Beyond diagnosis: is there a role for radiomics in prostate cancer management?

The role of imaging in pretreatment staging and management of prostate cancer (PCa) is constantly evolving. In the last decade, there has been an ever-growing interest in radiomics as an image analysis approach able to extract objective quantitative features that are missed by human eye. However, most of PCa radiomics studies have been focused on cancer detection and characterisation. With this narrative review we aimed to provide a synopsis of the recently proposed potential applications of radiomics for PCa with a management-based approach, focusing on primary treatments with curative intent and active surveillance as well as highlighting on recurrent disease after primary treatment. Current evidence is encouraging, with radiomics and artificial intelligence appearing as feasible tools to aid physicians in planning PCa management. However, the lack of external independent datasets for validation and prospectively designed studies casts a shadow on the reliability and generalisability of radiomics models, delaying their translation into clinical practice.Key points• Artificial intelligence solutions have been proposed to streamline prostate cancer radiotherapy planning.• Radiomics models could improve risk assessment for radical prostatectomy patient selection.• Delta-radiomics appears promising for the management of patients under active surveillance.• Radiomics might outperform current nomograms for prostate cancer recurrence risk assessment.• Reproducibility of results, methodological and ethical issues must still be faced before clinical implementation.

Comparison of Four Validated Nomograms (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Briganti 2012, 2017, and 2019) Predicting Lymph Node Invasion in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: Clinical Experience and Review of the Literature

Background: The indication for extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) is based on nomograms predicting the risk of lymph node invasion (LNI). However, limited data are available on the comparison of these predictive models in high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. Therefore, we compared the accuracy of the most used nomograms (MSKCC, Briganti 2012, 2017, and 2019) in the setting of high-risk PC patients submitted to ePLND. Methods: 150 patients with high-risk PC disease treated from 2019 to 2022 were included. Before RP + ePLND, we assessed the MSKCC, Briganti 2012, 2017, and 2019 nomograms for each patient, and we compared the prediction of LNI with the final histopathological analysis of the ePLND using pathologic results as a reference. Results: LNI was found in 39 patients (26%), and 71.3% were cT2. The percentage of patients with estimated LNI risk above the cut-off was significantly higher in pN+ cases than in pN0 for all Briganti nomograms. The percentage of patients at risk of LNI, according to Briganti Nomogram (2012, 2017, and 2019), was significantly higher in pN+ cases than in pN0 (p < 0.04), while MSKCC prediction didn’t vary significantly between pN0 and pN+ groups (p = 0.2). All nomograms showed high sensitivity (Se > 0.90), low specificity (Sp < 0.20), and similar AUC (range: 0.526–0.573) in predicting pN+. Particularly, 74% of cases patients with MSKCC estimated risk > 7% showed pN0 compared to 71% with Briganti 2012 > 5%, 69% with Briganti 2017 > 7%, and 70% with Briganti 2019 > 7%. Conclusions: Despite the high-risk disease, in our patients treated with ePLND emerges a still high number of pN0 cases and a similar low specificity of nomograms in predicting LNI.

Incidence Trends and Survival Prediction of Malignant Skin Cancer: A SEER-Based Study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

E-Cadherin, Integrin Alpha2 (Cd49b), and Transferrin Receptor-1 (Tfr1) Are Promising Immunohistochemical Markers of Selected Adverse Pathological Features in Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy

In patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa) with radical prostatectomy (RP), determining the risk of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and nodal involvement (NI) remains crucial for planning nerve-sparing and extended lymphadenectomy. The study aimed to determine proteins that could serve as immunohistochemical markers of locally advanced PCa. To select candidate proteins associated with adverse pathologic features (APF) reverse-phase protein array data of 498 patients was retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas. The analysis yielded 6 proteins which were then validated as predictors of APF utilizing immunohistochemistry in a randomly selected retrospective cohort of 53 patients. For univariate and multivariate analysis, logistic regression was used. Positive expression of TfR1 (OR 13.74; p = 0.015), reduced expression of CD49b (OR 10.15; p = 0.013), and PSA (OR 1.29; p = 0.013) constituted independent predictors of EPE, whereas reduced expression of e-cadherin (OR 10.22; p = 0.005), reduced expression of CD49b (OR 24.44; p = 0.017), and PSA (OR 1.18; p = 0.002) were independently associated with NI. Both models achieved high discrimination (AUROC 0.879 and 0.888, respectively). Immunohistochemistry constitutes a straightforward tool that might be easily utilized before RP. Expression of TfR1 and CD49b is associated with EPE, whereas expression of e-cadherin and CD49b is associated with NI. Since following immunohistochemical markers predicts respective APFs independently from PSA, in the future they might supplement existing preoperative nomograms or be implemented in novel tools.

Magnetometer-Guided Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer: Rate of Lymph Node Involvement Compared with Radioisotope Marking

Simple Summary

Pelvic lymph node dissection is recommended in prostate cancer according to the patients’ individual risk for nodal metastases. Targeted removal of sentinel lymph nodes increases the number of detected lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer. We previously established magnetometer-guided sentinel lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer to overcome logistical and technical disadvantages associated with the standard radioisotope-guided technique. This retrospective study compared the magnetometer-guided and standard techniques in terms of their ability to detect lymph node metastases. Using the magnetometer-guided technique, more sentinel lymph nodes were detected per patient. The detected rates of lymph node involvement matched the predictions in both techniques equally well. Our findings confirm the reliability of magnetometer-guided sentinel lymph node dissection and highlight the importance of the sentinel technique for detecting lymph node metastases in prostate cancer.

Abstract

Sentinel pelvic lymph node dissection (sPLND) enables the targeted removal of lymph nodes (LNs) bearing the highest metastasis risk. In prostate cancer (PCa), sPLND alone or combined with extended PLND (ePLND) reveals more LN metastases along with detecting sentinel LNs (SLNs) outside the conventional ePLND template. To overcome the disadvantages of radioisotope-guided sPLND in PCa treatment, magnetometer-guided sPLND applying superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles as a tracer was established. This retrospective study compared the nodal staging ability between magnetometer- and radioisotope-guided sPLNDs. We analyzed data of PCa patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and magnetometer- (848 patients, 2015–2021) or radioisotope-guided (2092 patients, 2006–2015) sPLND. To reduce heterogeneity among cohorts, we performed propensity score matching and compared data considering sentinel nomogram-based probabilities for LN involvement (LNI). Magnetometer- and radioisotope-guided sPLNDs had SLN detection rates of 98.12% and 98.09%, respectively; the former detected more SLNs per patient. The LNI rates matched nomogram-based predictions in both techniques equally well. Approximately 7% of LN metastases were detected outside the conventional ePLND template. Thus, we confirmed the reliability of magnetometer-guided sPLND in nodal staging, with results comparable with or better than radioisotope-guided sPLND. Our findings highlight the importance of the sentinel technique for detecting LN metastases in PCa.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Nomograms Predicting Probability of Lymph Node Invasion in Prostate Cancer and the Therapeutic Impact of Higher Nomogram Threshold

Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the performance of the 2012 Briganti and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms as a predictor for pelvic lymph node invasion (LNI) in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), to examine their performance and to analyse the therapeutic impact of using 7% nomogram cut-off. Materials and Methods: The study cohort consisted of 807 men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent open RP with PLND between 2001 and 2019. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to quantify the accuracy of the 2012 Briganti and MSKCC nomograms to predict LNI. Calibration plots were used to visualise over or underestimation by the models and a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate the net benefit associated with the used nomograms. Results: A total of 97 of 807 patients had LNI (12%). The AUC of 2012 Briganti and MSKCC nomogram was 80.6 and 79.2, respectively. For the Briganti nomogram using the cut-off value of 7% would lead to reduce PLND in 47% (379/807), while missing 3.96% (15/379) cases with LNI. For the MSKCC nomogram using the cut-off value of 7% a PLND would be omitted in 44.5% (359/807), while missing 3.62% (13/359) of cases with LNI. Conclusions: Both analysed nomograms demonstrated high accuracy for prediction of LNI. Using a 7% nomogram cut-off would allow the avoidance up to 47% of PLNDs, while missing less than 4% of patients with LNI.

A narrative review of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is an important component in the staging and prognostication of prostate cancer. We performed a narrative review to assess the literature surrounding PLND: (I) the current guideline recommendations and contemporary utilization, (II) the calculation of patient-specific risk to perform PLND using available nomograms, (III) to review the extent of dissection, and its associated outcomes and complications. Due to the improved lymph node yield, better staging, and theoretical improvement in the control of micro-metastatic disease, guidelines have supported the use of (extended-) PLND in patients deemed to be at intermediate or high risk of lymph node involvement (often at a threshold of 5% on modern risk nomograms). However, in practice, real-world utilization of PLND varies considerably due to multiple reasons. Conflicting evidence persists with no clear oncological benefit to PLND, and a small, but important, risk of morbidity. Complications are rare, but include lymphoceles; thromboembolic events; and more rarely, obturator nerve, vascular, and ureteric injury. Furthermore, changing disease incidence and stage migration in the context of earlier detection overall have led to a decreased risk of nodal disease. The trade-offs between the benefits, harms, and risk tolerance/threshold must be carefully considered between each patient and their clinician.

Pathologic nodal downstaging in men with clinically involved lymph nodes undergoing radical prostatectomy: Implications for definitive locoregional therapy

A prostate cancer (CaP) patient with nonmetastatic but clinical positive lymph nodes (cN+) represents a difficult clinical scenario. We compare overall survival (OS) between cN+ men that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and were found to have negative node status (pN) with those found to have positive nodal status (pN+), and assess predictors of discordant nodal status. We queried the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2015 for patients that were cT1-3 cN+ cM0 CaP treated with RP. Patients with 0 nodes, cT4, or cM1 disease were excluded. We compared groups based on pathologic nodal status: Discordant (cN+ -> pN) & Concordant (cN+ -> pN+). Kaplan Meier estimations were used to compare OS. Logistic regression was used to determine possible predictors of nodal status. We find that of 6470 cN+ patients, 1,367 (21.1%) underwent RP, 866 (13.4%) had confirmed nodal status. Discordant status was found in 159 (18.4%) and concordant staging in 707 (81.6%). Differences exist in PSA at diagnosis (7.3 vs. 11.2), biopsy group, # of nodes examined (7 vs. 10), race, and Charlson index. Discordant staging had longer OS compared to Concordant staging (P = 0.007) and similar OS to a 3:1 matched cohort of high risk localized CaP patients used as reference (P = 0.46). Lower Gleason Score (GG1-3) was associated with an increased likelihood of discordant staging. Clinical nodal staging is associated with a substantial false positive rate. Discordant status had better OS than Concordant status and similar OS to matched patients with localized CaP. Clinical nodal staging may inappropriately lead to noncurative therapy in a substantial number of men with potentially curable disease.

Predicting the Probability of Lymph Node Involvement with Prostate Cancer Nomograms: Can We Trust the Prediction Models?

Introduction Prediction of lymph node involvement (LNI) is of paramount importance for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Multiple statistical models predicting LNI have been developed to support clinical decision-making regarding the need of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Our aim is to evaluate the prediction ability of the best-performing prediction tools for LNI in PCa in a Latin-American population.

Methods Clinicopathological data of 830 patients with PCa who underwent RP and ePLND between 2007 and 2018 was obtained. Only data from patients who had ≥ 10 lymph nodes (LNs) harvested were included (n = 576 patients). Four prediction models were validated using this cohort: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) web calculator, Briganti v.2017, Yale formula and Partin tables v.2016. The performance of the prediction tools was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).

Results The median age was 61 years old (interquartile range [IQR] 56–66), the median Prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 6,81 ng/mL (IQR 4,8–10,1) and the median of LNs harvested was 17 (IQR 13–23), and LNI was identified in 53 patients (9.3%). Predictions from the 2017 Briganti nomogram AUC (0.85) and the Yale formula AUC (0.85) were the most accurate; MSKCC and 2016 Partin tables AUC were both 0,84.

Conclusion There was no significant difference in the performance of the four validated prediction tools in a Latin-American population compared with the European or North American patients in whom these tools have been validated. Among the 4 models, the Briganti v.2017 and Yale formula yielded the best results, but the AUC overlapped with the other validated models.

[When to introduce hormone therapy after total prostatectomy with positive lymph nodes? Study of the factors influencing the time of introduction of hormone therapy]

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant hormone therapy is the standard treatment after total prostatectomy with positive lymph node. However, this treatment has side effects and at the time of the PSA era and extensive lymph node dissection, this principle is questioned. The aim of this study is to describe the oncological characteristics of patients that may explain the delay in introducing hormone therapy in patients with positive lymph node.

METHODS

Monocentric, retrospective study of 161 patients from November 1988 to February 2018 in a single French University Hospital, having undergone radical prostatectomy with positive lymph nodes on pathology. For each patient, preoperative data (age, clinical stage, biopsy results, d'Amico classification) and postoperative data (pathological results, number of lymph nodes removed, number of positive lympnodes, recurrence free survival, specific survival and overall survival) were collected. The date of introduction of hormone therapy was noted and survival without hormonal therapy was established according to the Kaplan Meier curve. The pre- and post-operative oncological factors that could influence hormone therapy introduction were investigated with Chi² and Student tests (statistically significant when P<0.05).

RESULTS

The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 12 [1-40]. The mean number of positive lymph nodes was 2.5 [1-24], the mean percentage of positive lymph nodes was 25% (2.5-100). After a mean follow-up of 95 months (3-354), 88 patients (54.6%) had no hormonal treatment. The average time to hormonal treatment was 40 months [0-310]. At 3 years, survival without hormone therapy was 52% and 51% at 5 years. Only the percentage of positive lymphnodes appeared to be a significant predictor of the introduction of hormone therapy. (29.32% vs. 21.99%, P=0.047). Hormone-free survival was significantly higher in patients with lymph node involvement less than 25% (P<0.0001) or with less than 2 positive lymph nodes (P=0.0294).

CONCLUSION

Lymph node invasion is a factor of poor prognosis after total prostatectomy and leads to introduce hormone therapy. Our study identified the percentage and number of positive lymph nodes as factors that identify patients who may be delayed in introducing this hormone therapy.

LEVEL OF PROOF

3.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

BACKGROUND

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

OBJECTIVE

To present the report of APCCC 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Performance characteristics of prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy core details to predict oncological outcome in patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Background

Many urologic surgeons refer to biopsy core details for decision making in cases of localized prostate cancer (PCa) to determine whether an extended resection and/or lymph node dissection should be performed. Furthermore, recent reports emphasize the predictive value of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) for further risk stratification, not only for low-risk PCa, but also for intermediate- and high-risk PCa. This study focused on these parameters and compared respective predictive impact on oncologic outcomes in Japanese PCa patients.

Methods

Two-hundred and fifty patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) classification, that underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at a single institution, and with observation periods of longer than 6 months were enrolled. None of the patients received hormonal treatments including antiandrogens, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues, or 5-alpha reductase inhibitors preoperatively. PSAD and biopsy core details, including the percentage of positive cores and the maximum percentage of cancer extent in each positive core, were analyzed in association with unfavorable pathologic results of prostatectomy specimens, and further with biochemical recurrence. The cut-off values of potential predictive factors were set through receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses.

Results

In the entire cohort, a higher PSAD, the percentage of positive cores, and maximum percentage of cancer extent in each positive core were independently associated with advanced tumor stage ≥ pT3 and an increased index tumor volume > 0.718 ml. NCCN classification showed an association with a tumor stage ≥ pT3 and a Gleason score ≥8, and the attribution of biochemical recurrence was also sustained. In each NCCN risk group, these preoperative factors showed various associations with unfavorable pathological results. In the intermediate-risk group, the percentage of positive cores showed an independent predictive value for biochemical recurrence. In the high-risk group, PSAD showed an independent predictive value.

Conclusions

PSAD and biopsy core details have different performance characteristics for the prediction of oncologic outcomes in each NCCN risk group. Despite the need for further confirmation of the results with a larger cohort and longer observation, these factors are important as preoperative predictors in addition to the NCCN classification for a urologic surgeon to choose a surgical strategy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12894-017-0238-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the guidelines national committee CCAFU was to propose updated french guidelines for localized and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A Medline search was achieved between 2013 and 2016, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of PCa, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence.

RESULTS

Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of > 74Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated french guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Lymph node staging in prostate cancer: perspective for the pathologist

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) currently represents the gold standard method for nodal staging in the setting of localised prostate cancer and may also have a therapeutic benefit in certain patients. The histopathological evaluation of PLND specimens plays a critical role in accurate lymph node staging, however there is currently a lack of consensus regarding the optimum approach and no quality parameters are in place. In addition, there are no guidelines as to the handling of less commonly encountered nodal specimens such as those identified within the anterior fat pad. This summary provides an overview of pertinent issues regarding lymph node staging in prostate cancer, with a focus on the histopathological evaluation of resected nodal specimens. We hope that this review will further the discussion on how to achieve a more standardised approach to the processing and reporting of PLND specimens in the setting of prostate cancer.

Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: indications, extent and tailored approaches

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to review the current literature concerning the indication of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), its extent and complications in prostate cancer (PCa) staging, the available tools, and the future perspectives to assess the risk of lymph node invasion (LNI).

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms pelvic lymph nodes, PLND, radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, lymph node invasion, biochemical recurrence, staging, sentinel lymph node dissection, imaging, and molecular markers.

RESULTS

PLND currently represents the gold standard for nodal staging in PCa patients. Available imaging techniques are characterized by poor accuracy in the prediction of LNI before surgery. On the contrary, an extended PLND (ePLND) would result into proper staging in the majority of the cases. Several models based on preoperative disease characteristics are available to assess the risk of LNI. Although ePLND is not associated with a substantial risk of severe complications, up to 10% of the men undergoing this procedure experience lymphoceles. Concerns over potential morbidity of ePLND led many authors to investigate the role of sentinel lymph node dissection in order to prevent unnecessary ePLND. Finally, the incorporation of novel biomarkers in currently available tools would improve our ability to identify men who should receive an ePLND.

CONCLUSIONS

Nowadays, the most informative tools predicting LNI in PCa patients consist in preoperative clinical nomograms. Sentinel lymph node dissection still remains experimental and novel biomarkers are needed to identify patients at a higher risk of LNI.