies as Primary Treatment for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 6:404-418. [PMID: 31813810 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2019] [Revised: 10/03/2019] [Accepted: 11/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality (OM and PCM) among patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RP or RT/ADT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through July 2019 covering a period since 2009. We report the results of our systematic search according to recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were extracted for each endpoint. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 23 studies with low to moderate risk of bias were found to meet the inclusion criteria. In keeping with prior studies, external beam radiation therapy (XRT) without specification of ADT was associated with worse OM and PCM (aHR 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.91, p < 0.0001: I2 = 53.4%) and (aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.61-2.23, p < 0.0001: I2 = 50.4%). These associations were weaker although not entirely eliminated when comparing RT/ADT versus RP (PCM aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.04, p = 0.002: I2 = 61.5%). Combination of RT and brachytherapy (MaxRT), on the contrary, was associated with improved PCM compared with RP (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.78, p = 0.003: I2 = 23.8%), an effect that was not significant when comparing MaxRT with the combination RP/adjuvant RT (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p = 0.197: I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS Evidence demonstrating definitive superiority of either modality is lacking. Recent studies show improved consideration of ADT, radiation dose, brachytherapy boost, and utilization of postoperative adjuvant radiation. Residual confounding continues to limit the interpretation of observational data. PATIENT SUMMARY In the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer, many observational studies reporting higher mortality for radiotherapy demonstrate potential for confounding. More recent studies with current standard of care radiation regimens using androgen deprivation therapy or brachytherapy boost demonstrate approaching equivalence of prostatectomy and radiation modalities. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin A Greenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA
| | - Robert B Den
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Onol FF, P Ganapathi H, Rogers T, Palmer K, Coughlin G, Samavedi S, Coelho R, Jenson C, Sandri M, Rocco B, Patel V. Changing clinical trends in 10 000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force's statement against PSA screening. BJU Int 2019; 124:1014-1021. [PMID: 31301265 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical trend changes in our robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) practice and to investigate the effect of 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement against PSA screening on these trends. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data of 10 000 RALPs performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Time trends in successive 1000 cases for clinical, surgical and pathological characteristics were analysed with linear and logistic regression. Time-trend changes before and after the USPSTF's statement were compared using a logistic regression model and likelihood-ratio test. RESULTS Unfavourable cancer characteristics rate, including D'Amico high risk, pathological non-organ-confined disease and Gleason score ≥4+4 increased from 11.5% to 23.3%, 14% to 42.5%, and 7.7% to 20.9%, respectively, over time (all P < 0.001). Significant time-trend changes were detected after the USPSTF's statement with an increase in the positive trend of Gleason ≥4+4 and increase in the negative trends of Gleason ≤3+4 tumours. There was a significant negative trend in the rate of full nerve-sparing (NS) with a decrease from 59.3% to 35.7%, and a significant positive trend in partial NS with an increase from 15.8% to 62.5% over time (both P < 0.001). The time-trend slope in 'high-grade' partial NS significantly decreased and 'low-grade' partial NS significantly increased after the USPSTF's statement. The overall positive surgical margin rate increased from 14.6% to 20.3% in the first vs last 1000 cases (P < 0.001), with a significant positive slope after the USPSTF's statement. CONCLUSIONS The proportion of high-risk patients increased in our series over time with a significant impact of the USPSTF's statement on pathological time trends. This stage migration resulted in decreased utilisation of high-quality NS and increased performance of poor-quality NS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fikret F Onol
- Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA
| | | | - Travis Rogers
- Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Kenneth Palmer
- Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA
| | | | | | - Rafael Coelho
- Department of Urology, Instituto do Cancer, Universidade de Sao Paulo Faculdade de Medicina Hospital das Clinicas, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - Cathy Jenson
- Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA
| | - Marco Sandri
- Data Methods and Systems Statistical Laboratory, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Bernardo Rocco
- Department of Urology, Ospedale Policlinico e Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino Estense Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Vipul Patel
- Florida Hospital Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|