Focal therapy for localised prostate cancer: are we asking the correct research questions?

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: the technical challenges

Focal therapy for prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative treatment to whole gland therapy, offering the opportunity for tumor dose escalation and/or reduced toxicity. Brachytherapy, either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate, provides an ideal approach, offering both precision in dose delivery and opportunity for a highly conformal, non-uniform dose distribution. Whilst multiple consensus documents have published clinical guidelines for patient selection, there are insufficient data to provide clear guidelines on target volume delineation, treatment planning margins, treatment planning approaches, and many other technical issues that should be considered before implementing a focal brachytherapy program. Without consensus guidelines, there is the potential for a diversity of practices to develop, leading to challenges in interpreting outcome data from multiple centers. This article provides an overview of the technical considerations for the implementation of a clinical service, and discusses related topics that should be considered in the design of clinical trials to ensure precise and accurate methods are applied for focal brachytherapy treatments.

8q24 risk alleles and prostate cancer in African-Barbadian men

BACKGROUND

African American men (AA) exhibit a disproportionate share of prostate cancer (PRCA) incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Several genetic association studies have implicated select 8q24 loci in PRCA risk in AA. The objective of this investigation is to evaluate the association between previously reported 8q24 risk alleles and PRCA in African-Barbadian (AB) men known to have high rates of PRCA.

METHODS

Ten previously reported candidate tag SNPs were genotyped and/or imputed in the 8q24 region in 532 AB men with PRCA and 513 AB controls from the Prostate Cancer in a Black Population (PCBP) study.

RESULTS

Rs2124036 was significant in AB men, (OR = 2.7, 95% CI (1.3-5.3), P = 0.005, Empirical (max (T), corrected for multiple testing) P = 0.03) for the homozygous C/C genotype. Only a single SNP from this region remained statistically significant in our analysis of our AB population. These results may indicate the presence of a founder effect or due to the chosen SNPs not tagging an ancestral haplotype bearing the 8q24 risk allele(s) in this population or could reflect inadequate power to detect an association. We conducted a meta-analysis including our AB population along with two additional African Caribbean populations from Tobago and Jamaica for SNPs rs16901979 and rs1447295. Meta-analysis results were most significant for rs16901979 A allele (Z score 2.73; P = 0.006) with a summary OR = 1.31 (95% CI: 1.09-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies are needed to provide deeper genotype coverage to further interrogate the 8q24 region to understand its contribution to PRCA in this population.

Defining the level of evidence for technology adoption in the localized prostate cancer pathway

New technologies in prostate cancer are attempting to change the current prostate cancer pathway by aiming to reduce harms while maintaining the benefits associated with screening, diagnosis, and treatment. In this article, we discuss the optimal evaluation that new technologies should undergo to provide level 1 evidence typically required to change the practice. With this in mind, we focus on feasible and pragmatic trials that could be delivered in a timely fashion by many centers while retaining primary outcomes that focus on clinically meaningful outcomes.

Focal brachytherapy for selected low-risk prostate cancers: a pilot study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility and the early toxicity of focal brachytherapy in highly selected localized prostate cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-one patients underwent a focal brachytherapy between February 2010 and March 2012, representing 3.7% of the cases treated by our group during this period. Patient selection was based on (at least) two series of prostate biopsies and a high-resolution MRI. Only patients with very limited and localized tumors, according to strict criteria, were selected for the procedure. The technique used a real-time procedure with the implantation of free (125)I seeds and dynamic dose calculation. The prescribed dose for the focal volume was 145Gy.

RESULTS

The treated volume corresponded to a mean value of 34% of the total prostatic volume (range, 20-48%). For the focal volume, the mean D90 and V100 was 183.2Gy (range, 176-188Gy) and 99.3% (range, 98.8-100%), respectively. The technique was performed in an hour and a half. When compared with a previous cohort treated by whole-prostate brachytherapy, urinary toxicity (International Prostate Symptom Score) was borderline reduced (p = 0.04) at 6 months only, whereas the recovery of the International Index of Erectile Function 5 was better (p = 0.014). The International Continence Score was nil in almost all cases as well as rectal toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Focal treatment by brachytherapy is easily feasible with little acute toxicity. Further investigation is needed to assess the results in terms of tumor control and long-term toxicity.