Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

A risk grouping algorithm for predicting factors of persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen in patients following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

After radical prostatectomy, prostate-specific antigen(PSA) value measuring ≥0.1 ng/mL is defined as persistent PSA(pPSA) and in many studies, it was found to be associated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis. Our aim in this study is to point out the pathological and clinical factors affecting pPSA among the patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) in an experienced academic centre and to make a useful risk grouping algorithm that can predict pPSA value based on operative data.

METHODS

We examined records of 1273 patients who underwent RARP retrospectively. Preoperative, operative and postoperative data were collected. Based on the PSA values (ng/mL) measured after 4-to-8 weeks of RARP, patients were divided into two groups as pPSA group (Group1)(n = 97) with PSA values ≥0.1 ng/mL and undetectable PSA group (Group2)(n = 778) with PSA values <0.1 ng/mL. Later on, Group1 was further divided into Group1a (PSA:0.1-0.2 ng/mL) and Group 1b (PSA≥0.2 ng/mL) to evaluate biochemical recurrence(BCR).

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analyses of the collected data revealed that preoperative PSA≥20 ng/mL, operation time, a postoperative international society of urological pathology (ISUP) grade of ≥4, pT 3-4 and pN were independently associated with pPSA. Based on these results, a risk grouping algorithm predicting pPSA was developed. By looking at the risk grouping algorithm pPSA was found in 98.9% of the cases with a preoperative PSA value of ≥20 ng/mL, an operation time of 150 min, a postoperative ISUP grade of 4-5, a positive lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status, pT3-T4, and pN+; while pPSA was found in 25.5% of the cases with a preoperative PSA value of <20 ng/mL, an operation time of 100 min, a postoperative ISUP grade of <4-5, a negative LVI status, pT<3-4 and pN-. The estimated BCR-free survival time was 16.3 months in Group 1a and 57.0 months in Group2 (P < .001). Adjuvant treatment ratio was 64.9% in Group1 and 7.1% in Group2 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

For the patients who underwent RARP, factors associated with aggressive disease can predict the PSA persistence. To plan our treatment modalities accurately, an applicable risk grouping algorithm in daily practice would be useful.

Degarelix for treating advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Degarelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that leads to medical castration used to treat men with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, or both. It is unclear how its effects compare to standard androgen suppression therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of degree compared with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS until September 2020), trial registries (until October 2020), and conference proceedings (until December 2020). We identified other potentially eligible trials by reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing degarelix with standard androgen suppression therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, cancer-specific survival, clinical progression, other adverse events, and biochemical progression. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for the main outcomes according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with a follow-up of between three and 14 months. We also identified five ongoing trials. Primary outcomes Data to evaluate overall survival were not available.  Degarelix may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to standard androgen suppression therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence; 2750 participants). Based on 114 serious adverse events in the standard androgen suppression group, this corresponds to 23 fewer serious adverse events per 1000 participants (43 fewer to 6 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Degarelix likely results in little to no difference in quality of life assessed with a variety of validated questionnaires (standardized mean difference 0.06 higher, 95% CI 0.05 lower to 0.18 higher; moderate-certainty evidence; 2887 participants), with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. Data to evaluate cancer-specific survival were not available. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; very low-certainty evidence; 80 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, imprecision, and indirectness as this trial was conducted in a unique group of high-risk participants with pre-existing cardiovascular morbidities. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain (RR 15.68, 95% CI 7.41 to 33.17; moderate-certainty evidence; 2670 participants). Based on 30 participants per 1000 with injection site pain with standard androgen suppression therapy, this corresponds to 440 more injection site pains per 1000 participants (192 more to 965 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations. We did not identify any relevant subgroup differences for different degarelix maintenance doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find trial evidence for overall survival or cancer-specific survival comparing degarelix to standard androgen suppression, but serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar between groups. The effects of degarelix on cardiovascular events are very uncertain as the only eligible study had limitations, was small with few events, and was conducted in a high-risk population. Degarelix likely results in an increase in injection site pain compared to standard androgen suppression therapy. Maximum follow-up of included studies was 14 months, which is short. There is a need for methodologically better designed and executed studies with long-term follow-up evaluating men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Management of Persistently Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

The prognosis and optimal management of pN0/pN1 patients with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 6-8 wk after radical prostatectomy (RP) remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of oncologic outcomes and effectiveness of salvage therapies in men with a detectable PSA level after RP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed in May 2020. A total of 2374 articles were screened, and 25 studies including 5217 men were selected and included in the systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

PSA persistence was most commonly defined as PSA >0.1 ng/ml. PSA persistence was significantly correlated with disease aggressiveness and associated with worse oncologic outcomes than in men with undetectable PSA levels. The 5-yr recurrence-free survival rates varied from 21.5% to 67.0%. The ≥10-yr cancer-specific survival was 75-88%. Salvage radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy was associated with improved survival outcomes. Risk stratification according to pathologic features, PSA levels/kinetics, and genomic classifier may aid in personalization of treatment. The usefulness of molecular imaging in this setting remains underevaluated. Main limitations of this systematic review are the retrospective design of the included studies and the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on this specific population.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA persistence after RP is strongly correlated with poor oncologic outcomes. Our review suggests a benefit from immediate radiotherapy; however, current evidence is still low. Indication of subsequent therapies should be based on individual discussions, taking into account all the prognostic factors and the efficacy/toxicity imbalance of proposed treatment. Results from ongoing RCTs are awaited to state on the role of more intensified systemic therapy in this population.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with a detectable prostate-specific antigen level after surgery are at high risk of subsequent progression. Immediate radiotherapy might improve survival outcomes. Further research into the role of molecular imaging and genomic classifier is needed in this patient population.

The impact of prostate-specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy on the efficacy of salvage radiotherapy in patients with primary N0 prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To test whether salvage radiotherapy (SRT) in patients with lymph node negative (N0) prostate cancer is equally effective with persistent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA rising from the undetectable range (<0.1 ng/mL) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed post-SRT PSA progression-free survival (PFS) in 555 patients with prostate cancer. The entire cohort was compared with a risk-adjusted subgroup of 112 patient pairs with matching pre-RP PSA level (±10 ng/mL), Gleason score (≤6 vs 7 vs ≥8), and pre-SRT PSA level (±0.5 ng/mL).

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 6.1 years. After RP, PSA was undetectable in 422 and persistent in 133 patients. PSA persistence and a pre-SRT PSA level of ≥0.5 ng/mL reduced Kaplan-Meier rates of PFS significantly. In multivariate analysis of the entire cohort and after risk adjustment, the pre-SRT PSA level but not post-RP PSA persistence was a significant parameter. In the matched cohort's subgroup with early SRT at a PSA level of <0.5 ng/mL, a trend towards a worse outcome with post-RP PSA persistence was observed. Delayed SRT with a PSA level ≥0.5 ng/mL led to a PFS of <30%, irrespective of the post-RP PSA level.

CONCLUSION

In patients with N0 prostate cancer with post-RP PSA persistence, early SRT at a PSA level <0.5 ng/mL seems to be less effective than in recurrent patients with post-RP undetectable PSA. They might benefit from intensified therapy, but larger case numbers are required to substantiate this conclusion. In patients with a PSA level ≥0.5 ng/mL and higher-risk features associated with post-RP PSA persistence, SRT alone is unlikely to provide long-term freedom from further progression.

Systematic Review of Systemic Therapies and Therapeutic Combinations with Local Treatments for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Systemic therapies, combined with local treatment for high-risk prostate cancer, are recommended by the international guidelines for specific subgroups of patients; however, for many of the clinical scenarios, it remains a research field.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review, and describe current evidence and perspectives about the multimodal treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Library, European Society of Medical Oncology/American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual proceedings, and clinicalTrial.gov between January 2010 and February 2018 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-seven prospective trials were identified. According to multiple randomized trials, combining androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) outperforms EBRT alone for both relapse-free and overall survival. Neoadjuvant ADT did not show significant improvement compared with prostatectomy alone. The role of adjuvant ADT after prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease is still debated, with lack of data from phase 3 trials in pN0 patients. Novel androgen pathway inhibitors have been tested only in early-phase trials in addition to primary treatment. GETUG 12, RTOG 0521, and nonmetastatic subgroup of the STAMPEDE trial showed improved relapse-free survival for docetaxel in patients treated with EBRT plus ADT, although mature metastasis-free survival data are still pending. Both the SPCG-12 and the VACSP#553 trial showed no improvement in relapse-free survival for adjuvant docetaxel after prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the clearly demonstrated survival benefits of long-term adjuvant ADT when used with EBRT, its role after prostatectomy remains unclear especially in pN0 patients. Adding docetaxel to EBRT-ADT improves relapse-free survival, with immature results on overall survival. Novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors are currently being tested in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment of high-risk prostate cancer is based on a multimodality approach that includes systemic treatments. The best treatment or therapy combination remains to be defined.