Brachytherapy-Based Radiotherapy and Radical Prostatectomy Are Associated With Similar Survival in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

Biochemical recurrence after chemohormonal therapy followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in very-high-risk prostate cancer patients

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become one of the standard radical treatments for prostate cancer (PCa). A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted on patients with PCa who underwent RARP at Gifu University Hospital between September 2017 and September 2022. In this study, patients were classified into three groups based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification: low/intermediate-risk, high-risk, and very-high-risk groups. Patients with high- and very-high-risk PCa who were registered in the study received neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy prior to RARP. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) after RARP in patients with PCa was the primary endpoint of this study. The secondary endpoint was the relationship between biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical covariates. We enrolled 230 patients with PCa in our study, with a median follow-up of 17.0 months. When the time of follow-up was over, 19 patients (8.3%) had BCR, and the 2 years BRFS rate for the enrolled patients was 90.9%. Although there was no significant difference in BRFS between the low- and intermediate-risk group and the high/very-high-risk group, the 2 years BRFS rate was 100% in the high-risk group and 68.3% in the very-high-risk group (P = 0.0029). Multivariate analysis showed that positive surgical margins were a significant predictor of BCR in patients with PCa treated with RARP. Multimodal therapies may be necessary to improve the BCR in patients with very-high-risk PCa.

User involvement and value co-creation in well-being ecosystems

PURPOSE

This article aims to examine how users' involvement in value co-creation influences the development and orchestration of well-being ecosystems to help tackle complex societal challenges. This research contributes to the public management literature and answers recent calls to investigate novel public service governances by discussing users' involvement and value co-creation for novel well-being solutions.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The authors empirically explore this phenomenon through a case study of a complex ecosystem addressing increased well-being, focussing on the formative evaluation stage of a longitudinal evaluation of Sweden's first support centre for people affected by cancer. Following an abductive reasoning and action research approach, the authors critically discuss the potential of user involvement for the development of well-being ecosystems and outline preconditions for the success of such approaches.

FINDINGS

The empirical results indicate that resource reconfiguration of multi-actor collaborations provides a platform for value co-creation, innovative health services and availability of resources. Common themes include the need for multi-actor collaborations to reconfigure heterogeneous resources; actors' adaptive change capabilities; the role of governance mechanisms to align the diverse well-being ecosystem components, and the engagement of essential actors.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Although using a longitudinal case study approach has revealed stimulating insights, additional data collection, multiple cases and quantitative studies are prompted. Also, the authors focus on one country but the characteristics of users' involvement for value co-creation in innovative well-being ecosystems might vary between countries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this study demonstrate the value of cancer-affected individuals, with "lived experiences", acting as sources for social innovation, and drivers of well-being ecosystem development. The findings also suggest that participating actors in the ecosystem should utilise wider knowledge and experience to tackle complex societal challenges associated with well-being.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Policymakers should encourage the formation of well-being ecosystems with diverse actors and resources that can help patients navigate health challenges. The findings especially show the potential of starting from the user's needs and life situation when the ambition is to integrate and innovate in fragmented systems.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The proposed model proposes that having a user-led focus on innovating new solutions can play an important role in the development of well-being ecosystems.

Outcome comparison of radical prostatectomy versus seed brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer using two biochemical recurrence definitions

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcome of radical prostatectomy (RP) with seed brachytherapy (BT) in clinically localized prostate cancer (LPCa) using two different biochemical recurrence (BCR) definitions.

METHODS

Clinical data of 1117 patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated with either RP or BT as the basis of the multimodal therapy from a single tertiary hospital between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. 843 LPCa patients (RP = 737, BT = 106) with at least one prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test after treatment were finally included. The BCR survival was evaluated by direct comparison and one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) analysis using surgical definition (PSA ≥ 0.2ng/ml) for RP and surgical/Phoenix definition (PSA nadir + 2ng/ml ) for BT. The propensity score (PS) was calculated by multivariable logistic regression based on the clinicopathological parameters.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 43 months for RP patients and 45 months for BT patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show any statistically significant differences in terms of BCR-free survival (BFS) between the two groups when using Phoenix definition for BT (P > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in all D'Amico risk groups when stratified analyses were conducted. However, RP achieved improved BFS compared to BT in the whole cohort and all risk groups with the surgical definition for BT(P < 0.05). After adjusting PS, 192 patients were divided into RP and BT groups (96 each). RP presented a better BFS than BT when using the surgical definition (P < 0.001), but no significant difference was found when using the Phoenix definition (P = 0.609).

CONCLUSION

Inconsistent BCR-free survival outcomes were acquired using two different BCR definitions for BT patients. RP provided comparable BFS with BT using the Phoenix definition but better BFS using the surgical definition, regardless of whether the PSM was performed. Our findings indicated that an exact BCR definition was critical for prognostic assessment. The corresponding results will assist physicians in pretreatment consultation and treatment selection.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To summarize recent evidence in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional and oncological outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry on 29 march 2021. Comparative studies, published since 2016, that reported on treatment with RP versus dose-escalated EBRT and ADT for high-risk non-metastatic PCa were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise quality and risk of bias. A qualitative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies, all non-randomized, met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment indicated low (n = 14) to moderate/high (n = 5) risk of bias. Only three studies reported functional outcomes and/or HRQoL using different measurement instruments and methods. A clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL was not observed. All studies reported oncological outcomes and survival was generally good (5-year survival rates > 90%). In the majority of studies, a statistically significant difference between both treatment groups was not observed, or only differences in biochemical recurrence-free survival were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence clearly demonstrating superiority in terms of oncological outcomes of either RP or EBRT combined with ADT is lacking. Studies reporting functional outcomes and HRQoL are very scarce and the magnitude of the effect of RP versus dose-escalated EBRT with ADT on HRQoL and functional outcomes remains largely unknown.

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Antagonist and Tegafur-Uracil Chemohormonal Therapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

This retrospective single-center cohort study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist and tegafur-uracil (UFT) therapy (NCHT) and investigated the medical records of patients with high-risk PCa who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The therapy was followed by RARP for high-risk PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: low-intermediate-risk PCa patients who underwent RARP without neoadjuvant therapy (non-high-risk) and those who underwent NCHT followed by RARP (high-risk group). This study enrolled 227 patients (126: non-high-risk and 101: high-risk group). Patients in the high-risk-group had high-grade cancer compared to those in the non-high-risk-group.

RESULTS

At the median follow-up period of 12.0 months, there were no PCa deaths; two patients (0.9%) died of other causes. Twenty patients developed biochemical recurrence (BCR); the median time until BCR was 9.9 months after surgery. The 2-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates were 94.2% and 91.1% in the non-high-risk and high-risk-group, respectively (p = 0.465). Grade ≥3 NCHT-related adverse events developed in nine patients (8.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that combining neoadjuvant LHRH antagonists and UFT followed by RARP may improve oncological outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa.

A Flexible Approach for Assessing Heterogeneity of Causal Treatment Effects on Patient Survival Using Large Datasets with Clustered Observations

Personalized medicine requires an understanding of treatment effect heterogeneity. Evolving toward causal evidence for scenarios not studied in randomized trials necessitates a methodology using real-world evidence. Herein, we demonstrate a methodology that generates causal effects, assesses the heterogeneity of the effects and adjusts for the clustered nature of the data. This study uses a state-of-the-art machine learning survival model, riAFT-BART, to draw causal inferences about individual survival treatment effects, while accounting for the variability in institutional effects; further, it proposes a data-driven approach to agnostically (as opposed to a priori hypotheses) ascertain which subgroups exhibit an enhanced treatment effect from which intervention, relative to global evidence-average treatment effects measured at the population level. Comprehensive simulations show the advantages of the proposed method in terms of bias, efficiency and precision in estimating heterogeneous causal effects. The empirically validated method was then used to analyze the National Cancer Database.

A flexible approach for causal inference with multiple treatments and clustered survival outcomes

When drawing causal inferences about the effects of multiple treatments on clustered survival outcomes using observational data, we need to address implications of the multilevel data structure, multiple treatments, censoring, and unmeasured confounding for causal analyses. Few off-the-shelf causal inference tools are available to simultaneously tackle these issues. We develop a flexible random-intercept accelerated failure time model, in which we use Bayesian additive regression trees to capture arbitrarily complex relationships between censored survival times and pre-treatment covariates and use the random intercepts to capture cluster-specific main effects. We develop an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to draw posterior inferences about the population survival effects of multiple treatments and examine the variability in cluster-level effects. We further propose an interpretable sensitivity analysis approach to evaluate the sensitivity of drawn causal inferences about treatment effect to the potential magnitude of departure from the causal assumption of no unmeasured confounding. Expansive simulations empirically validate and demonstrate good practical operating characteristics of our proposed methods. Applying the proposed methods to a dataset on older high-risk localized prostate cancer patients drawn from the National Cancer Database, we evaluate the comparative effects of three treatment approaches on patient survival, and assess the ramifications of potential unmeasured confounding. The methods developed in this work are readily available in the R $$ \mathsf{R}\kern.15em $$ package riAFTBART $$ \mathsf{riAFTBART} $$ .

Ten-years outcome analysis in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy

Purpose

Since there was no consensus on treatment options for localized prostate cancer, we performed a retrospective study to compare the long-term survival benefit of radiotherapy (RT) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Taiwan.

Methods

218 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated between 2008 and 2017 (64 with LRP and 154 with RT) were enrolled in this study. The outcomes of RT and LRP were assessed after patients were stratified according to Gleason score, stage, and risk group. Crude survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and metastasis-free survival were evaluated using the log-rank test.

Results

The 5-year crude survival rate was 93.3% in the LRP group and 59.3% in the RT group. A significant survival benefit was found in the LRP group compared with the RT group (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significant differences were found in disease-specific survival (93.3% vs. 64.7%, p = 0.022) and metastasis-free survival (48% vs. 40.2%, p = 0.045) between the LRP and RT groups.

Conclusions

Men with localized prostate cancer treated initially with LRP had a lower risk of prostate cancer-specific death and metastases compared with those treated with RT.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

The recommended treatment for high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer is radical prostatectomy plus extended pelvic lymph node dissection or radiation therapy plus long-term androgen deprivation therapy. However, some patients are treated with androgen deprivation therapy alone for various reasons. In this review, we will discuss the position, indications, complications, and future prospects of androgen deprivation therapy for high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy as first-line definitive therapy for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To present an update of the available literature on external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without brachytherapy (BT) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) for patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature assessing the survival outcomes in patients with high-risk PCa who received EBRT with or without BT compared to RP as the first-line therapy with curative intent. We queried PubMed and Web of Science database in January 2021. Moreover, we used random or fixed-effects meta-analytical models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity per the I² statistic, respectively. We performed six meta-analyses for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results

A total of 27 studies were selected with 23 studies being eligible for both OS and CSS. EBRT alone had a significantly worse OS and CSS compared to RP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–1.65; and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25–1.93). However, there was no difference in OS (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.76–1.34) and CSS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45–1.06) between EBRT plus BT compared to RP.

Conclusion

While cancer control affected by EBRT alone seems inferior to RP in patients with high-risk PCa, BT additive to EBRT was not different from RP. These data support the need for BT in addition to EBRT as part of multimodal RT for high-risk PCa.

Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; BT: brachytherapy; CSS: cancer-specific survival; HR: hazard ratio; MFS, metastatic-free survival; MOOSE: Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; OR: odds ratio; OS: overall survival; PCa: prostate cancer; RR: relative risk; RP: radical prostatectomy; RCT: randomised controlled trials; (EB)RT: (external beam) radiation therapy

Immunotherapy Outcomes in Individuals with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Poor Performance Status

Background

Patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in real-world practice typically have worse performance status (PS) compared with clinical trial patients, and the effectiveness of immunotherapy in this population in unknown. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of standard of care immunotherapy for the first-line treatment of stage IV patients with NSCLC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS greater than or equal to 2.

Methods

We selected ECOG PS greater than or equal to 2 patients from real-world oncology data from a deidentified database and included them if they were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC and had documented Programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] expression greater than 0. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy were compared with those who did not have any documented treatment. Patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50% treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy were compared with those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy and those without documented treatment.

Results

In our propensity score–adjusted analysis, patients with ECOG PS of at least 2 and tumor PD-(L)1 expression of at least 50% treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy had statistically significantly better real-world overall survival compared with those without documented treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, 95% confidence internal [CI] = 0.32 to 0.47). For patients with tumor PD-(L)1 expression less than 50%, there was also a statistically significant real-world overall survival benefit for those who received treatment either with combination pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.46) or pembrolizumab monotherapy (adjusted HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.70) compared with patients receiving no documented treatment.

Conclusions

Among a highly representative sample of patients with advanced NSCLC and poor PS, our findings suggest that immunotherapy may provide an important survival benefit in individuals with high PD-(L)1–expressing tumors and in conjunction with chemotherapy in tumors with low PD-(L)1 expression.

Predicting survival after radical prostatectomy: Variation of machine learning performance by race

BACKGROUND

Robust prediction of survival can facilitate clinical decision-making and patient counselling. Non-Caucasian males are underrepresented in most prostate cancer databases. We evaluated the variation in performance of a machine learning (ML) algorithm trained to predict survival after radical prostatectomy in race subgroups.

METHODS

We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2004 and 2016. We grouped patients by race into Caucasian, African-American, or non-Caucasian, non-African-American (NCNAA) subgroups. We trained an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classifier to predict 5-year survival in different training samples: naturally race-imbalanced, race-specific, and synthetically race-balanced. We evaluated performance in the test sets.

RESULTS

A total of 68,630 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 57,635 (84%) were Caucasian, 8173 (12%) were African-American, and 2822 (4%) were NCNAA. For the classifier trained in the naturally race-imbalanced sample, the F1 scores were 0.514 (95% confidence interval: 0.513-0.511), 0.511 (0.511-0.512), 0.545 (0.541-0.548), and 0.378 (0.378-0.389) in the race-imbalanced, Caucasian, African-American, and NCNAA test samples, respectively. For all race subgroups, the F1 scores of classifiers trained in the race-specific or synthetically race-balanced samples demonstrated similar performance compared to training in the naturally race-imbalanced sample.

CONCLUSIONS

A ML algorithm trained using NCDB data to predict survival after radical prostatectomy demonstrates variation in performance by race, regardless of whether the algorithm is trained in a naturally race-imbalanced, race-specific, or synthetically race-balanced sample. These results emphasize the importance of thoroughly evaluating ML algorithms in race subgroups before clinical deployment to avoid potential disparities in care.

Noninvasive urine metabolomics of prostate cancer and its therapeutic approaches: a current scenario and future perspective

INTRODUCTION

The sensitive, specific, fast, robust and noninvasive biomarkers for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PC) remain elusive in medical research. However, efforts are in full sway to investigate and resolve these puzzles for clinical practice. Advances in modern analytical techniques, sample processing, and the emergence of multiple omics approaches have created a great hope for the development of better detection modalities for PC. The objective of the present review is to provide a concise overview of the PC metabolomics-based potential discriminating molecules in urine samples using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry.

AREA COVERED

A literature search was executed to find the studies reporting the noninvasive urine-based biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of underlying disease. Most studies have extensivelyreported PC discriminating molecules with their respective controls. Additionally, pathophysiology and the treatment paradigm of PC are summarized and related to the insights underpinning the therapeutic intervention of PC.

EXPERT OPINION

With multi-centric, global, comprehensive omics approaches via either a non- or least-invasive bio-matrix may open new avenues of research for PC biomarker discovery, backed by a molecular mechanistic outline.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreatectomy for Right-Sided and Left-Sided G1/G2 Nonfunctioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Multicenter Matched Analysis with an Inverse Probability of Treatment-Weighting Method

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists for the safety and oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PNETs) according to tumor location. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for right- or left-sided NF-PNETs.

METHODS

The study collected data on patients who underwent surgical resection (pancreatoduodenectomy, distal/total/central pancreatectomy, duodenum-preserving pancreas head resection, or enucleation) of a localized NF-PNET between January 2000 and July 2017 at 14 institutions. The inverse probability of treatment-weighting method with propensity scores was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 859 patients: 478 OS and 381 MIS patients. A matched analysis by tumor location showed no differences in resection margin, intraoperative blood loss, or complications between MIS and OS. However, MIS was associated with a longer operation time for right-sided tumors (393.3 vs 316.7 min; P < 0.001) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay for left-sided tumors (8.9 vs 12.9 days; P < 0.01). The MIS group was associated with significantly higher survival rates than the OS group for right- and left-sided tumors, but survival did not differ for the patients divided by tumor grade and location. Multivariable analysis showed that MIS did not affect survival for any tumor location.

CONCLUSION

The short-term outcomes offered by MIS were comparable with those of OS except for a longer operation time for right-sided NF-PNETs. The oncologic outcomes were not compromised by MIS regardless of tumor location or grade. These findings suggest that MIS can be performed safely for selected patients with localized NF-PNETs.

Estimating heterogeneous survival treatment effect in observational data using machine learning

Methods for estimating heterogeneous treatment effect in observational data have largely focused on continuous or binary outcomes, and have been relatively less vetted with survival outcomes. Using flexible machine learning methods in the counterfactual framework is a promising approach to address challenges due to complex individual characteristics, to which treatments need to be tailored. To evaluate the operating characteristics of recent survival machine learning methods for the estimation of treatment effect heterogeneity and inform better practice, we carry out a comprehensive simulation study presenting a wide range of settings describing confounded heterogeneous survival treatment effects and varying degrees of covariate overlap. Our results suggest that the nonparametric Bayesian Additive Regression Trees within the framework of accelerated failure time model (AFT-BART-NP) consistently yields the best performance, in terms of bias, precision, and expected regret. Moreover, the credible interval estimators from AFT-BART-NP provide close to nominal frequentist coverage for the individual survival treatment effect when the covariate overlap is at least moderate. Including a nonparametrically estimated propensity score as an additional fixed covariate in the AFT-BART-NP model formulation can further improve its efficiency and frequentist coverage. Finally, we demonstrate the application of flexible causal machine learning estimators through a comprehensive case study examining the heterogeneous survival effects of two radiotherapy approaches for localized high-risk prostate cancer.

The Prognosis of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy plus Brachytherapy, and External Beam Radiotherapy Alone for Patients above 70 Years with Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT), and EBRT alone among elderly men (aged 70 years and above) with very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We identified elderly men diagnosed with VHR PCa between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The propensity score-matching method was adopted to balance the covariates and generate new cohorts. -Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses were conducted to build up survival curves and evaluate the overall survival (OS) and PCa-specific survival (PCSS) outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 9,818 patients were identified. Of them, 5,839 were in the EBRT group, 725 in the EBRT + BT group, and 3,254 in the RP group. The survival curves of the overall cohort showed that RP was associated with the best OS, followed by EBRT + BT and EBRT (p < 0.001). As for the PCSS, RP shared similar outcomes with EBRT + BT (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.25 [0.93-1.69], p = 0.175). EBRT was associated with significantly worse PCSS than both RP (HR: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [1.64-2.15], p < 0.001) and EBRT + BT (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.19-1.85], p = 0.002). In the matched cohorts, RP presented better OS (HR: 1.41, 95% CI [1.07-1.86], p = 0.041) and similar PCSS with EBRT + BT (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.91-2.47], p = 0.12). RP was associated with significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.58, 95% CI [1.59-2.12], p < 0.001; PCSS HR: 2.08 [1.60-2.72], p < 0.001). EBRT + BT also had significantly better OS and PCSS outcomes than EBRT alone (OS HR: 1.33, 95% CI [1.11-1.60], p < 0.001; PCSS HR: 1.57 [1.13-2.19], p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients above 70 years with VHR PCa, RP was associated with better OS and similar PCSS than EBRT + BT. Both RP and EBRT + BT have better OS and PCSS than EBRT alone.

Comparison of Three Groups of Patients Having Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy: Prostate-Specific Antigen Failure and Overall Survival

Purpose To examine dosimetric and clinical outcomes for Cs-131 radioactive seed implant compared to Pd-103 and I-125.  Background/Significance Cs-131 is a novel isotope with relatively short half-life (9.7 days) that may have clinical advantages in seed implant treatments of prostate cancers. There may be a shorter duration of symptoms and increased PSA control rates. Methods We performed a retrospective study in which clinical and dosimetric outcomes were compared for 186 prostate implants performed over a ten-year time period at three different Ascension hospitals. Isotopes that were used included Cs-131 (n=66; half-life 9.7 days), I-125 (n=60; half-life 60 days), and Pd-103 (n=60; half-life 17 days) Results The implants used standard radiation dosages. These were 145 Gy for I-125 alone or 109 Gy when combined with external beam radiation. In the case of Cs-131 used alone, the dose was 115 Gy or 85 Gy when combined with an external beam. For Pd-103, 125 Gy was used for monotherapy and 90 Gy when combined with an external beam. The Cs-131 dosimetry was found to be similar to I-125 and Pd-103 on a quantitative basis. However, there was better homogeneity, and the delivered activity per seed and the number of seeds employed were greater compared to other isotopes. We compared the corrected total source strengths (i.e. normalized to sample mean values) and were able to demonstrate similar distributions for the three isotopes. Dosimetric analysis also suggested there was superior homogeneity with Cs-131. The median PSA value at 60 months was 0.11 ng/ml. There were only a few PSA failures in the three groups of cases, nonetheless, the Cs-131 had the fewest.  Conclusions One attractive option for men with early-stage prostate cancer is interstitial brachytherapy. The use of the shorter-acting Cs-131 isotope may be expected to have dose-related side effects that resolve more rapidly. This series suggests a trend for improved PSA control outcomes for Cs-131 patients compared with I-125 and Pd-103.

Role of radiotherapy for high risk localized prostate cancers

Management of high-risk prostate cancers is still a subject of debate, because of the lack of randomized trial comparing surgery and radiotherapy. If external beam radiotherapy is proposed, it must be associated with a long-term androgen deprivation therapy, at least 18-months. Irradiation of pelvic lymph nodes seems to improve distant metastasis-free survival and is so indicated in most of the cases. Moderate hypofractionation is not validated for pelvic lymph nodes irradiation. A combination of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy improved biochemical control in randomized trials without impact on survival. But this combination has been evaluated in large retrospective studies and seems to improve specific and overall survivals. An integrated boost on the MRI-defined index lesion is another way of dose escalation and improved also biochemical control. Stereotactic radiotherapy is not a validated option at this moment. For each patient, according to the extension of the disease, age, comorbidities and also his willingness, the best approach must be chosen, ideally in multidisciplinary meeting.

[On the practice of therapy decision in locally limited prostate cancer: surgery vs. radiation-who benefits? : Allocation and results of a monocentric, cumulative long-term study]

AIM

The goal of this two-armed observational study was to map the clinical therapy effectiveness of radical prostatovesiculectomy (RPVE) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in locally limited prostate cancer (PCA) in direct comparison over 20 years under clinical conditions. Retrospectively, the various variables and predictors for the individual therapy decision were identified, and the preference was to compared with studies on survival and recurrence characteristics. The presentation of toxicity was not the focus of this work.

METHODOLOGY

In all, 743 patients from a single center were enrolled according to biopsy/staging chronologically in the sequence of the initial consultation after clarification and informed consent: 494 patients were in the RPVE arm and 249 patients in the EBRT arm. We used retrospective data analysis with univariate and multivariate comparisons in the alternative therapy arms. Multivariate logical regression models were developed to objectify the allocation process. Univariate processing of survival analyses, the comparison of tumor- and comorbidity-specific mortality rates was co-founded.

RESULTS

Predictive variables for RPVE vs. EBRT therapy decision are significantly age, Gleason score, D'Amico index, Charlson index, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. There was no significance level for the biopsy score. The age gap was in the median 67 (RPVE) and 73 (EBRT) years. Overall survival (n = 734, 20 years, all risks) in the RPVE arm was 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1-67.0%) and in the EBRT arm 19.2% (95%CI 9.2-31.8%). Comorbid risk was highly significantly (p < 0.0001) different (27.1% [95%CI 18.0-36.1%] in the RPVE arm, and 60.4% [95%CI 47.3-73.5%] in the EBRT arm). The risk of tumor-specific death at 16.2% (95%CI 8.1-24.4%) after RPVE and 20.5% (95%CI 11.7-29.3%) after EBRT was not significantly different (p = 0.2122, overlapping 95%CI). After stratification, a clear advantage can be demonstrated for the high-risk tumors after allocation to the RPVE arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of the predictive variables of the PCA further complicates the individual therapy decision. According to our data, the higher D'Amico score, the rather low Charlson index, a high Gleason score and a higher organ volume speak for a valid therapy for RPVE.

Characterizing Surgical and Radiotherapy Outcomes in Non-metastatic High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Identifying the optimal management of high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is an important public health concern, given the large burden of this disease. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing PCa-specific mortality (CSM) among men diagnosed with high-risk non-metastatic PCa who were treated with primary radiotherapy (RT) and radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Medline and Embase were searched for articles between January 1, 2005, and February 11, 2020. After title and abstract screening, two authors independently reviewed full-text articles for inclusion. Data were abstracted, and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, involving a comprehensive list of confounding variables, was used to assess the risk of bias. Results Fifteen studies involving 131,392 patients were included. No difference in adjusted CSM in RT relative to RP was shown (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.84, 1.25]). Increased CSM was found in a subgroup analysis comparing external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with RP (1.35 [1.10, 1.68]), whereas EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT) versus RP showed lower CSM (0.68 [0.48, 0.95]). All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias as none fully adjusted for all confounding variables. Conclusion We found no difference in CSM between men diagnosed with non-metastatic high-risk PCa and treated with RP or RT; however, this is likely explained by increased CSM in men treated with EBRT and decreased CSM in men treated with EBRT + BT studies relative to RP. High risk of bias in all studies identifies the need for better data collection and confounding control in the PCa research.

Comparison of Oncological Outcomes Between Radical Prostatectomy and Radiotherapy by Type of Radiotherapy in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

We aimed compare the oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with those of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), or EBRT + BT (EBBT) in elderly patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Localised PCa patients aged ≥70 years who underwent RP, EBRT, BT, or EBBT between 2004 and 2016 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Multivariable competing risks survival analyses were used to estimate prostate cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM). Subgroup analyses according to risk categories were also conducted.

Results

Overall, 14057, 37712, 8383, and 5244 patients aged ≥70 years and treated with RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT, respectively, were identified. In low- to intermediate-risk patients, there was no significant difference in CSM risk between RP and the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P > 0.05). The corresponding 10-year CSM rates for these patients were 1.2%, 2.3%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. In high-risk patients, EBRT was associated with a higher CSM than RP (P = 0.003), whereas there was no significant difference between RP and BT or RP and EBBT (all P > 0.05). The 10-year CSM rates of high-risk patients in the RP, EBRT, BT, and EBBT groups were 7.5%, 10.2%, 8.3%, and 7.6%, respectively. Regarding OCM, the risk was generally lower in RP than in the other three radiotherapy modalities (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Among men aged ≥70 years with localised PCa, EBRT, BT, and EBBT offer cancer-specific outcomes similar to those of RP for individuals with low- to intermediate-risk disease. In patients with high-risk disease, EBBT had outcomes equally favourable to those of RP, but RP is more beneficial than EBRT. More high-quality trials are warranted to confirm and expand the present findings.

Outcomes with brachytherapy based dose escalation for gleason 8 versus 9-10 prostate cancer: An NCDB analysis

INTRODUCTION

The addition of brachytherapy (BT) in high risk prostate cancer is supported by Level 1 evidence. Whether all high risk patients benefit from BT to the same extent is unknown. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to investigate overall survival (OS) differences between GS 8 and 9-10 treated with external beam radiation (EBRT) only or BT +/- EBRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included localized prostate adenocarcinoma definitively treated with radiation between 2004-2014. Patients were stratified into various radiation treatment groups: EBRT 7560 - 8640 cGy, EBRT 5940 - 7540 cGy, and BT +/- EBRT. All EBRT only and BT +/- EBRT patients received ADT. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess OS. Propensity score matching was used to account for differences between groups. Median survival was determined based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

30,698 patients were included. On multivariable analysis among GS 8 patients, BT was associated with improved OS compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy (HR-0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.92, P = 0.002). In Gleason 9-10 BT did not result in improved OS compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy (HR- 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 - 1.05, P = 0.212). Results remained significant with propensity score matching and removing patients with medical comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

BT was associated with improved OS when compared to 7560 - 8640 cGy in GS 8, but not in Gleason 9-10 disease. This hypothesis generating study suggests there may be variable benefit with BT in high risk prostate cancer patients on OS. Future prospective studies are needed to investigate whether the benefit of BT is similar across all high risk prostate cancer patients.

Radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer: Emulation of a target clinical trial

PURPOSE

The comparative effectiveness of surgery and radiation therapy for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer remains a seminal, open question in urologic oncology, with no randomized controlled trials to inform management. We therefore emulated a hypothetical target clinical trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted observational analyses using the National Cancer Database from 2006-2015 to emulate a target clinical trial in men 55-69 years with cT1-3cN0cM0, PSA<20 ng/mL, Gleason 8 to 10 prostate adenocarcinoma treated with RP or 75 to 81 Gy EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT+ADT). The associations of treatment type with overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox regression with stabilized inverse probability weights (IPW).

RESULTS

A total of 26,806 men formed the study cohort (RP: 23,990; EBRT+ADT: 2,816). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after IPW-adjustment. Median follow-up was 48.4 (IQR 25.5-76.2) months. After IPW-reweighting, RP was associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.54;95% CI 0.48-0.62; P<0.001), with 5- and 10-year OS of 93% vs 87%, and 76% vs 60%, respectively. RP was associated with improved OS across all categories of Gleason score, PSA, cT stage, age, and Charlson comorbidity index examined. In sensitivity analyses adjusting for biopsy tumor volume and a biopsy-specific Gleason score, RP remained associated with improved OS compared to EBRT+ADT (HR 0.62;95% CI 0.49-0.78; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In observational analyses designed to emulate a target clinical trial of men with high-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer, RP was associated with improved OS compared with EBRT+ADT.

High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Very Challenging Disease in the Field of Uro-Oncology

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in males and affects 16% of men during their lifetime [...].

Comparative Survival Outcomes of High-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy or Definitive Radiotherapy Regimens

Background

Observational data has indicated improved survival after radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with definitive radiotherapy (RT) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Objective

To compare PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in men with high-risk PCa treated with RP or RT, providing information on target doses and fractionations.

Design, setting, and participants

This is an observational study from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Patients were diagnosed with high-risk PCa during 2006–2015, treated with RP ≤12 mo or RT ≤15 mo after diagnosis, and stratified according to RP or RT modality; external beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 70–<74, 74–<78, or 78 Gy), hypofractionated RT or EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT-RT).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods estimated PCSM and OM, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression models evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for PCSM and OM.

Results and limitations

In total, 9254 patients were included (RP 47%, RT 53%). RT patients were older, had poorer performance status and more unfavorable disease characteristics. With a median follow-up time of seven and eight yrs, the overall 10-yr PCSM was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4–8.0) and OM was 22.9% (95% CI 21.8–24.1). Compared with RP, EBRT 70–<74 Gy was associated with increased (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.33–2.65, p < 0.001) and BT-RT with decreased (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24–0.96, p = 0.039) 10-yr PCSM. Patients treated with EBRT 70–78 Gy had higher adjusted 10-yr OM than those treated with RP.

Conclusions

In men with high-risk PCa, treatment with EBRT <74 Gy was associated with increased adjusted 10-yr PCSM and OM, and BT-RT with decreased 10-yr PCSM, compared with RP.

Patient summary

In this study, we compared mortality after radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa); the results suggest that men receiving lower-dose RT have higher, and patients receiving brachytherapy may have lower, risk of death from PCa than patients treated with prostatectomy.

Surgery associated with increased survival compared to radiation in clinically localized Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer: a SEER analysis

PURPOSE

Men with Gleason score 9-10 prostate cancer have worse outcomes compared to those with Gleason 8 disease. Upfront treatments remain controversial for these patients. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we evaluated the impact of initial treatment with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), external beam radiation therapy with brachytherapy (EBRT + BT), or surgery on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in Gleason 9-10 disease.

METHODS

The SEER database was queried for men diagnosed with biopsy Gleason 9-10 prostate cancer from 2005 to 2014. Gathered data included demographic, pathologic, therapy received, and survival outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and crude and multivariate analyses were generated for initial therapy with EBRT, EBRT + BT, or surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 7877 men were included, 4465 (56.7%) who underwent upfront treatment with EBRT alone, 623 (7.9%) with EBRT + BT, and 2789 (35.4%) with surgery. The 7 year PCSM rates were 29.2, 15.0, and 14.6% for EBRT, EBRT + BT, and surgery respectively (p < 0.001). The 7 year OM rates were 43.8, 27.2, and 20.0% for EBRT, EBRT + BT, and surgery, respectively (p < 0.001).When controlling for age, year of diagnosis, Gleason score, clinical T stage, and PSA level on multivariate analysis, EBRT had greater PCSM and OM than surgery (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.61, p < 0.001 and HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.57, p < 0.001 respectively), but the mortality differences was not statistically significant between EBRT and EBRT + BT.

CONCLUSION

Among men with localized Gleason 9-10 disease, surgery was associated with statistically significant improved survival outcomes compared to EBRT alone.

Brachytherapy boost (BT-boost) or stereotactic body radiation therapy boost (SBRT-boost) for high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa)

Systematic review for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa, D'Amico classification risk system) with external body radiation therapy (EBRT)+brachytherapy-boost (BT-boost) or with EBRT+stereotactic body RT-boost (SBRT-boost). In March 2020, 391 English citations on PubMed matched with search terms "high risk prostate cancer boost". Respectively 9 and 48 prospective and retrospective studies were on BT-boost and 7 retrospective studies were on SBRT-boost. Two SBRT-boost trials were prospective. Only one study (ASCENDE-RT) directly compared the gold standard treatment [dose-escalation (DE)-EBRT+androgen deprivation treatment (ADT)] versus EBRT+ADT+BT-boost. Biochemical control rates at 9 years were 83% in the experimental arm versus 63% in the standard arm. Cumulative incidence of late grade 3 urinary toxicity in the experimental arm and in the standard arm was respectively 18% and 5%. Two recent studies with HR-PCa (National Cancer Database) demonstrated better overall survival with BT-boost (low dose rate LDR or high dose rate HDR) compared with DE-EBRT. These recent findings demonstrate the superiority of EBRT+BT-boost+ADT versus DE-EBRT+ADT for HR-PCa. It seems that EBRT+BT-boost+ADT could now be considered as a gold standard treatment for HR-PCa. HDR or LDR are options. SBRT-boost represents an attractive alternative, but the absence of randomised trials does not allow us to conclude for HR-PCa. Prospective randomised international phase III trials or meta-analyses could improve the level of evidence of SBRT-boost for HR-PCa.

Current and emerging therapies for localized high-risk prostate cancer

Introduction: Despite progress in the field of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRPCa) treatments, high-risk patients treated with curative intent are at increased risk of biochemical recurrence, metastatic progression and cancer-related death. The optimal treatment strategy remains a topic of debate. This review provides an overview of the current and investigational therapeutic options for HRPCa.Areas covered: A PubMed search was performed for papers on the current perspectives on the multimodality treatment of HRPCa. We focus on both primary local treatment as well as systemic treatment options. Finally, relevant ongoing trials focusing on systemic treatments (including [neo]adjuvant treatments) enrolling at least 50 patients were retrieved, to highlight ongoing research and treatment optimization.Expert opinion: Disease progression in HRPCa patients is driven by local tumor extension and subclinical metastases. Therefore, the main treatment concept is a multimodal approach targeting the primary tumor with extended surgery or RT with long-term ADT and simultaneously targeting micro-metastatic deposits. However, there is still room for optimization. Upcoming clinical trials comparing surgery versus RT as local treatment, trials with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or androgen receptor signaling inhibitors will likely change the treatment landscape. However, a multimodal treatment strategy will stay as the cornerstone in the treatment of HRPCa.

Survival Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy + Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection and Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer Patients With a Risk of Lymph Node Invasion Over 5%: A Population-Based Analysis

Purpose

We aimed to compare the efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) + extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) and radiotherapy (RT) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients with a risk of lymph node invasion (LNI) over 5%.

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases were used to identify patients with PCa from 2010 to 2014. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline characteristics between patients in different treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess the effects of treatments on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Overall 20584 patients were included in this study, with 4,057 and 16,527 patients receiving RP + ePLND and RT, respectively. After PSM, patients with RP + ePLND had similar CSS (5-year CSS rate: 97.8% vs. 97.2%, P=0.310) but longer OS (5-year OS rate: 96.0% vs. 90.8%, P<0.001) compared to those receiving RT. When separating RT cohort into external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) group and EBRT+ brachytherapy (BT) group, treatments with RP + ePLND and EBRT+ BT achieved equivalent OS and were both superior to EBRT alone (5-year OS rate: 96.0% vs. 94.4% vs. 90.0%, P<0.001). Subgroup analyses and multivariate analyses further confirmed the superiority of RP + ePLND and EBRT+ BT.

Conclusion

RP + ePLND and EBRT + BT were associated with better survival outcomes compared to EBRT alone in PCa patients with a probability of LNI over 5%. However, no survival difference was observed between RP + ePLND and EBRT + BT.

Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer

High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease that lacks clear consensus on its ideal management. Historically, non-surgical treatment was the preferred strategy, and several studies demonstrated improved survival among men with high-risk disease managed with the combination of radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared with ADT alone. However, practice trends in the past 10-15 years have shown increased use of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for primary management of high-risk, localized disease. Radical prostatectomy, as a primary monotherapy, offers the potential benefits of avoiding ADT, reducing rates of symptomatic local recurrence, enabling full pathological tumour staging and potentially reducing late adverse effects such as secondary malignancy compared with radiation therapy. Retrospective studies have reported wide variability in short-term (pathological) and long-term (oncological) outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Surgical monotherapy continues to be appropriate for selected patients, whereas in others the best treatment strategy probably involves a multimodal approach. Appropriate risk stratification utilizing clinical, pathological and potentially also genomic risk data is imperative in the initial management of men with prostate cancer. However, data from ongoing and planned prospective trials are needed to identify the optimal management strategy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy are recognized as comparable treatment options for localized prostate cancer. Previous studies of oncological outcomes of surgery versus radiotherapy have reported their comparability or possible superiority of surgery. However, the issue of which treatment is better remains controversial. Several factors make fair comparison of their outcomes difficult: different patient backgrounds caused by selection bias, different definitions of biochemical recurrence and different complication profiles between the treatment modalities. In 2016, the first large randomized controlled trial was published, which compared radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active monitoring in localized prostate cancer. More recently, another study has reported comparative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, as the leading surgery and radiotherapy techniques, respectively. Furthermore, there has been a trend toward combining external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost, especially in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This review summarizes the updated evidence on oncological outcomes of surgery versus external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

Radioactive 125I seed implantation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A retrospective analysis of 50 cases

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the common malignant tumors of the digestive system, and radical resection is the first choice of treatment for pancreatic cancer. If patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer cannot be treated in time and effectively, their disease often develops rapidly and their survival period is very short.

AIM

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of ¹²⁵I seed implantation in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The demographics and perioperative outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent ¹²⁵I seed implantation to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the results of preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, the treatment planning system was used to determine the area and number of ¹²⁵I seeds implanted. During the operation, ¹²⁵I seeds were implanted into the tumor under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound, with a spacing of 1.5 cm and a row spacing of 1.5 cm. For patients with obstructive jaundice and digestive tract obstruction, choledochojejunostomy and gastroenterostomy were performed simultaneously. After operation, the patients were divided into a non-chemotherapy group and a chemotherapy group that received gemcitabine combined with albumin-bound paclitaxel treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 50 patients, there were 29 males and 21 females, with a mean age of 56.9 ± 9.8 years. The main reason for the failure of radical resection was superior mesenteric artery invasion (37, 74%), followed by superior mesenteric vein invasion (33, 66%). Twenty-one (62%) patients underwent palliative surgery and postoperative pain relief occurred in 40 (80%) patients. The estimated blood loss in operation was 107.4 ± 115.3 mL and none of the patient received blood transfusion. The postoperative hospital stay was 7.5 ± 4.2 d; one patient had biliary fistula and three had pancreatic fistula, all of whom recovered after conservative treatment. After operation, 26 patients received chemotherapy and 24 did not. The 1-year survival rate was significantly higher in patients who received chemotherapy than in those who did not (60.7% vs 35.9%, P = 0.034). The mean overall survival of patients of the chemotherapy group and non-chemotherapy group was 14 and 11 mo, respectively (χ² = 3.970, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Radioactive ¹²⁵I seed implantation combined with postoperative chemotherapy can prolong the survival time, relieve pain, and improve the quality of life of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences

PURPOSE

To give an overview of the multicenter Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study, involving paper-based and web-based collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer in certified centers in Germany. The PCO study is part of the larger Movember-funded TrueNTH Global Registry. The article reports on the study's design and provides a brief progress report after the first 2 years of data collection.

METHODS

Prostate cancer centers (PCCs) certified according to German Cancer Society requirements were invited to participate in collecting patient-reported information on symptoms and function before and at least once (at 12 months) after treatment. The data were matched with disease and treatment information. This report describes progress in patient inclusion, response rate, and variations between centers relative to online/paper use, and also data quality, including recruitment variations relative to treatment in the first participating PCCs.

RESULTS

PCC participation increased over time; 44 centers had transferred data for 3094 patients at the time of this report. Patient recruitment varied widely across centers. Recruitment was highest among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The completeness of the data was good, except for comorbidity information.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCO study benefits from a quality improvement system first established over 10 years ago, requiring collection and harmonization of a predefined clinical dataset across centers. Nevertheless, establishing a PROM routine requires substantial effort on the part of providers and constant monitoring in order to achieve high-quality data. The findings reported here may be useful for guiding implementation in similar initiatives.

High dose-rate brachytherapy of localized prostate cancer converts tumors from cold to hot

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) has a profoundly immunosuppressive microenvironment and is commonly immune excluded with few infiltrative lymphocytes and low levels of immune activation. High-dose radiation has been demonstrated to stimulate the immune system in various human solid tumors. We hypothesized that localized radiation therapy, in the form of high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), would overcome immune suppression in PCa.

METHODS

To investigate whether HDRBT altered prostate immune context, we analyzed preradiation versus postradiation human tissue from a cohort of 24 patients with localized PCa that received HDRBT as primary treatment (RadBank cohort). We performed Nanostring immune gene expression profiling, digital spatial profiling, and high-throughput immune cell multiplex immunohistochemistry analysis. We also resolved tumor and nontumor zones in spatial and bioinformatic analyses to explore the immunological response.

RESULTS

Nanostring immune profiling revealed numerous immune checkpoint molecules (eg, B7-H3, CTLA4, PDL1, and PDL2) and TGFβ levels were increased in response to HDRBT. We used a published 16-gene tumor inflammation signature (TIS) to divide tumors into distinct immune activation states (high:hot, intermediate and low:cold) and showed that most localized PCa are cold tumors pre-HDRBT. Crucially, HDRBT converted 80% of these 'cold'-phenotype tumors into an 'intermediate' or 'hot' class. We used digital spatial profiling to show these HDRBT-induced changes in prostate TIS scores were derived from the nontumor regions. Furthermore, these changes in TIS were also associated with pervasive changes in immune cell density and spatial relationships-in particular, between T cell subsets and antigen presenting cells. We identified an increased density of CD4+ FOXP3+ T cells, CD68+ macrophages and CD68+ CD11c+ dendritic cells in response to HDRBT. The only subset change specific to tumor zones was PDL1- macrophages. While these immune responses were heterogeneous, HDRBT induced significant changes in immune cell associations, including a gained T cell and HMWCK+ PDL1+ interaction in tumor zones.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we showed HDRBT converted "cold" prostate tumors into more immunologically activated "hot" tissues, with accompanying spatially organized immune infiltrates and signaling changes. Understanding and potentially harnessing these changes will have widespread implications for the future treatment of localized PCa, including rational use of combination radio-immunotherapy.

Radical prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer on oncological and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a form of malignancy that harms the health status of elderly men worldwide. It is unclear which of radical prostatectomy (RP) or brachytherapy (BT) is the more effective treatment for PCa. This study presents the first highly comprehensive and up-to-date comparative analysis of the overall outcomes of RP versus BT.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search for studies published on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on the outcomes of RP versus BT in clinically localized PCa. The cumulative analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 software, and the Chi-square test was employed to test the statistical heterogeneity. The summary odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) was estimated using random effects models at 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In total, 2 randomized, 2 prospective, and 21 retrospective comparative studies were included. No significant differences in biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.68) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.86, 3.04) between RP and BT were noted. With erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, BT was more protective than RP in both short-term post-operative reports (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.70 and OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 2.33, 9.16) and long-term patient outcome reports (SMD: -5.62; 95% CI: -13.81, 2.57 and SMD: -11.52; 95% CI: -18.32, -4.72).

Conclusions

BT and RP for PCa therapy pose comparable risks of PCSM and BCR, while BT is associated with a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. This study tentatively confirms that BT is an alternative to RP for patients seeking a curative treatment with minimal risks of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

The efficacy and safety of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments.

Results

A total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain.

Conclusion

RP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.

Comparative Effectiveness of Different Radical Radiotherapy Treatment Regimens for Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

It is unclear which radiotherapy technique and dose fractionation scheme is most effective in decreasing the risk of prostate cancer death.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study among 15 164 men in the Prostate Cancer database Sweden (version 4.0) treated with primary radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Sweden from 1998 to 2016. We calculated hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between the following exposure groups and outcome: conventionally fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to 78 Gy (39 × 2 Gy), EBRT combined with high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) (25 × 2 Gy + 2 × 10 Gy), conventionally fractionated EBRT to 70 Gy (35 × 2 Gy), and moderately hypofractionated (M-HF) dose-escalated EBRT (29 × 2.5 Gy or 22 × 3 Gy).

Results

Of the men, 7296 received conventionally fractionated EBRT to 78 Gy, 4657 EBRT combined with HDR-BT, 1672 conventionally fractionated EBRT to 70 Gy, and 1539 M-HF EBRT. Using EBRT to 78 Gy as the reference, the multivariable hazard ratios (95% CIs) of prostate cancer death was 0.64 (0.53 to 0.78) for EBRT combined with HDR-BT, 1.00 (0.80 to 1.27) for EBRT to 70 Gy, and 1.51 (0.99 to 2.32) for M-HF EBRT. The multivariable hazard ratios (95% CIs) for death from any cause were 0.79 (0.71 to 0.88), 0.99 (0.87 to 1.14), and 1.12 (0.88 to 1.42), respectively. The lower risk of prostate cancer death comparing EBRT combined with HDR-BT with conventionally fractionated EBRT to 78 Gy was more pronounced for men with high-risk or poorly differentiated tumors.

Conclusions

In this study, EBRT combined with HDR-BT was the most effective radiotherapy treatment regimen, especially for poorly differentiated tumors. Randomized trials comparing EBRT combined with HDR-BT with dose-escalated EBRT should be a priority.

Combined Modality Therapies for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review of Current Understanding and New Directions

Despite the many prospective randomized trials that have been available in the past decade regarding the optimization of radiation, hormonal, and surgical therapies for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), many questions remain. There is currently a lack of level I evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by adjuvant radiation compared to radiation therapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk PCa. Current retrospective series have also described an improvement in biochemical outcomes and PCa-specific mortality through the use of augmented radiation strategies incorporating brachytherapy. The relative efficacy of modern augmented RT compared to RP is still incompletely understood. We present a narrative review regarding recent advances in understanding regarding comparisons of overall and PCa-specific mortality measures among patients with high-risk PCa treated with either an RP/adjuvant RT or an RT/ADT approach. We give special consideration to recent trends toward the assembly of multi-institutional series targeted at providing high-quality data to minimize the effects of residual confounding. We also provide a narrative review of recent studies examining brachytherapy boost and systemic therapies, as well as an overview of currently planned and ongoing studies that will further elucidate strategies for treatment optimization over the next decade.

Comparison of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy Strategies as Primary Treatment for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There is little level 1 evidence regarding the relative efficacy of radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall and prostate cancer-specific mortality (OM and PCM) among patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RP or RT/ADT.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through July 2019 covering a period since 2009. We report the results of our systematic search according to recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were extracted for each endpoint. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 23 studies with low to moderate risk of bias were found to meet the inclusion criteria. In keeping with prior studies, external beam radiation therapy (XRT) without specification of ADT was associated with worse OM and PCM (aHR 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-1.91, p <  0.0001: I² = 53.4%) and (aHR 1.90, 95% CI 1.61-2.23, p <  0.0001: I² = 50.4%). These associations were weaker although not entirely eliminated when comparing RT/ADT versus RP (PCM aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.04, p =  0.002: I² = 61.5%). Combination of RT and brachytherapy (MaxRT), on the contrary, was associated with improved PCM compared with RP (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.78, p =  0.003: I² = 23.8%), an effect that was not significant when comparing MaxRT with the combination RP/adjuvant RT (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p =  0.197: I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence demonstrating definitive superiority of either modality is lacking. Recent studies show improved consideration of ADT, radiation dose, brachytherapy boost, and utilization of postoperative adjuvant radiation. Residual confounding continues to limit the interpretation of observational data.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer, many observational studies reporting higher mortality for radiotherapy demonstrate potential for confounding. More recent studies with current standard of care radiation regimens using androgen deprivation therapy or brachytherapy boost demonstrate approaching equivalence of prostatectomy and radiation modalities. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Achieving PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before Radiation Therapy Is a Strong Predictor of Treatment Success in Patients with High-Risk Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Background

To predict long-term treatment outcome of radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer.

Methods

In total, 204 patients with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk locally advanced prostate cancer (PSA > 20 ng/ml, Gleason score ≧ 8, clinical T stage ≧ 3a) were treated with definitive RT with ADT. Median follow up period was 113 months (IQR: 95–128). Median neoadjuvant ADT and total ADT duration were 7 months (IQR: 6–10) and 27 months (IQR: 14–38), respectively.

Results

PSA recurrence-free survival (PSA-RFS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were 84.1%, 98.5%, and 93.6%, respectively, and 67.9%, 91.2%, and 78.1%, respectively, at 10 years. Pre-RT PSA less than 0.2 ng/ml was associated with superior outcomes of PSA-RFS (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.70, p = 0.001), CSS (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09–0.82, p = 0.013), and OS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26–0.91, p = 0.021). On multivariate analysis, age (≥70 y.o.) and pre-RT PSA (≥0.2 ng/ml) were factors predictive of poorer OS (p = 0.032) , but iPSA, T stage, Gleason score, number of NCCN high-risk criteria, a combination with anti-androgen therapy and neoadjuvant ADT duration were not predictive of treatment outcome.

Conclusion

In patient with high-risk prostate cancer, RT plus ADT achieved good oncologic outcomes. PSA < 0.2 ng/ml before radiation therapy is a strong independent predictor for long overall survival.

Comparative effectiveness of surgery versus external beam radiation with/without brachytherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial if radical prostatectomy or definitive radiation therapy produces equivalent outcomes in high-risk localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We queried The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for those who received upfront surgery or who were recommended for surgery but instead received radiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to adjust for covariate imbalance and the weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effects of treatment groups on survival. A meta-analysis was performed to pool estimates from published studies.

RESULTS

Among eligible 62 533 patients, 59 540 had upfront surgery and 2993 patients had upfront radiotherapy. EBRT + BT was associated with a superior cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with surgery or EBRT alone (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; HR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.24-0.98, respectively), whereas EBRT was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) compared with surgery (HR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.8). Radiotherapy (EBRT ± BT) was inferior to surgery by OS (HR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.13-2.34) in patients ≤ 65 years, and was superior to surgery by CSS in patients > 65 years (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.97). The meta-analysis showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

EBRT + BT was associated with a significantly better prostate CSS compared with surgery or EBRT. EBRT alone was inferior to surgery by OS.

Comparison of outcome endpoints in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer after combined-modality radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare a standard radio-oncological and a surgical biochemical failure definition after combined-modality radiation therapy (CRT) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

425 men were treated with external beam radiotherapy (59.4 Gy, 33 fractions) and ¹²⁵J seed-brachytherapy (S-BT, 100 Gy). Biochemical recurrence (BR) was defined either as radio-oncologic (rBR), using a +2 ng/mL prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increase above a nadir value, or as surgical (sBR), using a 2-year posttreatment PSA of ≥0.2 ng/mL. Biochemical recurrence-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival were calculated at 5 and 10 years using the Kaplan-Meier method. Standard validation tests were used to compare both thresholds.

RESULTS

After a median of 7 years, overall recurrence rates were 10.4% and 31.5% for rBR and sBR definitions, respectively. Both failure definitions proved sensitive for the prediction of metastases and cancer-specific death, whereas the rBR definition was significantly more specific. The accuracies of a correct prediction of metastases and death of prostate cancer were 73.1% vs. 96.2% and 72.2% vs. 92.9% for sBR vs. rBR, respectively. The inferior validity results of the sBR definition were attributable to a PSA-bounce phenomenon occurring in 56% of patients with sBR. Still, using the less suitable sBR definition, the results of CRT compared favorably to BRFS rates of surgical interventions.

CONCLUSION

After CRT, the radio-oncological (aka Phoenix) failure definition is more reliable than a fixed surgical endpoint. Exclusively in high-risk patients, sBR offers a direct comparison across surgical and nonsurgical treatment options at 5 and 10 years.