1
|
Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, Gross T, Moris L, Briers E, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M, Tilki D, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gillessen S, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Lardas M, Liew M, Rouvière O, Pecanka J, Mason MD, Schoots IG, van Der Kwast TH, van Der Poel HG, Wiegel T, Willemse PPM, Yuan Y, Lam TB, Cornford P, Mottet N. Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2019; 75:967-987. [PMID: 30342843 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 254] [Impact Index Per Article: 50.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2018] [Accepted: 10/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally. PATIENT SUMMARY This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Van den Broeck
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| | | | - Nicolas Arfi
- Department of Urology, Hospital Saint Luc Saint Joseph, Lyon, France
| | - Tobias Gross
- Department of Urology, University of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Maria De Santis
- Charite Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Nuclear Medicine Division, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and The Christie, Manchester, UK; Department of Oncology and Haematology, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jeremy P Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Caulfield North, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Radiology Department, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - Jakub Pecanka
- Pecanka Consulting Services, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Henk G van Der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | | | - Yuhong Yuan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Thomas B Lam
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Philip Cornford
- Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Raymond E, O'Callaghan ME, Campbell J, Vincent AD, Beckmann K, Roder D, Evans S, McNeil J, Millar J, Zalcberg J, Borg M, Moretti K. An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:56. [PMID: 28327203 PMCID: PMC5359887 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2016] [Accepted: 02/22/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer can be treated with several different modalities, including radiation treatment. Various prognostic tools have been developed to aid decision making by providing estimates of the probability of different outcomes. Such tools have been demonstrated to have better prognostic accuracy than clinical judgment alone. Methods A systematic review was undertaken to identify papers relating to the prediction of clinical outcomes (biochemical failure, metastasis, survival) in patients with prostate cancer who received radiation treatment, with the particular aim of identifying whether published tools are adequately developed, validated, and provide accurate predictions. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title and abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers. A review protocol was published in advance of commencing literature searches. Results The search strategy resulted in 165 potential articles, of which 72 were selected for full text review and 47 ultimately included. These papers described 66 models which were newly developed and 31 which were external validations of already published predictive tools. The included studies represented a total of 60,457 patients, recruited between 1984 and 2009. Sixty five percent of models were not externally validated, 57% did not report accuracy and 31% included variables which are not readily accessible in existing datasets. Most models (72, 74%) related to external beam radiation therapy with the remainder relating to brachytherapy (alone or in combination with external beam radiation therapy). Conclusions A large number of prognostic models (97) have been described in the recent literature, representing a rapid increase since previous reviews (17 papers, 1966–2007). Most models described were not validated and a third utilised variables which are not readily accessible in existing data collections. Where validation had occurred, it was often limited to data taken from single institutes in the US. While validated and accurate models are available to predict prostate cancer specific mortality following external beam radiation therapy, there is a scarcity of such tools relating to brachytherapy. This review provides an accessible catalogue of predictive tools for current use and which should be prioritised for future validation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0786-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elspeth Raymond
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia
| | - Michael E O'Callaghan
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia. .,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. .,SA Health, Repatriation General Hospital, Urology Unit, Daws Road, Daw Park, 5041, SA, Australia. .,Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Bedford Park, Australia.
| | - Jared Campbell
- Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Andrew D Vincent
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Kerri Beckmann
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - David Roder
- Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Sue Evans
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - John McNeil
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Jeremy Millar
- Radiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - John Zalcberg
- Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.,School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Martin Borg
- Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Kim Moretti
- South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC), Adelaide, Australia.,Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.,Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.,Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.,Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Duchesne GM, Woo HH. The 'Timing of Androgen-Deprivation therapy in incurable prostate cancer' protocol (TOAD)--where are we now? Synopsis of the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group PR 01-03 and Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.06 clinical trial. BJU Int 2014; 114 Suppl 1:9-12. [PMID: 25047091 DOI: 10.1111/bju.12864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To outline the development of the 'Timing of Androgen Deprivation' (TOAD) protocol, a collaborative randomised clinical trial under the auspices of the Cancer Council Victoria, the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), which opened to recruitment in 2004. PATIENTS AND METHODS The principal hypothesis for the trial was that the early introduction of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT; experimental arm) at the time when curative therapies are no longer considered an option, would improve overall survival for these patients, whilst maintaining an acceptable quality of life; compared with waiting for disease progression or the development of symptoms (control arm). An increase in overall survival at 5 years of 10% was judged to be clinically worthwhile. RESULTS Recruitment was slow, with fewer than half of the protocol requirement of 750 patients eventually accrued, but nonetheless it is considered that the trial will still contribute a major source of evidence in this area. The study closed to follow-up at the end of 2013, with data analysis commencing mid-2014, and with the primary publication anticipated to be submitted by the end of 2014. CONCLUSION The question of timing of ADT remains relevant in the current era of newer and more varied treatment methods. Even with the advent of novel chemotherapy and the biological agents that are undergoing investigation for progressively earlier disease stages, the dilemma of when to commence palliative treatment in an asymptomatic patient will remain, unless or until these agents are shown to increase overall survival. The TOAD trial will contribute to answering at least in part, some of these questions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gillian M Duchesne
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Andersen S, Richardsen E, Nordby Y, Ness N, Størkersen O, Al-Shibli K, Donnem T, Bertilsson H, Busund LT, Angelsen A, Bremnes RM. Disease-specific outcomes of radical prostatectomies in Northern Norway; a case for the impact of perineural infiltration and postoperative PSA-doubling time. BMC Urol 2014; 14:49. [PMID: 24929427 PMCID: PMC4067377 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2490-14-49] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2013] [Accepted: 05/28/2014] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Prostate cancer is the most common male malignancy and a mayor cause of mortality in the western world. The impact of clinicopathological variables on disease related outcomes have mainly been reported from a few large US series, most of them not reporting on perineural infiltration. We therefore wanted to investigate relevant cancer outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in two Norwegian health regions with an emphasis on the impact of perineural infiltration (PNI) and prostate specific antigen- doubling time (PSA-DT). Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 535 prostatectomy patients at three hospitals between 1995 and 2005 estimating biochemical failure- (BFFS), clinical failure- (CFFS) and prostate cancer death-free survival (PCDFS) with the Kaplan-Meier method. We investigated clinicopathological factors influencing risk of events using cox proportional hazard regression. Results After a median follow-up of 89 months, 170 patients (32%) experienced biochemical failure (BF), 36 (7%) experienced clinical failure and 15 (3%) had died of prostate cancer. pT-Stage (p = 0.001), preoperative PSA (p = 0.047), Gleason Score (p = 0.032), non-apical positive surgical margins (PSM) (p = 0.003) and apical PSM (p = 0.031) were all independently associated to BFFS. Gleason score (p = 0.019), PNI (p = 0.012) and non-apical PSM (p = 0.002) were all independently associated to CFFS while only PNI (P = 0.047) and subgroups of Gleason score were independently associated to PCDFS. After BF, patients with a shorter PSA-DT had independent and significant worse event-free survivals than patients with PSA-DT > 15 months (PSA-DT = 3-9 months, CFFS HR = 6.44, p < 0.001, PCDFS HR = 13.7, p = 0.020; PSA-DT < 3 months, CFFS HR = 11.2, p < 0.001, PCDFS HR = 27.5, p = 0.006). Conclusions After prostatectomy, CFFS and PCDFS are variable, but both are strongly associated to Gleason score and PNI. In patients with BF, PSA-DT was most strongly associated to CF and PCD. Our study adds weight to the importance of PSA-DT and re-launches PNI as a strong prognosticator for clinically relevant endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigve Andersen
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|