Surgical management of lymph-node-positive prostate cancer: improves symptomatic control

Radical prostatectomy in oligometastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although cytoreductive surgery is accompanied with prolonged survival in many other malignancies in a metastatic stage, its role in oligometastatic prostate cancer is unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer seems to be feasible. Perioperative complication rates vary between 20 and 50% (Clavien 1-3) and are comparable to patients with locally advanced tumors. Postoperative functional outcomes (urinary continence and erectile function) can be slightly worse than in patients with locally advanced tumor. In literature, an oncological benefit of surgery is so far only described for retrospective multiinstitutional databases and a case-control study but not for prospective studies. Still, men undergoing RP clearly seem to develop severe local complications less frequently than patients receiving best systemic therapy (up to more than 50% versus less than10%).

SUMMARY

Patients should be counseled about the potential significant reduction of local complications whenever undergoing RP for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Nevertheless, as complication rates are relatively high, functional outcome can be slightly worse compared with RP with curative intent and especially as oncological benefit so far is shown using retrospective but not prospective data, patients should only undergo surgery within the ongoing prospective, randomized trials.

Radiation therapy to the primary in metastatic prostate cancer: palliation only or altering tumor biology?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite improvement in systemic treatment, the prognosis of men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer remains poor. Treating the local disease may not only reduce the occurrence of local urologic symptoms, but also slow the metastatic process, either by reducing the seeding from the primary tumor or by altering the microenvironment and thus minimizing the formation of new metastatic sites.

RECENT FINDINGS

Retrospective and population-based studies have suggested that the addition of local treatment to systemic therapy may improve survival in this patient group. The aim of this review is to discuss the biologic rationale of such an approach, present and discuss the current available evidence, with a focus on radiation-based treatments. It is key to also address the issue of patient selection as not all patients with metastatic prostate cancer will benefit from the treatment of the primary tumor.

SUMMARY

Retrospective and population-based research suggests a survival benefit of prostatectomy or radiotherapy in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Clinical trials evaluating the role of prostate radiotherapy in the metastatic setting are ongoing.

Oncological effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a propensity score matching study

PURPOSE

We investigated the oncologic effect of palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in patients with prostate cancer who received primary androgen deprivation therapy.

METHODS

We reviewed 614 patients, including 83 who underwent pTURP; those with incidental prostate cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into the TURP group and non-TURP group. Propensity score matching was performed for comorbidity, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA), TNM stage, and Gleason score (GS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to confirm castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to confirm factors affecting CSS.

RESULTS

Before matching, the TURP group had a worse TNM stage (p < 0.01) and GS (p = 0.028) and larger prostate volume (50.1 vs. 39.0 cc, p = 0.005) than the non-TURP group. The most common reason for pTURP was acute urinary retention. After matching, the TURP group showed worse outcomes in CRPC (p = 0.003), CSS (p = 0.003), and OS (p = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, factors for predicting CSS were a positive core percent [hazard ratio (HR) 1.015, p = 0.0272], GS (10 vs. ≤8; HR 6.716, p = 0.0008), and TURP within 3 months after biopsy (HR 2.543, p = 0.0482). The resection weight (HR 1.000, p = 0.9730), resection time (HR 1.000, p = 0.3670), and blood transfusion (HR 0.630, p = 0.1860) were not associated with CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncologic effect of pTURP as cytoreductive operation seems to be limited. Patients who had to receive pTURP due to cancer-related symptoms, especially early necessity of pTURP (within 3 months after biopsy), showed worse clinical courses; therefore, they should be treated more carefully and actively.

Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer

The mainstay of treatment for men with three or fewer non-castrate metastatic lesions outside of the prostate remains morbid palliative androgen deprivation therapy. We believe there is now a significant body of retrospective literature to suggest a survival benefit if these men have radical treatment to their primary tumour alongside ‘metastasis-directed therapy’ to the metastatic deposits. However, this regimen should be reserved to high-volume centres with quality assurance programmes and excellent outcomes. Patients should be made clear as to the uncertainty of benefit for this multi-site treatment strategy, and we await the publication of randomised controlled trials reporting in the next 5 years.

Testing radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer and oligometastases to the bone: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

This is the Protocol of the ethically-approved TRoMbone study.

Role of radical prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: A review

CONTEXT

Recent demonstration of efficacy with the use of chemohormonal therapy for men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has expanded the therapeutic options for these patients. Furthermore, multimodal therapy to treat systemic disease in the context of locoregional control has gained increasing interest. Concomitantly, the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) in multimodal treatment for locally advanced prostate cancer is expanding. As a result, there is interest in investigating the potential benefit of cytoreductive RP in mPCa.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature regarding the role of cytoreductive prostatectomy in the setting of mPCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were queried for English language articles related to patients with mPCa who underwent RP from January 1990 to June 2016. Key words used in our search included cytoreductive prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, and metastatic prostate cancer. Preclinical, retrospective, and prospective studies were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There are no published randomized control trials examining the role of cytoreduction in mPCa. Local symptoms are high in mPCa and often provide a necessity for palliative procedures with the impact on oncologic outcomes being uncertain. Recently, preclinical and retrospective population-based data suggest a benefit from treatment of the primary tumor in metastatic disease. Potential mechanisms mediating this benefit include prevention of symptomatic local progression and modulation of disease biology, resulting in an improvement in progression-free and overall survival. Current literature supports the feasibility of cytoreductive prostatectomy as it is associated with acceptable side effects that are comparable to RP for high-risk localized disease. In aggregate, these data compel prospective evaluation of the hypothesis that cytoreductive prostatectomy improves the outcome of men with mPCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytoreductive prostatectomy in mPCa is a feasible procedure that may improve outcomes for men when combined with multimodal management. Preclinical, translational, and retrospective evidence supports local therapy for metastatic disease. However, currently, evidence is limited and is subject to bias. The results of ongoing prospective randomized trials are required before incorporating this therapeutic strategy into clinical practice.

Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: Does it really make sense?

PURPOSE

Surgical removal of the primary tumor in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is becoming a hotly debated issue. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current knowledge on cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a non-systematic Medline/PubMed literature search of articles published in the field between January 2000 and April 2015.

RESULTS

Cytoreductive surgery has demonstrated its benefit in various malignancies with a solid biological rationale to justify its assessment in mPCa. cRP appears as a safe and feasible procedure in expert hands and well-selected patients. A growing body of evidence suggests a survival benefit for patients undergoing cRP as a part of a multimodal approach compared to those treated with systemic treatment alone. Nevertheless, little is known about the best clinical and tumor characteristics for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from cRP. The current literature is based on retrospective studies with small cohorts and limited follow-up or large uncontrolled population-based studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from various other malignancies together with the biological rationale and preliminary results in PCa suggest that cytoreductive surgery may be an option in some mPCa patients. The lack of randomized controlled trials and the low level of evidence in the current literature preclude any firms conclusion on the benefit of cRP in mPCa. Ongoing phase II and future phase III studies are mandatory to define the exact role of cRP in mPCa and to identify the patients who are most likely to benefit from cRP.

Extended lymph node dissection in robotic radical prostatectomy: Current status

Introduction:

The role and extent of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) during radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer patients remains unclear.

Materials and Methods:

A PubMed literature search was performed for studies reporting on treatment regimens and outcomes in patients with prostate cancer treated by RP and extended lymph node dissection between 1999 and 2013.

Results:

Studies have shown that RP can improve progression-free and overall survival in patients with lymph node-positive prostate cancer. While this finding requires further validation, it does allow urologists to question the former treatment paradigm of aborting surgery when lymph node invasion from prostate cancer occurred, especially in patients with limited lymph node tumor infiltration. Studies show that intermediate- and high-risk patients should undergo ePLND up to the common iliac arteries in order to improve nodal staging.

Conclusions:

Evidence from the literature suggests that RP with ePLND improves survival in lymph node-positive prostate cancer. While studies have shown promising results, further improvements and understanding of the surgical technique and post-operative treatment are required to improve treatment for prostate cancer patients with lymph node involvement.

Cytoreductive surgery for men with metastatic prostate cancer

Background

Cytoreductive surgery for metastatic prostate cancer is an emerging area of interest with a potential upside that includes local control, delayed initiation of hormone therapy, and possibly improved cancer specific survival. In order for radical prostatectomy to be an effective treatment option for men in this group, the benefits must outweigh the surgical morbidity. The aim of this study was to present a case series and assess the literature feasibility of cytoreductive surgery for men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Methods

A retrospective review of clinical notes was performed to identify men with metastatic prostate cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery between 2012 and 2014 for a group of urologists at a single institution in Melbourne. Each patient was evaluated with regard to preoperative prostate-specific antigen, grade, stage, adjuvant therapy, and surgical outcomes.

Results

Six cases were identified. This included 1 pelvic exenteration and 5 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. The men who underwent RARP had uncomplicated recoveries, regained continence within 3 months and remained pad-free at follow up. All patients proceeded to additional treatment of sites of metastatic disease with a variable PSA response, however, 3 of 6 men required recommencement of ADT for biochemical progression at follow up.

Conclusions

This data supports recent findings demonstrating that radical prostatectomy for metastatic prostate cancer is feasible. Further studies are needed to explore the role of cytoreductive surgery with regards to the potential oncological benefit.

Integrating chemohormonal therapy and surgery in known or suspected lymph node metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer persisting in the primary site after systemic therapy may contribute to emergence of resistance and progression. We previously demonstrated molecular characteristics of lethal cancer in the prostatectomy specimens of patients presenting with lymph node metastasis after chemohormonal treatment. Here we report the post-treatment outcomes of these patients and assess whether a link exists between surgery and treatment-free/cancer-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with either clinically detected lymph node metastasis or primaries at high risk for nodal dissemination were treated with androgen ablation and docetaxel. Those responding with PSA concentration <1 ng ml(-1) were recommended surgery 1 year from enrollment. ADT was withheld postoperatively. The rate of survival without biochemical progression 1 year after surgery was measured to screen for efficacy.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled and 39 were evaluable. Three patients (7.7%) declined surgery. Of the remaining 36, 4 patients experienced disease progression during treatment and 4 more did not reach PSA <1. Twenty-six patients (67%) completed surgery, and 13 (33%) were also progression-free 1 year postoperatively (8 with undetectable PSA). With a median follow-up of 61 months, time to treatment failure was 27 months in the patients undergoing surgery. The most frequent patterns of first disease recurrence were biochemical (10 patients) and systemic (5).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the patients undergoing surgery were off treatment and progression-free 1 year following completion of all therapy. These results suggest that integration of surgery is feasible and may be superior to systemic therapy alone for selected prostate cancer patients presenting with nodal metastasis.

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVE

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

Androgen-deprivation therapy versus radical prostatectomy as monotherapy among clinically localized prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The most recent randomized controlled trial in a predominantly prostate-specific antigen-detected prostate cancer (PC) population found a nonsignificant reduction in mortality from radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to conservative management. The optimal treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer is anything but clear. The PC-specific mortality and all-cause mortality were compared between primary androgen-deprivation treatment (PADT) and RP, both as monotherapy, among clinically localized PC patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study among PC patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data with a median follow up of 2.87 years in the PADT cohort and 2.95 years in the RP cohort. Propensity score-matching was employed to adjust for the observed selection bias. PC-specific mortality and all-cause mortality were modeled using the Fine and Gray competing risk model and Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. The independent variables in these models included age, race, Gleason score risk groups, T-score, prostate-specific antigen, Charlson comorbidity, and index year of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, there were 1624 in the PADT cohort and 1624 in the RP cohort. All baseline values were comparable (all P-values >0.35). There were a total of 266 deaths (16.38%) and 60 (3.69%) PC-specific deaths among PADT recipients, while there were 56 (3.45%) deaths and four (0.25%) PC-specific deaths among RP recipients. According to the Kaplan-Meier estimation, the 8-year survival rate was 43.39% in the PADT cohort and 79.62% in the RP cohort. PADT was associated with increased risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio = 2.98, 95% confidence interval 2.35-3.79; P < 0.001) and increased risk of PC-specific mortality (hazard ratio = 12.47, 95% confidence interval 4.48-34.70; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

With adjustment for the observed selection bias, PADT was associated with increased all-cause mortality and PC-specific mortality when compared to RP.

Platinum-based chemotherapy for variant castrate-resistant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical features characteristic of small-cell prostate carcinoma (SCPC), "anaplastic," often emerge during the progression of prostate cancer. We sought to determine the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients meeting at least one of seven prospectively defined "anaplastic" clinical criteria, including exclusive visceral or predominantly lytic bone metastases, bulky tumor masses, low prostate-specific antigen levels relative to tumor burden, or short response to androgen deprivation therapy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A 120-patient phase II trial of first-line carboplatin and docetaxel (CD) and second-line etoposide and cisplatin (EP) was designed to provide reliable clinical response estimates under a Bayesian probability model with early stopping rules in place for futility and toxicity.

RESULTS

Seventy-four of 113 (65.4%) and 24 of 71 (33.8%) were progression free after four cycles of CD and EP, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 16 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6-19.0 months]. Of the seven "anaplastic" criteria, bulky tumor mass was significantly associated with poor outcome. Lactic acid dehydrogenase strongly predicted for OS and rapid progression. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration strongly predicted OS but not rapid progression. Neuroendocrine markers did not predict outcome or response to therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the hypothesis that patients with "anaplastic" prostate cancer are a recognizable subset characterized by a high response rate of short duration to platinum-containing chemotherapies, similar to SCPC. Our results suggest that CEA is useful for selecting therapy in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and consolidative therapies to bulky high-grade tumor masses should be considered in this patient population.

Early versus deferred androgen suppression therapy for patients with lymph node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy with curative intent: a systematic review

Background

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal timing for androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer that have undergone local therapy with curative intent but are proven to have node-positive disease without signs of distant metastases at the time of local therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the benefits and harms of early (at the time of local therapy) versus deferred (at the time of clinical disease progression) androgen suppression therapy for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy.

Methods

The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42011001221; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, as well as reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences, and three trial registers, to identify randomized controlled trials (search update 04/08/2012). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

Results

Four studies including 398 patients were identified for inclusion. Early androgen suppression therapy lead to a significant decrease in overall mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64), and clinical progression at 3 or 9 years (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52 at 3 years and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.67 at 9 years). One study showed an increase of adverse effects with early androgen suppression therapy. All trials had substantial methodological limitations.

Conclusions

The data available suggest an improvement in survival and delayed disease progression but increased adverse events for patients with node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy treated with early androgen suppression therapy versus deferred androgen suppression therapy. However, quality of data is low. Randomized controlled trials with blinding of outcome assessment, planned to determine the timing of androgen suppression therapy in node-positive prostate cancer using modern diagnostic imaging modalities, biochemical testing, and standardized follow-up schedules should be conducted to confirm these findings.