Metastases in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) prognosis and clinical outcome is directly dependent on metastatic occurrence. The bone microenvironment is a favorable metastatic niche. Different biological processes have been suggested to contribute to the osteotropism of PCa such as hemodynamics, bone-specific signaling interactions, and the "seed and soil" hypothesis. However, prevalence of disseminating tumor cells in the bone is not proportional to the actual occurrence of metastases, as not all patients will develop bone metastases. The fate and tumor-reforming ability of a metastatic cell is greatly influenced by the microenvironment. In this review, the molecular mechanisms of bone and soft-tissue metastasis in PCa are discussed. Specific attention is dedicated to the residual disease, novel approaches, and animal models used in oncological translational research are illustrated.

[EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

METHODS

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence (LEs) and/or grades of recommendation (GR) were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

RESULTS

Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Although LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, their clinical benefit remains to be determined. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) results in equivalent oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values > 0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and > 2 ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels < 0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is < 2.5 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include screening for the metabolic syndrome and an analysis of PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) includes second-line hormonal therapy, novel agents, and chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel as a second-line therapy for relapse after docetaxel might become a future option. Zoledronic acid and denusomab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and CRPC is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or online at www.uroweb.org.

The role of surgery in high-risk localised prostate cancer

• The optimal management of high-risk localised prostate cancer is a major challenge for urologists and oncologists. It is clear that multimodal therapy including radical local treatment is needed in these men to achieve the best outcomes. • External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an essential component of therapy either as a primary or adjuvant treatment. However, the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) is more controversial. Both methods are currently valid therapy options. • There have been many individual studies of EBRT and RP in high-risk disease, but no good quality large prospective randomized trials. • In EBRT, combination with neoadjuvant plus long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been conclusively shown to improve outcomes and is widely considered the standard of care. • However, the role of RP has achieved recent prominence with several important studies. Published data from prospective randomized trials in patients after RP have shown that in men with adverse pathological features at surgery, the addition of adjuvant RT improves biochemical-free and progression-free survival. • More recently, studies from large-volume centres comparing EBRT and RP have provided intriguing suggestions of better outcomes with RP as the primary treatment. • An important question therefore, is which of the two methods provides the best outcome in men with localised high-risk disease. Crucially, does the combination of RP and selective adjuvant EBRT provide clinically significant better outcomes compared with EBRT alone? • In this review we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP for high-risk localised prostate cancer and define the parameters and urgent need for a prospective trial to test the role of surgery for this group of patients.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

METHODS

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence (LEs) and/or grades of recommendation (GR) were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

RESULTS

Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Although LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, their clinical benefit remains to be determined. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) results in equivalent oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <2.5 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include screening for the metabolic syndrome and an analysis of PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) includes second-line hormonal therapy, novel agents, and chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel as a second-line therapy for relapse after docetaxel might become a future option. Zoledronic acid and denusomab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and CRPC is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or online at www.uroweb.org.

Adjuvant vs. salvage radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article considers the efficacy and toxicity of postoperative radiotherapy to the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy. It has a particular focus on the debate concerning the optimum timing of postoperative radiotherapy: adjuvant treatment for all high-risk cases vs. salvage treatment at the time of prostate-specific antigen relapse.

RECENT FINDINGS

Postoperative radiotherapy has been shown, in a mature randomized trial, to improve overall survival after radical prostatectomy. Randomized trials have also provided good data on the morbidity of postoperative radiotherapy.

SUMMARY

Postoperative radiotherapy improves survival in patients with high-risk pathological features at radical prostatectomy at the cost of moderate urinary and bowel toxicity. The optimum timing of postoperative radiotherapy, and in particular the relative merits of adjuvant vs. salvage radiotherapy, remains uncertain.