Novel Prognostic Index of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Using Simple Summation of Very High-Risk Factors

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.

The prognostic value of Dickkopf-3 (Dkk3), TGFB1 and ECM-1 in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is considered one of the most common cancers worldwide. Despite advances in patient diagnosis, management, and risk stratification, 10%-20% of patients progress to castration-resistant disease. Our previous report highlighted a protective role of Dickkopf-3 (DKK3) in PCa stroma. This role was proposed to be mediated through opposing extracellular matrix protein 1 (ECM-1) and TGF-β signalling activity. However, a detailed analysis of the prognostic value of DKK3, ECM-1 and members of the TGF-β signalling pathway in PCa was not thoroughly investigated. In this study, we explored the prognostic value of DKK3, ECM-1 and TGFB1 using a bioinformatical approach through analysis of large publicly available datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas Program (TGCA) and Pan-Cancer Atlas databases. Our results showed a significant gradual loss of DKK3 expression with PCa progression (p < 0.0001) associated with increased DNA methylation in its promoter region (p < 1.63E-12). In contrast, patients with metastatic lesions showed significantly higher levels of TGFB1 expression compared to primary tumours (p < 0.00001). Our results also showed a marginal association between more advanced tumour stage presented as positive lymph node involvement and low DKK3 mRNA expression (p = 0.082). However, while ECM1 showed no association with tumour stage (p = 0.773), high TGFB1 expression showed a significant association with more advanced stage presented as advanced T3 stage compared to patients with low TGFB1 mRNA expression (p < 0.001). Interestingly, while ECM1 showed no significant association with patient outcome, patients with high DKK3 mRNA expression showed a significant association with favourable outcomes presented as prolonged disease-specific (p = 0.0266), progression-free survival (p = 0.047) and disease-free (p = 0.05). In contrast, high TGFB1 mRNA expression showed a significant association with poor patient outcomes presented as shortened progression-free (p = 0.00032) and disease-free survival (p = 0.0433). Moreover, DKK3, TGFB1 and ECM1 have acted as immune-associated genes in the PCa tumour microenvironment. In conclusion, our findings showed a distinct prognostic value for this three-gene signature in PCa. While both DKK3 and TGFB1 showed a potential role as a clinical marker for PCa stratification, ECM1 showed no significant association with the majority of clinicopathological parameters, which reduce its clinical significance as a reliable prognostic marker.

Editorial for the Special Issue on High-Risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

The recent development of imaging modalities, such as diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background suppression (DWIBS) and positron emission tomography of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) with a radioactive diagnostic agent, has enabled the detection of minute metastases in patients diagnosed with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer by conventional modalities [...].

Role of Brachytherapy Boost in Clinically Localized Intermediate and High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Lack of Benefit in Patients with Very High-Risk Factors T3b-4 and/or Gleason 9-10

Simple Summary

In general, brachytherapy (BT) improves biochemical control in intermediate-to high-risk prostate cancer. We previously reported that importance of very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) and patients with double VHR (VHR-2) showed the worst prognosis among high-risk groups. We explored the role of BT-boost in patients with VHR and compared it to intermediate- and other high-risk groups. We confirmed that BT-boost improved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) control but resulted in equivalent overall survival rates for the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for the patients with VHR. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed superior PSA control to conventional-dose RT (EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) but not to the dose-escalated radiotherapy group (EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve the biochemical control rate of either Conv RT or DeRT. BT-boost showed no benefit over modern DeRT in the patients with VHR.

Abstract

This study examined the role of brachytherapy boost (BT-boost) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer, especially in patients with very high-risk factors (VHR: T3b–4 or Gleason score 9–10) as patients with double very high-risk factors (VHR-2: T3b–4 and Gleason score 9–10) previously showed worst prognosis in localized prostate cancer. We retrospectively reviewed multi-institutional data of 1961 patients that were administered radiotherapy (1091 BT-boost and 872 EBRT: 593 conventional-dose RT (Conv RT: equivalent to doses of 2 Gy per fraction = EQD2 ≤ 72 Gy) and 216 dose-escalating RT (DeRT = EQD2 ≥ 74 Gy). We found that BT-boost improved PSA control and provided an equivalent overall survival rate in the intermediate- and high-risk groups, except for patients within the VHR factor group. In the VHR-1 group (single VHR), BT-boost showed a superior biochemical control rate to the Conv RT group but not to the DeRT group. In the VHR-2 group, BT-boost did not improve outcomes of either Conv RT or DeRT groups. In conclusion, BT-boost showed no benefit to modern DeRT in the patients with VHR; therefore, they are not good candidates for BT-boost to improve outcome and may be amenable to clinical trials using multimodal intensified systemic treatments.