The ProtecT trial: analysis of the patient cohort, baseline risk stratification and disease progression

Targeted microwave ablation for prostate cancer (FOSTINE1b): a prospective 'ablate-and-resect' study

OBJECTIVE

To assess histopathological outcomes, as well as feasibility and safety of targeted microwave ablation (TMA) via the Trinity® system (KOELIS, La Tronche, France).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective, single-institution, interventional Phase IIa study with an 'ablate-and-resect' design. In all, 11 patients diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (PCa) underwent TMA via the Trinity system under conscious sedation in an outpatient setting using a single transrectal TATO® 18-G antenna with different treatment regimens. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) were conducted at 7 days and 1 month after TMA, respectively. Nine patients received RARP, and two patients chose to withdraw their consent following TMA. These men chose an active surveillance protocol upon confirmation of a low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis. Functional outcomes and adverse events were evaluated at baseline and follow-up visits using validated questionnaires. Prostate volumetry and confirmation of necrosis were carried out through MRI and whole-mount histopathological examination.

RESULTS

The TMA was successfully executed, and all patients were discharged on the same day. No severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade ≥3) were reported at the 7-day and 1-month follow-up visits. Additionally, no declines were observed in urinary, sexual and ejaculation functional outcomes. T1-weighted MRI revealed clear and well-defined ablation zones. The RARP was executed without difficulty, particularly during the dissection of the posterior plane. As a result, no intraoperative complications were encountered. Histopathological assessment on surgical specimens confirmed the absence of viable cells, indicating complete necrosis of the ablative zone if a power intensity >10 W was used during TMA. Ablation zone volumetry revealed no notable distinctions between the three-dimensional segmentation of the virtual ablation zone at TMA (median volume: 2 mL) and MRI (median volume: 1.923 mL). Conversely, a significant reduction was noted in the surgical specimen (median volume: 0.221 mL).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted microwave ablation via the Trinity system for localised PCa treatment proves to be a secure and feasible procedure, with complete necrosis evidence within the ablation zone on surgical specimens.

First-in-man study of the PSMA Minibody IR800-IAB2M for molecularly targeted intraoperative fluorescence guidance during radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is increasingly used to image prostate cancer in clinical practice. We sought to develop and test a humanised PSMA minibody IAB2M conjugated to the fluorophore IRDye 800CW-NHS ester in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) to image prostate cancer cells during surgery.

METHODS

The minibody was evaluated pre-clinically using PSMA positive/negative xenograft models, following which 23 men undergoing RARP between 2018 and 2020 received between 2.5 mg and 20 mg of IR800-IAB2M intravenously, at intervals between 24 h and 17 days prior to surgery. At every step of the procedure, the prostate, pelvic lymph node chains and extra-prostatic surrounding tissue were imaged with a dual Near-infrared (NIR) and white light optical platform for fluorescence in vivo and ex vivo. Histopathological evaluation of intraoperative and postoperative microscopic fluorescence imaging was undertaken for verification.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were evaluated to optimise both the dose of the reagent and the interval between injection and surgery and secure the best possible specificity of fluorescence images. Six cases are presented in detail as exemplars. Overall sensitivity and specificity in detecting non-lymph-node extra-prostatic cancer tissue were 100% and 65%, and 64% and 64% respectively for lymph node positivity. There were no side-effects associated with administration of the reagent.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative imaging of prostate cancer tissue is feasible and safe using IR800-IAB2M. Further evaluation is underway to assess the benefit of using the technique in improving completion of surgical excision during RARP.

REGISTRATION

ISCRCTN10046036: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10046036 .

Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes.

METHODS

A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

Navigating the evolving diagnostic and therapeutic landscape of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

ABSTRACT

In this nonsystematic review of the literature, we explored the changing landscape of detection and treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Through emphasizing improved cancer assessment with histology classification and genomics, we investigated key developments in PCa detection and risk stratification. The pivotal role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the novel diagnostic pathway is examined, alongside the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-targeted biopsies for detection and tumor characterization. We also delved into treatment options, particularly active surveillance for intermediate-risk PCa. Outcomes are compared between intermediate- and low-risk patients, offering insights into tailored management. Surgical techniques, including Retzius-sparing surgery, precision prostatectomy, and partial prostatectomy for anterior cancer, are appraised. Each technique has the potential to enhance outcomes and minimize complications. Advancements in technology and radiobiology, including computed tomography (CT)/MRI imaging and positron emission tomography (PET) fusion, allow for precise dose adjustment and daily target monitoring with imaging-guided radiotherapy, opening new ways of tailoring patients' treatments. Finally, experimental therapeutic approaches such as focal therapy open new treatment frontiers, although they create new needs in tumor identification and tracking during and after the procedure.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Intra-prostatic tumour evolution, steps in metastatic spread and histogenomic associations revealed by integration of multi-region whole-genome sequencing with histopathological features

BACKGROUND

Extension of prostate cancer beyond the primary site by local invasion or nodal metastasis is associated with poor prognosis. Despite significant research on tumour evolution in prostate cancer metastasis, the emergence and evolution of cancer clones at this early stage of expansion and spread are poorly understood. We aimed to delineate the routes of evolution and cancer spread within the prostate and to seminal vesicles and lymph nodes, linking these to histological features that are used in diagnostic risk stratification.

METHODS

We performed whole-genome sequencing on 42 prostate cancer samples from the prostate, seminal vesicles and lymph nodes of five treatment-naive patients with locally advanced disease. We spatially mapped the clonal composition of cancer across the prostate and the routes of spread of cancer cells within the prostate and to seminal vesicles and lymph nodes in each individual by analysing a total of > 19,000 copy number corrected single nucleotide variants.

RESULTS

In each patient, we identified sample locations corresponding to the earliest part of the malignancy. In patient 10, we mapped the spread of cancer from the apex of the prostate to the seminal vesicles and identified specific genomic changes associated with the transformation of adenocarcinoma to amphicrine morphology during this spread. Furthermore, we show that the lymph node metastases in this patient arose from specific cancer clones found at the base of the prostate and the seminal vesicles. In patient 15, we observed increased mutational burden, altered mutational signatures and histological changes associated with whole genome duplication. In all patients in whom histological heterogeneity was observed (4/5), we found that the distinct morphologies were located on separate branches of their respective evolutionary trees.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results link histological transformation with specific genomic alterations and phylogenetic branching. These findings have implications for diagnosis and risk stratification, in addition to providing a rationale for further studies to characterise the genetic changes causally linked to morphological transformation. Our study demonstrates the value of integrating multi-region sequencing with histopathological data to understand tumour evolution and identify mechanisms of prostate cancer spread.

Observation, Radiotherapy, or Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Survival Analysis in the United States

PURPOSE

Contemporary treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolved over time. However, there is little data regarding survival outcomes based on initial treatment by risk group in this new era. This study aims to evaluate survival outcomes among men who underwent observation, radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy for localized PCa using a population-based cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) prostate with watchful waiting dataset (2010-2016) was used. We included men diagnosed with localized PCa and clinical stage T1c-2cN0M0. Other inclusion criteria were age 50-79 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤50 ng/mL, and initial treatment with observation (active surveillance/watchful waiting), radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy. PCa risk was assessed using the D'Amico classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included PCa-specific survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and competing risk analysis were performed to assess outcomes.

RESULTS

After IPTW-adjusting, pseudo-population comprised 521,656 men (observation: 170,428, radiotherapy: 175,628, radical prostatectomy: 175,600) at a median 36.5 month follow-up. Observation demonstrated the lowest 5-year overall survival rate (91.6%) after IPTW-adjusting in comparison to radiotherapy (92.4%) and radical prostatectomy (96.1%, p<0.001). Men who underwent radical prostatectomy had the lowest cumulative PCa-specific and all-cause mortality (p<0.001). Compared to observation, radiotherapy (sub-distribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; p=0.012) and radical prostatectomy (sHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.41-0.52; p<.001) had a lower risk of PCa-specific mortality in competing risk analysis after adjustment for all other factors and other-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate-term mortality risk in men with localized PCa were lower with active treatments compared to observation-especially for intermediate- and high-risk disease. However, observation represents a safe management strategy in men within the low-risk group.

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer must balance patient preferences, oncologic risk, and preservation of sexual, urinary and bowel function. While Active Surveillance (AS) is the recommended option for men with Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6) prostate cancer without other intermediate-risk features, men with Grade Group 2 (Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7) are typically recommended active treatment. For select patients, AS can be a possible initial management strategy for men with Grade Group 2. Herein, we review current urology guidelines and the urologic literature regarding recommendations and evidence for AS for this patient group.

MAIN BODY

AS benefits men with prostate cancer by maintaining their current quality of life and avoiding treatment side effects. AS protocols with close follow up always allow for an option to change course and pursue curative treatment. All the major guideline organizations now include Grade Group 2 disease with slightly differing definitions of eligibility based on risk using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical stage, and other factors. Selected men with Grade Group 2 on AS have similar rates of deferred treatment and metastasis to men with Grade Group 1 on AS. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials, large observational (prospective and retrospective) cohorts that confirm the oncologic safety of AS for these men. While some men will inevitably conclude AS at some point due to clinical reclassification with biopsy or imaging, some men may be able to stay on AS until transition to watchful waiting (WW). Magnetic resonance imaging is an important tool to confirm AS eligibility, to monitor progression and guide prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSION

AS is a viable initial management option for well-informed and select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, low volume of pattern 4, and no other adverse clinicopathologic findings following a well-defined monitoring protocol. In the modern era of AS, urologists have tools at their disposal to better stage patients at initial diagnosis, risk stratify patients, and gain information on the biologic potential of a patient's prostate cancer.

Explainable ML models for a deeper insight on treatment decision for localized prostate cancer

Although there are several decision aids for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limitations in the consistency and certainty of the information provided. We aimed to better understand the treatment decision process and develop a decision-predicting model considering oncologic, demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors. Men newly diagnosed with localized PCa between 2010 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting database were included (n = 255,837). We designed two prediction models: (1) Active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW), radical prostatectomy (RP), and radiation therapy (RT) decision prediction in the entire cohort. (2) Prediction of AS/WW decisions in the low-risk cohort. The discrimination of the model was evaluated using the multiclass area under the curve (AUC). A plausible Shapley additive explanations value was used to explain the model's prediction results. Oncological variables affected the RP decisions most, whereas RT was highly affected by geographic factors. The dependence plot depicted the feature interactions in reaching a treatment decision. The decision predicting model achieved an overall multiclass AUC of 0.77, whereas 0.74 was confirmed for the low-risk model. Using a large population-based real-world database, we unraveled the complex decision-making process and visualized nonlinear feature interactions in localized PCa.

Use of expectant management based on prostate cancer risk and health status: How far are we from a risk-adapted approach?

OBJECTIVES

While active surveillance, a form of expectant management (EM), is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), some favor a more risk-adapted approach that recognizes patient preferences and condition-specific factors. However, previous research has shown non-patient-related factors often drive PCa treatment. In this context, we characterized trends in AS with respect to disease risk and health status.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified men 66 years and older diagnosed with localized low- and intermediate-risk PCa from 2008 to 2017 and examined receipt of EM, defined as the absence of treatment (i.e., surgery, cryotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapies) within 1 year of diagnosis. We performed bivariable analysis to compare trends in use for EM vs. treatment, stratified by disease risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3, 3+4, 4+3; PSA<10, 10-20) and health status (i.e., NCI Comorbidity Index (NCI), frailty, life expectancy). We then ran a multivariable logistic regression model to examine determinants of EM.

RESULTS

Within this cohort, 26,364 (38%) were categorized as low-risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3 and PSA<10) and 43,520 (62%) as intermediate-risk (i.e., all others). Over the study period, use of EM significantly increased across all risk groups, except for Gleason 4+3 (P = 0.662), as well across all health status groups. However, linear trends did not differ significantly between frail vs. nonfrail patients for both those categorized as low-risk (P = 0.446) and intermediate-risk (P = 0.208). Trends also did not differ between NCI 0 vs. 1 vs. >1 for low-risk PCa (P = 0.395). In the multivariable models, EM was associated with increasing age and being frail for men with both low- and intermediate risk disease. Conversely, EM selection was negatively associated with higher comorbidity score.

CONCLUSIONS

EM increased significantly over time for patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk disease, with the most notable differences based on age and Gleason score. In contrast, trends in uptake of EM did not differ substantively by health status, suggesting that physicians may not be effectively incorporating patient health into PCa treatment decisions. Additional work is needed to develop interventions that recognize health status as an essential component of a risk-adapted approach.

Prostate Cancer Scoring Index for Risk of Progression of Radioresistant Disease

Prostate cancer (Pca) is among the most common malignant diseases in men and the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. Surgery and radical radiotherapy (RT) remain the gold standard for the treatment of localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The efficiency of radiotherapy treatment is limited by toxic side effects due to dose escalation. Cancer cells often develop radio-resistant mechanisms that are related to the DNA repair, inhibition of apoptosis or changes in cell cycle. Based on our earlier research on biomarkers that are involved in those cellular mechanisms (p53, bcl-2, NF-kb, Cripto-1 and Ki67 proliferation) and correlation with clinico-pathological parameters (age, PSA value, Gleason score, grade group, prognostic group), we created the numerical index for risk of tumor progression in patients with radioresistant tumors. For each of these parameters, the strength of association with disease progression was statistically assessed, and a specific number of points was assigned proportional to the strength of the correlation. Statistical analysis identified an optimal cut-off score of 22 or more as an indicator of significant risk for progression with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 66.7%. The scoring system in the retrospective receiver operating characteristic analysis showed AUC of 0.82. The potential value of this scoring is the possibility of identifying patients with clinically significant radioresistant Pca.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy.

METHODS

At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P = 0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.).

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

The use of PSA screening has led to downstaging and downgrading of prostate cancer at diagnosis, increasing detection of indolent disease. Active surveillance aims to reduce over-treatment by delaying or avoiding radical treatment and its associated morbidity. However, there is not a consensus on the selection criteria and monitoring schedules that should be used. This article aims to summarize the evidence supporting the safety of active surveillance, the current selection criteria recommended and in use, the incidence of active surveillance, barriers existing to its uptake and future developments in patient selection.

Natural history, and impact of surgery and radiation on survival outcomes of men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer at ≤ 55 years of age: a 25-year follow-up of > 60,000 men

PURPOSE

Low-grade prostate cancer has low mortality rates at 10 years; however, it is unclear if the response is sustained for up to 25 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, the overall and cancer-specific mortality rates were compared among men ≤ 55 years of age diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer that either had radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or no known treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 62,772 men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer between 1975 and 2016, about 60%, 20% and 20% of men underwent radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and no known treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 10 years, almost 2% and 7% of men died of prostate cancer and other causes, respectively. The overall mortality was significantly better in radical prostatectomy group compared to no known treatment group (HR 1.99, CI 1.84-2.15, P value < 0.001), but not between the radiotherapy and no known treatment groups. Moreover, the overall and cancer-specific mortality rates in the radiotherapy group were almost two and three times compared to the radical prostatectomy group, respectively (HR 2.15, CI 2.01-2.29, P value < 0.001 for overall mortality and HR 2.87, CI 2.5-3.29, P value < 0.001 for cancer-specific mortality).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms low mortality rates in men diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer for over 25 years' follow-up. While radical prostatectomy improves survival significantly compared to no known treatment, radiotherapy is associated with an increase in overall and cancer-specific mortality, which may be related to long-term toxicities.

Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer-A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

This case-based discussion describes a 65-year-old man newly diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 prostate cancer (PCa). According to the European Association of Urology classification system, the patient harbors an intermediate-risk cancer. In step-by step discussion, we elaborate guideline-based treatment modalities for intermediate-risk PCa focused on debating active surveillance versus active treatment. Thereby, we discuss the importance of patient characteristics, including age, hereditary factors, life expectancy and comorbidity status, findings of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, as well as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and PSA kinetics, in predicting the clinical course of the disease. In addition, we focus on cribriform pathology as a predictor of adverse outcomes and critically discuss its relevance in patient management. Lastly, we outline genomic stratification in ISUP 2 cancer as a future tool to predict PCa aggressiveness. PATIENT SUMMARY: Based on current guidelines, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are treated actively or can alternatively undergo an active surveillance approach when favorable risk factors are present. One major issue is to discriminate between patients who benefit from an active therapy approach and those who benefit from a deferred treatment. Therefore, reliable biomarkers and early predictors of disease progression are needed urgently.

[High risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: Long-term oncological outcomes after prostatectomy]

INTRODUCTION

High risk localized and locally advanced forms are responsible for the vast majority of specific deaths from prostate cancer among non-metastatic diseases at diagnosis. No randomized study has yet been published to establish the best local treatment in terms of survival.

AIM

Conduct a large-volume cohort study with long-term follow-up to analyze specific and overall survival outcomes after surgery.

METHOD

A single-center retrospective study of all patients operated on for localized high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer was performed. Actuarial survival analyses and multivariate analyses were performed to discern predictive risk factors.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients were included. MRI stage was≥iT3a in 40.7% of cases and 50.2% of patients had a Gleason score≥8 on biopsy. The mean follow-up was 63.1 months. The overall, specific and biological recurrence-free survival were respectively 77.6%, 93.9% and 26.8% at 10 years. A PSA level≥20, a Gleason score on biopsy≥9 and a MRI stage≥iT3a were significantly associated with the 10-years biological recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

This study shows very good long-term oncological results. In the absence of a randomized controlled trial, these results suggest the primary role of surgery in this indication and support the evolution of current practices. We pointed out very pejorative features that might help selection of the best candidates for surgical treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Effect of Clinical Parameters on Risk of Death from Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Background: The study aimed to assess predictors and to identify patients at increased risk of prostate-cancer-specific mortality (CSM) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: A total of 2421 men with localized and locally advanced PCa who underwent RP in 2001−2017 were included in the study. CSM predictors were assessed using multivariate competing risk analysis. Death from other causes was considered a competing event. Cumulative CSM and other-cause mortality (OCM) were calculated in various combinations of predictors. Results: During the median 8 years (interquartile range 4.4−11.7) follow-up, 56 (2.3%) of registered deaths were due to PCa. Cumulative 10 years CSM and OCM was 3.6% (95% CI 2.7−4.7) and 15.9% (95% CI 14.2−17.9), respectively. The strongest predictors of CSM were Grade Group 5 (GG5) (hazard ratio (HR) 19.9, p < 0.0001), lymph node invasion (HR 3.4, p = 0.001), stage pT3b-4 (HR 3.1, p = 0.009), and age (HR 1.1, p = 0.0007). In groups created regarding age, stage, and GG, cumulative 10 years CSM ranged from 0.4−84.9%, whereas OCM varied from 0−43.2%. Conclusions: CSM after RP is related to GGs, pathological stage, age, and combinations of these factors, whereas other-cause mortality is only associated with age. Created CSM and OCM plots can help clinicians identify patients with the most aggressive PCa who could benefit from more intensive or novel multimodal treatment strategies.

Outcomes following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation for veterans with Gleason 9 and 10 prostate cancer

Background

The optimal upfront treatment modality for patients with nonmetastatic Gleason Score 9 and 10 prostate cancer (GS 9–10 PCa) is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with GS 9–10 PCa treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT) from 1/2000 to 12/2010. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and salvage/adjuvant therapy‐free survival (SAFS), as assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

We identified 1220 veterans with GS 9–10 PCa; 335 were treated with RP, and 885 were treated with EBRT+ADT. With a median follow‐up of 9.9 years, propensity score‐matched analyses demonstrated that RP had superior 10‐year OS (70.8% [RP] vs. 61.2% [EBRT+ADT], p < 0.001), 10‐year DMFS rates were similar between RP (76.7%) and EBRT+ADT (81.0%), and 10‐year SAFS rates were lower for RP vs EBRT + ADT (35.2% [RP] vs. 75.2% [EBRT+ADT], p < 0.001). The receipt of salvage ADT was higher with upfront RP (51.9% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), despite receipt of adjuvant/salvage EBRT in 41.8% of RP patients. Among patients treated with RP, there were no differences in outcomes by race. However, higher survival rates were noted among Black patients treated with EBRT+ADT compared with White patients.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrated higher 10‐year OS rates among men treated with upfront RP versus EBRT+ADT, though missing confounders and similar DMFS rates suggest the long‐term cause‐specific OS rates may be similar. We also highlight real‐world outcomes of a diverse patient population in the VHA and improved outcomes for Black patients receiving EBRT+ADT.

The Impact of PSMA PET/CT Imaging in Prostate Cancer Radiation Treatment

Imaging of prostate cancer is rapidly evolving with the introduction of the novel prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging tool for managing recurrent prostate cancer. One immediate impact of PSMA PET is the identification of residual or recurrent lesions that are amenable to external beam radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is used as a definitive curative treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer alone or in combination therapy. In the setting of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy, salvage radiation is a potential curative option, and the application of metastasis-directed radiotherapy in the setting of oligometastatic prostate cancer is currently being studied. To maximize the chances of curative therapy, the irradiated tumor volumes should completely encompass the actual extent of disease. Thus, an accurate estimation of the location and delineation of disease targets is critical for radiotherapy planning. The integration of PSMA PET imaging into the routine evaluation of prostate cancer has markedly improved sensitivity and specificity for recurrent disease, even at very low PSA values, which may enable further tailored radiation treatment plans, and help reduce the risk of radiation to adjacent normal tissues. However, while the introduction of PSMA PET will likely change behavior regarding earlier application of radiotherapy, the long-term impact of PSMA PET on patient outcomes is yet to be determined. The aim of the review is to give an overview of the use of PSMA-PET/CT imaging in the setting of radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

The prostate cancer landscape in Europe: Current challenges, future opportunities

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men in Europe and is predicted to exhibit declining mortality in the European Union (EU) due to various recent improvements in treatment. The goal of this short review is to give insight into the European treatment landscape of PCa, while focusing on improvements in care.

Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is an established approach in the management of low-risk, localized prostate cancer. While the use of AS to manage intermediate-risk (IR) disease has gradually increased over time, there remains uncertainty with regards to its safety, with only a minority of IR patients currently being managed with this approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a narrative review based on an analysis of the literature focusing on articles describing AS for IR prostate cancer. We focus on the uncertainty surrounding AS in IR disease by discussing variations in the definitions and guideline recommendations associated with IR disease, and describing the limitations of the evidence from observational studies and randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

The safety of AS for IR disease remains unknown, given the lack of randomized trials and the limitations of the current observational studies. Further research is needed to identify select patients with IR prostate cancer that can be managed safely with AS.

Phase 3 multicenter randomized trial of PSMA PET/CT prior to definitive radiation therapy for unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer [PSMA dRT]: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Definitive radiation therapy (dRT) is an effective initial treatment of intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa). PSMA PET/CT is superior to standard of care imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan) for detecting regional and distant metastatic PCa. PSMA PET/CT thus has the potential to guide patient selection and the planning for dRT and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

This is a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial (NCT04457245). We will randomize 312 patients to proceed with standard dRT (control Arm, n = 150), or undergo a PSMA PET/CT scan at the study site (both 18F-DCFPyL and 68Ga-PSMA-11 can be used) prior to dRT planning (intervention arm, n = 162). dRT will be performed at the treating radiation oncologist facility. In the control arm, dRT will be performed as routinely planned. In the intervention arm, the treating radiation oncologist can incorporate PSMA PET/CT findings into the RT planning. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is administered per discretion of the treating radiation oncologist and may be modified as a result of the PSMA PET/CT results. We assume that approximately 8% of subjects randomized to the PSMA PET arm will be found to have M1 disease and thus will be more appropriate candidates for long-term systemic or multimodal therapy, rather than curative intent dRT. PET M1 patients will thus not be included in the primary endpoint analysis. The primary endpoint is the success rate of patients with unfavorable IR and HR PCa after standard dRT versus PSMA PET-based dRT. Secondary Endpoints (whole cohort) include progression free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival after initiation of RT, overall survival (OS), % of change in initial treatment intent and Safety.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized phase 3 prospective trial designed to determine whether PSMA PET/CT molecular imaging can improve outcomes in patients with PCa who receive dRT. In this trial the incorporation of PSMA PET/CT may improve the success rate of curative intent radiotherapy in two ways: to optimize patient selection as a biomarker and to personalizes the radiotherapy plan.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UCLA IND#147591 ○ Submission: 02.27.2020 ○ Safe-to-proceed letter issued by FDA: 04.01.2020 UCLA IRB #20-000378 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04457245 . Date of Registry: 07.07.2020. Essen EudraCT 2020-003526-23.

MR-Guided Hypofractionated Radiotherapy: Current Emerging Data and Promising Perspectives for Localized Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

The biological features of prostate cancer as a tumor with a low alpha beta ratio have led clinicians to consider the use of higher doses per fraction, thus gaining an advantage both in terms of clinical outcomes and of logistic opportunities. To date, moderate hypofractionated schedules are supported by several international clinical guidelines. The subsequent step was represented by the adoption of extreme hypofractionated schedules, for which recent literature data report non-inferiority results for the five-fractions regimens. In this scenario, the recent introduction of MR-guided daily adaptive radiotherapy is a potential paradigm shift, given the ability to increase the resolution of the pelvis anatomy and to take into account of the daily variations in shape and size of the nearby healthy structures.

Abstract

In this review we summarize the currently available evidence about the role of hybrid machines for MR-guided radiotherapy for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Given the novelty of this technology, to date few data are accessible, but they all report very promising results in terms of tolerability and preliminary clinical outcomes. Most of the studies highlight the favorable impact of on-board magnetic resonance imaging as a means to improve target and organs at risk identification with a consequent advantage in terms of dosimetric results, which is expected to relate to a more favorable toxicity pattern. Still, the longer treatment time per session may potentially affect the patient’s compliance to the treatment, although first quality of life assessment studies have reported substantial tolerability and no major impact on quality of life. Finally, in this review we hypothesize some future scenarios of further investigation, based on the possibility to explore the superior anatomy visualization and the role of daily adapted treatments provided by hybrid MR-Linacs.

Management of patients who opt for radical prostatectomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an international accelerated consensus statement

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused delays in definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Beyond the immediate delay a backlog for future patients is expected. The objective of this work is to develop guidance on criteria for prioritisation of surgery and reconfiguring management pathways for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer who opt for surgical treatment. A second aim was to identify the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to achieve a low likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hazard if radical prostatectomy (RP) was to be carried out during the outbreak and whilst the disease is endemic.

METHODS

We conducted an accelerated consensus process and systematic review of the evidence on COVID-19 and reviewed international guidance on prostate cancer. These were presented to an international prostate cancer expert panel (n = 34) through an online meeting. The consensus process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. The Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement and this was used to reconfigure the prostate cancer pathways.

RESULTS

Evidence on the delayed management of patients with prostate cancer is scarce. There was 100% agreement that prostate cancer pathways should be reconfigured and measures developed to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 for patients treated surgically. Consensus was reached on prioritisation criteria of patients for surgery and management pathways for those who have delayed treatment. IPC measures to achieve a low likelihood of nosocomial COVID-19 were coined as 'COVID-19 cold' sites.

CONCLUSION

Reconfiguring management pathways for patients with prostate cancer is recommended if significant delay (>3-6 months) in surgical management is unavoidable. The mapped pathways provide guidance for such patients. The IPC processes proposed provide a framework for providing RP within an environment with low COVID-19 risk during the outbreak or when the disease remains endemic. The broader concepts could be adapted to other indications beyond prostate cancer surgery.

Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy combined with systematic biopsy (MRI-biopsy) to reduce negative biopsies and detect clinically significant prostate cancer compared to systematic biopsy (SB) alone in the confirmatory biopsy setting using matched cohorts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were identified from an active surveillance database who had a previously positive transrectal ultrasonography-guided SB followed by a confirmatory biopsy at a single institution between 2006 and 2019. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on confirmatory biopsy technique: SB alone or MRI-biopsy (which included MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). Cohorts were then matched on age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, number of positive cores on initial biopsy and initial biopsy Gleason grade group (GG). Logistic regression was performed to identify associations with confirmatory biopsy upgrading.

RESULTS

After matching, 514 patients were identified (257 per cohort). PSA, prostate volume and PSA density prior to initial biopsy, in addition to total number of initial biopsy positive cores and GG, were similar between the matched cohorts. After confirmatory biopsy, 118/257 patients (45.9%) in the MRI-biopsy cohort were upgraded compared to 46/257 patients (17.9%) in the SB cohort (P < 0.001). The rate of negative confirmatory biopsy was 32/257 (12.5%) compared to 97/257 (37.7%) in the MRI-biopsy and SB cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001). Confirmatory MRI-biopsy was associated with greater odds of confirmatory biopsy upgrade from GG 1 to ≥GG 2 compared to SB alone (odds ratio 3.62, 95% confidence interval 1.97-6.63; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to SB in the confirmatory biopsy setting among men with previously detected prostate cancer resulted in fewer negative confirmatory biopsies and detection of more clinically significant prostate cancer compared to SB alone.

Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical "middle ground" in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.

Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer

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.

Prostate cancer screening and treatment: where have we come from and where are we going?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current prostate cancer screening and treatment paradigm in light of recently published long-term results of major screening and treatment trials.

METHODS

Historical review of the evolution of the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer followed by a detailed summary of the findings and differences among the three major screening trials and the three major treatment trials.

RESULTS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can identify clinically significant prostate cancer and has produced a significant stage shift and is the likely explanation for the decline in prostate cancer mortality. Unfortunately, PSA testing predominantly identifies low-grade disease that is unlikely to progress during a patient's lifetime leading to substantial diagnosis of indolent disease. Treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) appears to benefit primarily younger men (aged <65 years) with intermediate-grade disease. Too few men with low-grade disease benefit from RP to justify intervening in all. Unfortunately, high-grade prostate cancer often progresses despite surgery and radiation.

CONCLUSION

The primary PSA testing paradigm is wrong. Rather than attempting to identify all prostate cancers as early as possible, testing objectives should shift towards identifying men likely to harbour clinically significant disease. These are the men who appear to benefit from early diagnosis and intervention, including the earlier use of antiandrogen therapy prior to widespread metastases.