Phase III Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation With or Without Mitoxantrone Plus Prednisone in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: SWOG S9921

PRIORITI: Phase 4 study of triptorelin or active surveillance in high-risk prostate cancer

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triptorelin after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with negative lymph nodes.

METHODS

PRIORITI (NCT01753297) was a prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 4 study conducted in China and Russia. Patients with high-risk (Gleason score ≥ 8 and/or pre-RP prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥ 20 ng/mL and/or primary tumor stage 3a) prostate adenocarcinoma without evidence of lymph node or distant metastases were randomized to receive triptorelin 11.25 mg at baseline (≤ 8 weeks after RP) and at 3 and 6 months, or active surveillance. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), defined as the time from randomization to biochemical relapse (BR; increased PSA > 0.2 ng/mL). Patients were monitored every 3 months for at least 36 months; the study ended when 61 BRs were observed.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 226 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 65.3 [6.4] years), of whom 109 and 117 were randomized to triptorelin or surveillance, respectively. The median BRFS was not reached. The 25th percentile time to BRFS (95% confidence interval) was 39.1 (29.9-not estimated) months with triptorelin and 30.0 (18.6-42.1) months with surveillance (p = 0.16). There was evidence of a lower risk of BR with triptorelin versus surveillance but this was not statistically significant at the 5% level (p = 0.10). Chemical castration was maintained at month 9 in 93.9% of patients who had received triptorelin. Overall, triptorelin was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSION

BRFS was observed to be longer with triptorelin than surveillance, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Hormonal Agents in Localized and Advanced Prostate Cancer: Current Use and Future Perspectives

Prostate cancer (PC) is generally a hormone-dependent tumor. Androgen deprivation therapy ( has been the standard of care in metastatic disease for more than 80 years. Subsequent studies have highlighted the efficacy of ADT even in earlier disease settings such as in localized disease or in the case of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Improved knowledge of PC biology and ADT resistance mechanisms have led to the development of novel generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). Initially used only in patients who became resistant to ADT, ARPI have subsequently shown to be effective when used in patients with metastatic hormone-naive disease and in recent years their effectiveness has also been evaluated in localized disease and in case of BCR. The objective of this review is to describe the current role of agents interfering with the androgen receptor in different stages of PC and to point out future perspectives.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2.

METHODS

For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL).

RESULTS

Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Novel Approaches in the Systemic Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer comprises approximately 20% of new prostate cancer diagnoses. For these patients, international guidelines recommend treatment with radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate in combination with long-term (2-3 years) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or radical prostatectomy in combination with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) as another treatment option for selected patients as part of multimodal therapy. Improvements in overall survival with docetaxel or an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor have been achieved in patients with metastatic castration sensitive or castration resistant prostate cancer. However, the role of systemic therapy combinations for high risk and/or unfavorable prostate cancer is unclear. In this context, the aim of this review is to assess the current evidence for systemic treatment combinations as part of primary definitive therapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Glucocorticoids as a drug class are widely used in the treatment of many conditions including more recently as one of the mainstay treatments for the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The physiological adverse effects are well described. However, less is known and understood about the potentially deleterious neuro-cognitive effects of this class of medication.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of the literature using two separate search strategies. The first focussed on the rates of reporting of adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoid use in randomised controlled trials. The second looked at those studies focussing directly on adverse cognitive effects associated with the use of glucocorticoids. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was searched for randomised controlled trials utilising glucocorticoids as a part of a treatment regimen. Additionally, these databases were also used to search for articles looking directly at the adverse cognitive effects of glucocorticoids.

RESULTS

Of the forty-three RCTs included as a part of the first search strategy, only one (2.3%) included specific documentation pertaining to cognitive side effects. As a part of the twenty studies included in the second search strategy, eleven of the included studies (55%) were able to demonstrate a correlation between glucocorticoid use and decreased cognition. Most studies within this strategy showed that GCs predominately affected hippocampus-dependent functions such as memory, while sparing executive function and attention.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data reporting of adverse clinical effects of glucocorticoid use is poor in recent RCTs. Given the demonstrable effect on predominately hippocampal-dependent cognitive functions evident within the literature, more thorough documentation is needed within clinical research to fully appreciate the potentially widespread nature of these effects.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial

BACKGROUND

Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Ubiquitin-specific protease 11 promotes partial epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition by deubiquitinating the epidermal growth factor receptor during kidney fibrosis

The aberrant expression of ubiquitin-specific protease 11 (USP11) is believed to be related to tumor progression. However, few studies have reported the biological function and clinical importance of USP11 in kidney fibrosis. Here, we demonstrated USP11 was highly upregulated in the kidneys from patients with chronic kidney disease and correlated positively with fibrotic lesion but negatively with kidney function. Conditional USP11 deletion or pharmacologic inhibition with Mitoxantrone attenuated pathological lesions and improved kidney function in both hyperuricemic nephropathy (HN)- and folic acid (FA)-induced mouse models of kidney fibrosis. Mechanistically, by RNA sequencing, USP11 was found to be involved in nuclear gene transcription of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). USP11 co-immunoprecipitated and co-stained with extra-nuclear EGFR and deubiquitinated and protected EGFR from proteasome-dependent degradation. Genetic or pharmacological depletion of USP11 facilitated EGFR degradation and abated augmentation of TGF-β1 and downstream signaling. This consequently alleviated the partial epithelial-mesenchymal transition, G2/M arrest and aberrant secretome of profibrogenic and proinflammatory factors in uric acid-stimulated tubular epithelial cells. Moreover, USP11 deletion had anti-fibrotic and anti-inflammatory kidney effects in the murine HN and FA models. Thus, our study provides evidence supporting USP11 as a promising target for minimizing kidney fibrosis and that inhibition of USP11 has potential to be an effective strategy for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Current Status and Future Perspective on the Management of Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy

Pathological lymph node involvement (pN1) after a pelvic lymph node dissection represents one of the most unfavorable prognostic factors for disease recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in prostate cancer. However, optimal management for pN1 patients remains unclear. Thus, the guideline from the European Association of Urology recommends discussing three following management options with pN1 patients after an extended pelvic lymph node dissection, based on nodal involvement characteristics: (i) offer adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, (ii) offer adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy with additional radiotherapy and (iii) offer observation (expectant management) to a patient with ≤2 nodes and a prostate-specific antigen <0.1 ng/mL. Treatment intensification may reduce risks of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, but it may increase adverse events and impair quality of life. Few randomized control trials for pN1 are under investigation. In addition, there are limited reports on the quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in patients with pN1. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with pN1. This review summarizes current evidence on the treatments available for men with pN1, summarizes randomized control trials that included pN1 prostate cancer, and discusses future perspectives.

Prostate cancer dormancy and recurrence

Prostate cancer can progress rapidly after diagnosis, but can also become undetectable after curative intent radiation or surgery, only to recur years or decades later. This capacity to lie dormant and recur long after a patient was thought to be cured, is relatively unique to prostate cancer, with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer being the other common and well-studied example. Most investigators agree that the bone marrow is an important site for dormant tumor cells, given the frequency of bone metastases and that multiple studies have reported disseminated tumor cells in patients with localized disease. However, while more difficult to study, lymph nodes and the prostate bed are likely to be important reservoirs as well. Dormant tumor cells may be truly quiescent and in the G0 phase of the cell cycle, which is commonly called cellular dormancy. However, tumor growth may also be held in check through a balance of proliferation and cell death (tumor mass dormancy). For induction of cellular dormancy, prostate cancer cells respond to signals from their microenvironment, including TGF-β2, BMP-7, GAS6, and Wnt-5a, which result in signals transduced in part through p38 MAPK and pluripotency associated transcription factors including SOX2 and NANOG, which likely affect the epi-genome through histone modification. Clinical use of adjuvant radiation or androgen deprivation has been modestly successful to prevent recurrence. With the rapid pace of discovery in this field, systemic adjuvant therapy is likely to continue to improve in the future.

Post-prostatectomy adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy- Current opinions and practices of Canadian urologists

INTRODUCTION

Despite the proven benefit of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients receiving primary radiation, there are few studies evaluating adjuvant ADT after prostatectomy. In the absence of evidence, opinions and practice patterns vary. We surveyed Canadian prostate cancer surgeons about their use of adjuvant ADT and their opinions on the design of a potential adjuvant ADT trial.

METHODS

An electronic survey was devised and distributed using a modified Dillman approach. The survey was sent to 38 Canadian urologists that perform radical prostatectomy and representing all 17 major academic institutions in Canada and all 10 Canadian provinces. Reminders were sent three and four weeks following the original request. In addition to demographic information, we asked surgeons about their current use of postoperative adjuvant ADT and their opinion about the need for a clinical trial. To inform trial design, we asked respondents their opinions about which patients should be eligible, what duration of ADT was most appropriate, and which outcomes are clinically meaningful. The survey was sent in February 2020 and all responses were received by March 2020.

RESULTS

All 38 (100%) invited urologists completed the survey. Only 3 (7%) respondents currently offer postoperative adjuvant ADT as an option for patients without metastases. 35 (92%) urologists believed that a trial is needed before short-term adjuvant treatment should be offered to prevent recurrence. 15 (45%) urologists believed an adjuvant ADT trial was most appropriate for patients with an estimated PSA recurrence risk of >25% and 16 (42%) believed a recurrence risk of >50% was most appropriate. 25 (66%) respondents believed 12-month was the optimal duration of treatment with adjuvant ADT for a randomized trial. 37 (97%) respondents felt that prolonging the time to PSA recurrence and/or pelvic radiation was a clinically important outcome. The majority (20; 53%) of respondents would recommend 12 months of adjuvant ADT in their practice if a randomized trial showed a 50% relative risk reduction in PSA recurrence at 5-year postoperative.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of Canadian prostate cancer surgeons do not offer adjuvant ADT following prostatectomy in patients without metastases. Based on the results from this survey, a randomized trial was considered warranted and feasible, and would influence patient care.

Cell-cycle risk score more accurately determines the risk for metastases and death in prostatectomy patients compared with clinical features alone

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer treatment aims to prevent metastases and disease-specific mortality. Pathologic parameters have limited ability to predict these outcomes, but biomarkers can improve risk discrimination. We evaluated the ability of cell-cycle progression and combined cell-cycle risk scores to predict metastases and disease-specific mortality after prostatectomy.

METHODS

Eligibility included (1) treatment with radical prostatectomy (1985-1997); (2) cell-cycle progression score; (3) preoperative prostate-specific antigen; (4) no neoadjuvant therapy; and (5) clinical follow-up (N = 360). Cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score was combined with cell cycle progression into the prespecified combined cell-cycle risk score. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported per unit score.

RESULTS

In total, 11% (41/360) developed metastases and 9% (33/360) experienced disease-specific mortality. Combined cell-cycle risk score predicted metastases and disease-specific mortality post-radical prostatectomy (p < 1 × 10-8 ). Adjusting for cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score, the combined cell-cycle risk score remained a predictor of metastases (HR = 3.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49, 6.20]; p = .003] and disease-specific mortality (HR = 3.40 [95% CI: 1.52, 7.59]; p = .004). Of patients with biochemical recurrence, 25% (41/163) developed metastases. Cancer of the prostate risk assessment postsurgical score was predictive of metastases postbiochemical recurrence but was improved by the addition of cell cycle progression (HR = 1.70 [95% CI: 1.14, 2.53]; p = .012). The combined cell-cycle risk was also prognostic of metastases post-biochemical recurrence (HR = 1.56 [95% CI: 1.20, 2.03]; p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Combined cell-cycle risk and cell cycle progression scores predict metastases and disease-specific mortality post-radical prostatectomy and should help identify patients at greatest risk of treatment failure who might benefit from earlier intervention.

Assessment of Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy as Adjuvant or Salvage Therapy in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Importance

After radical prostatectomy, adverse pathologic features and postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels can herald disease recurrence or progression. Postoperative radiotherapy (RT) remains beneficial in this setting.

Objective

To examine the evidence supporting the use of postoperative RT as well as recent advances that help determine timing, scope, and use in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without lymphatic irradiation.

Evidence Review

A search was conducted of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, in addition to clinical trial registries. The reference list of included studies was reviewed for relevant articles. The search was limited to studies published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019.

Findings

After 548 citations were screened, 27 articles were selected for inclusion. In addition to conventional imaging, positron-emission tomographic (PET)-based radiotracers can aid in disease localization. While PET imaging may influence management with RT, studies are underway examining this issue, and several limitations must be considered, such as limited detectability at lower PSA levels and regional sensitivity. Available genomic classifiers can risk stratify patients or assess potential added benefit of RT. Prospective validation is underway with cooperative group trials. Adjuvant RT, on the basis of adverse pathologic features (such as extraprostatic extension or positive margins) is beneficial in terms of disease control, but it is unclear whether this therapy translates into more meaningful clinical benefit (eg, improved overall survival and a reduction in metastasis), which has been demonstrated by only 1 older, prospective randomized study. Preliminary data suggest that for a relatively favorable-risk population (low Gleason score but with positive margins), PSA monitoring may be a reasonable alternative in some men. Use of androgen deprivation therapy and lymphatic irradiation should be considered in higher-risk cohorts (those with high PSA, high Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion or node positivity) in conjunction with postoperative RT.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this review suggest that postprostatectomy RT should be considered for men with prostate cancer in the setting of adverse pathologic features; in carefully selected patients with favorable characteristics, close PSA monitoring is an option. Androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymphatic irradiation should be considered for higher risk cohorts (eg, higher PSA values, higher Gleason score). PET imaging and molecular studies remain unproven as decision tools.

Management of Patients with Node-positive Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Optimal management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with lymph node invasion at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of postoperative treatment strategies for pathologically node-positive PCa patients. The secondary aim was to identify the most relevant prognostic factors to guide the management of pN1 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed in January 2020 using Medline, Embase, and other databases. A total of 5063 articles were screened, and 26 studies including 12 537 men were selected for data synthesis and included in the current review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free, clinical recurrence-free, cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival rates ranged from 28% to 56%, 70% to 92%, 72% to 98%, and 60% to 87.6%, respectively. A total of seven, five, and six studies assessed the oncological outcomes of observation, adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT), or adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. Initial observation followed by salvage therapies at the time of recurrence represents a safe option in selected patients with a low disease burden. The use of aRT with or without ADT might improve survival in men with locally advanced disease and a higher number of positive nodes. Risk stratification according to pathological Gleason score, number of positive nodes, pathological stage, and surgical margins status is the key to risk stratification and selection of the optimal postoperative therapy. Limitations of this systematic review are the retrospective design of the studies included and the lack of data on adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of men with pN1 disease would experience BCR after surgery, long-term disease-free survival has been reported in selected patients. Management options to improve oncological outcomes include observation versus adjuvant therapies such as aRT and/or ADT. Disease characteristics should be used to select the optimal postoperative management for pN1 PCa patients.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Finding node-positive prostate cancer after a radical prostatectomy often leads to high postoperative prostate-specific antigen levels and is overall a poor prognostic factor. However, this does not necessarily translate into poor survival for all men. Management can be tailored to the severity of disease and options include observation, androgen deprivation therapy, and/or radiotherapy.

Optimizing the role of androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer: Challenges beyond the guidelines

BACKGROUND

For specific clinical indications, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will induce disease prostate cancer (PC) regression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival; however, ADT has a well-described range of side effects, which may have a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life, necessitating additional interventions or changes in PC treatment. The risk-benefit analysis for initiating ADT in PC patients throughout the PC disease continuum warrants review.

METHODS

A 14-member panel comprised of urologic and medical oncologists were chosen for an expert review panel, to provide guidance on a more judicious use of ADT in advanced PC patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their academic and community experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, and were tasked with addressing the role of ADT in specific PC settings.

RESULTS

This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel for the use of ADT throughout the PC disease continuum, as well as an algorithm summarizing the key recommendations. The target for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting.

CONCLUSION

The panel has provided recommendations for monitoring PC patients while on ADT, recognizing that PC patients will progress despite testosterone suppression and, therefore, early identification of conversion from castrate-sensitive to castration resistance is critical. Also, the requirement to both identify and mitigate side effects of ADT as well as the importance of quality of life maintenance are essential to the optimization of patient care, especially as more combinatorial therapeutic strategies with ADT continue to emerge.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis

Importance

Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.

Objective

To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimental arm of such phase 3 trials.

Data Sources

Articles in the Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology published between January 2016 and June 2018 were searched.

Study Selection

Phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that failed to improve the primary end point were selected and any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial was selected without any date or journal restrictions.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Percentages of negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that lacked any phase 2 evidence, had a negative phase 2 trial, or had a positive phase 2 study were extracted. Associations were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the overall survival of patients enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs were estimated using a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Negative phase 3 RCTs with a lack of a phase 2 trial or the presence of a negative phase 2 trial and overall survival of enrolled patients in the phase 3 RCTs.

Results

In this meta-epidemiological study, 67 negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer drugs, which included 64 600 patients, met the criteria of being sponsored by industry or academic groups, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic. A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 of these trials (42%). Of 29 trials (43%) with a phase 2 trial available, 8 trials (28%) failed to meet their primary end points and 5 of those were industry sponsored. There was no association with overall survival for patients participating in these negative phase 3 RCTs (pooled hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). When the pooled analysis was limited to the 27 RCTs with a hazard ratio above 1.00, the overall pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16). No association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and trial sponsorship was found using the Fisher exact test.

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 40% of the negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology published in these 5 journals were conducted without a supporting phase 2 trial and were sponsored by both academia and industry. Running such trials not only may risk loss of resources owing to a failed trial but also may be associated with decreased patient survival. Further research and regulations in this area appear warranted.

Targeting DNA Repair Defects for Precision Medicine in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genomic studies of localized and metastatic prostate cancer have identified a high prevalence of clinically actionable alterations including mutations in DNA repair genes. In this manuscript, we review the current knowledge on DNA repair defects in prostate cancer and provide an overview of how these alterations can be targeted towards a personalized prostate cancer management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty to 25% of metastatic prostate cancers harbor defects in DNA repair genes, most commonly in the homologous recombination genes. These defects confer increased sensitivity to platinum chemotherapy or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Recent trials also support a synergistic effect of combining these therapies with androgen receptor-targeting agents. Identification of mismatch-repair defects could result in defining a prostate cancer population who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. These data have implications for family testing and early diagnosis, as many of these mutations are linked to inherited risk of prostate cancer. The DNA damage repair pathways are clinically relevant in prostate cancer, being a target for precision medicine; combination with standard-of-care androgen receptor (AR)-targeting agents may be synergistic.

The effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of additional chemotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a controversy. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk PCa.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about additional chemotherapy for high-risk PCa were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We extracted HRs of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for each trial and performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 4,007 patients were included. Data from four trials, which could collect OS, showed that additional chemotherapy could not significantly improve the OS in patients with high-risk PCa (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.09; P=0.37). However, the pooled analysis suggested significantly longer PFS in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional chemotherapy (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90; P<0.0001). The meta-analysis showed additional chemotherapy to androgen-deprivation therapy improved PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91; P=0.0002). Greater improvement in PFS was found in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.83; P<0.00001). No prolonged PFS was observed in high-risk PCa patients with non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83-1.14; P=0.74).

CONCLUSION

Additional chemotherapy, especially docetaxel-based chemotherapy, could significantly improve the PFS in high-risk PCa patients. More evidence about the effect of additional chemotherapy on OS is needed. Further investigations in PCa should also focus on the suitable population for chemotherapy as well as optimal use of chemotherapy.

Modulation of Premetastatic Niche by the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Pazopanib in Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer Followed by Radical Prostatectomy: A Phase II Randomized Trial

Lessons Learned.

Pazopanib was not effective in altering the premetastatic niche in the neoadjuvant setting.

Pazopanib was safe and well tolerated without any new safety signals.

Background.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) expressing myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (VEGFR1+ MDSCs) potentially foster metastases by establishing a premetastatic niche. In a preclinical study, VEGFR1+ clustering in lymph nodes (LNs) independently predicted time to biochemical recurrence (TTBR) in localized prostate cancer [1]. The hypothesis was that neoadjuvant pazopanib therapy will decrease VEGFR1+ clusters in pelvic lymph nodes and improve outcomes.

Methods.

This is a phase II trial (NCT01832259) of neoadjuvant pazopanib 800 mg versus placebo daily for 4 weeks in high‐risk localized prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was a decrease in VEGFR1+ MDSC clustering assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis. Secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, and TTBR.

Results.

Thirty patients were randomized to pazopanib versus placebo, with 15 patients randomized to each arm. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar in both arms. There was no difference in the VEGFR1+ clustering between the treatment arms (p = .345). Neoadjuvant therapy with pazopanib was well tolerated, and surgical complications were similar in both arms.

Conclusion.

Neoadjuvant pazopanib therapy did not alter the premetastatic niche; however, treatment targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the preoperative period was safe and feasible, which may open up the avenue to investigate novel combinatorial regimens, including a VEGF inhibitor in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor in this setting.

Developments in urologic oncology "OncoForum": The best of 2017

OBJECTIVE

To put forth new findings of urologic oncology with impact on clinical practice presented during 2017 in the main annual meetings.

METHODS

This document reviews abstracts on prostate, kidney and bladder cancer presented at the congresses of 2016 (EAU, AUA, ASCO, ESMO and ASTRO) and publications with the highest impact in this period valued with the highest scores by the OncoForum committee.

RESULTS

Among patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy, adjuvant sunitinib compared to placebo showed a benefit in patients at higher risk of recurrence. In cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer, pembrolizumab elicits clinically meaningful, durable responses. Among patients with localized prostate cancer, treatment for disease progression was less frequent (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage pontis) and adverse events was more frequent with surgery than with observation. Among patients with locally advanced or merastatic prostate cancer, androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone and prednisolone resulted in fewer deaths and fewer treatment-failure events (P<.001). Among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide median radiographic progression free survival was 8,1 months and enzalutamide median overall survival was not reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy, adjuvant sunitinib showed a benefit across subgroups including patients at higher risk of recurrence. Among patients with localized prostate cancer, surgery was not associated with significantly lower all-cause or porstate-cancer mortality than observation. Among patients with locally advanced or merastatic prostate cancer, androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than androgen-deprivation therapy alone. In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with abiraterone enzalutamide remained active.

Prognostic value of selected preoperative inflammation-based scores in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy

Background

This study investigated the prognostic value of inflammation-based scores in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Methods

Inflammation-based scores included the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived NLR (dNLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and plasma fibrinogen. A total of 440 patients (380 patients treated without neoadjuvant ADT and 60 patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT) were retrospectively evaluated in our medical center. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare the prognostic value of these scores. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were also performed.

Results

For all patients, dNLR and PNI were predictive of biochemical recurrence (.=0.041 and <0.001, respectively). Subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant strategies was also performed. For patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT, no selected inflammation-based scores were significantly correlated with biochemical recurrence (.>0.05). In contrast, for patients treated without neoadjuvant ADT, NLR (area under the ROC curve [AUC] =0.576, P=0.033), dNLR (.=0.585 and 0.017), PLR (AUC =0.582, P=0.024), and PNI (AUC =0.622, P<0.001) were predictive of biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that dNLR (.=0.044), PLR (.=0.028), and PNI (.=0.004) were significantly associated with biochemical recurrence. Based on multivariable models, PNI was an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.90, P=0.016).

Conclusion

High dNLR, high PLR, and low PNI were associated with poor biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for high-risk localized prostate cancer not treated with neoadjuvant ADT. In particular, PNI was an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence.

Low-risk Prostate Cancer Prior to or After Kidney Transplantation

CONTEXT

Organ transplantation requires immunosuppression, which was regarded as a risk factor for tumor induction and tumor progression in all types of malignancy. Until recently, any form of active neoplasia was, therefore, regarded as contraindicative to organ transplantation. However, there is growing evidence that the increased tumor risk by immunosuppression is restricted to particular subgroups of malignancy, whereas others such as prostate cancer (PCa) are not negatively influenced.

OBJECTIVE

To compare life expectancy (LE) under various low-risk situations of PCa (untreated low-risk primary tumor, slowly progressing asymptomatic biochemical recurrence after curative treatment) with LE under renal replacement therapy. To discuss the question whether or not low-risk untreated or incurable situations of PCa must be regarded contraindicative to kidney transplantation (KT) or to transplantation of other organs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify original and review articles regarding PCa risk after KT as well as the natural history of untreated and treated situations of PCa. Articles published between 1991 and 2018 were reviewed and selected with the consensus of all the authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

No evidence could be found that KT and immunosuppression are associated with an increased PCa-related risk, neither in incidence nor in aggressiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for and treatment of PCa in applicants for KT or in patients after KT should be performed in an individualized manner on the basis of lifetime risk calculations. In particular, untreated or incurable low-risk manifestations (presumed LE >10 yr) of PCa cannot be regarded as strictly contraindicative against KT.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For prostate cancer, even when left untreated, a number of low-risk situations can be defined which are associated with a life expectancy (LE) of 15 yr and more. The LE of elderly patients suffering from end-stage renal failure often does not significantly exceed 15 yr even after kidney transplantation (KT). When remaining on dialysis, however, their further LE is significantly reduced and often far below 15 yr. To the best of the presently available knowledge, KT does not worsen or accelerate the course of untreated low-risk prostate cancer. Even in the presence of untreated low-risk prostate cancer, patients with end-stage renal failure must, therefore, be expected to significantly benefit from KT.