Role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer with high tumor burden at biopsy: lessons learned from a contemporary radical prostatectomy cohort

INTRODUCTION

To investigate whether initial tumor burden at biopsy could predict adverse features after radical prostatectomy (RP) in International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in six referral centers. The cohort included patients with ISUP 1 PCa at systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. We defined a high tumor burden at biopsy if ≥ 20% of cores were positive. The endpoint of the study was adverse features at RP, defined as ≥ pT3a stage and/or N1 and/or ISUP ≥ 3. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess associations between different thresholds on biopsy (percentage of positive cores [PPC] ≥ 25%, ≥ 33%, ≥ 50%, bilateral positivity and positive cores > 3) and adverse features. As the number of targeted biopsies sampled may influence the number of positive cores, we used a virtual biopsy model in which all targeted biopsy results were interpreted as a single targeted biopsy.

RESULTS

A total of 312 contemporary patients were included. At final pathology, 99 patients (32%) had adverse features. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no statistical association between PPC > 20% and adverse features (OR = 1.22; 95%CI:0.69-2.22, p = 0.5). In sensitivity analysis, tumor burden at biopsy was not associated with the risk of adverse features, regardless of the definition used (all p > 0.05). When we considered a unique virtual targeted biopsy, tumor burden remained not associated with adverse features (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ISUP 1 PCa tumor burden at biopsy did not predict adverse features in this study, suggesting that it should not be used alone as an exclusion criterion when assessing eligibility for active surveillance.

Single-Setting 3D MRI/US-Guided Frozen Sectioning and Cryoablation of the Index Lesion: Mid-Term Oncologic and Functional Outcomes from a Pilot Study

Our study explored frozen section reliability in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnoses and described surgical steps of a 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US)-guided prostate biopsy (PB) and focal cryoablation of the index lesion (IL) in a single-setting procedure. Patients with a suspicious prostatic specific antigen (PSA) value, with a PIRADS 4 or 5 single lesion, were enrolled for trans perineal 3D MRI-US-guided PB and TRUS-guided focal cryoablation. Three cores were taken from the IL, three cores from the surrounding area, while systematic sampling was performed for the rest of the gland. After confirmation of PCa in frozen sections, focal cryoablation was performed. The 1st-year follow-up schedule included a PSA test at a 3-month interval, MRI 3 months and 1 year postoperatively and PB of the treated area at 1 year. Following the follow-up schedule, an involved PSA test at a 3-month interval and yearly MRI were performed. The PCa diagnosis was histologically confirmed in all three patients with frozen sections. At final histology, a single Gleason score upgrade from 6 (3 + 3) to 7 (3 + 4) was observed. All patients were discharged on postoperative day 1. At the 3-month evaluation, mean PSA values decreased from 12.54 (baseline) to 1.73 ng/mL and MRI images showed complete ablation of the IL in all patients. Urinary continence and potency were preserved in all patients. At the 1-year follow-up, one patient had suspicious ipsilateral recurrence on MRI and underwent a new analogous procedure. Post follow-up was uneventful and PSA remained stable in all patients. Three-dimensional MRI-US-guided frozen sectioning and focal cryoablation of the IL is a step forward towards a "patient-tailored" minimally invasive approach to the diagnosis and cure of PCa.

Contemporary patterns of local ablative therapies for prostate cancer at United States cancer centers: results from a national registry

PURPOSE

To describe the national-level patterns of care for local ablative therapy among men with PCa and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with the receipt of these techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively interrogated the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for men with clinically localized PCa between 2010 and 2017. The main outcome was receipt of local tumor ablation with either cryo- or laser-ablation, and "other method of local tumor destruction including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)". Patient level, hospital level, and demographic variables were collected. Mixed effect logistic regression models were fitted to identify separately patient- and hospital-level predictors of receipt of local ablative therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,278 patients received ablative therapy, of whom 78.8% had cryotherapy, 15.6% had laser, and 5.7% had another method including HIFU. At the patient level, men with intermediate-risk PCa were more likely to be treated with local ablative therapy (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.11; p = 0.05), as were men with Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29-1.43; p < 0.01), men between 71 and 80 years (OR 3.70; 95% CI 3.43-3.99; p < 0.01), men with Medicare insurance (OR 1.38; 95% 1.31-1.46; p < 0.01), and an income < $47,999 (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; p < 0.01). At the hospital-level, local ablative therapy was less likely to be performed in academic/research facilities (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32-0.64; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Local ablative therapy for PCa treatment is more commonly offered among older and comorbid patients. Future studies should investigate the uptake of these technologies in non-hospital-based settings and in light of recent changes in insurance coverage.

Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018?

OBJECTIVES

To assess uptake and application of the IDEAL principles in original surgical procedure- or device-related clinical research studies, as well as its reported relevance as characterized by secondary publications, editorials and reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) is a framework that provides stage-specific guidance for surgical innovation and represented a major advance towards raising evidential standards. We performed a comprehensive literature search of all urology-related publications citing one or more of seven key publications on IDEAL in The Lancet and BMJ using multiple databases up to 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 150 urology-related manuscripts citing IDEAL, of which 83 (55.3%) were original research and 67 (44.7%) were secondary publications. Among the original research articles, 40 (48.2%) did not explicitly apply IDEAL principles or were not surgical innovation studies. The IDEAL phases of the 43 (51.8%) remaining original research studies were IDEAL, in nine (20.9%), 27 (62.8%), four (9.3%), 0 (0%), and three publications (7.0%), respectively. Across IDEAL stages, 30 (75.0%) studies were prospective, 29 (85.3%) reported ethical oversight, and 39 (90.7%) captured treatment-related harms. None of the studies collected information on physician experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The IDEAL framework has found widespread adoption in the urology literature as witnessed by a large number of original manuscripts and secondary publications citing IDEAL; however, its application is largely limited to the early stages of surgical innovation, frequently with inappropriate and incomplete implementation. Further efforts are needed to guide investigators in the optimal use of the IDEAL framework as it relates to surgical innovation in urology.

Which technology to select for primary focal treatment of prostate cancer?-European Section of Urotechnology (ESUT) position statement

BACKGROUND

With growing interest in focal therapy (FT) of prostate cancer (PCa) there is an increasing armamentarium of treatment modalities including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, focal laser ablation (FLA), irreversible electroporation (IRE), vascular targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP), focal brachytherapy (FBT) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Currently there are no clear recommendations as to which of these technologies are appropriate for individual patient characteristics. Our intention was to review the literature for special aspects of the different technologies that might be of advantage depending on individual patient and tumour characteristics.

METHODS

The current literature on FT was screened for the following factors: morbidity, repeatability, tumour risk category, tumour location, tumour size and prostate volume and anatomical issues. The ESUT expert panel arrived at consensus regarding a position statement on a structured pathway for available FT technologies based on a combination of the literature and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Side effects were low across different studies and FT modalities with urinary continence rates of 90-100% and erectile dysfunction between 5 and 52%. Short to medium cancer control based on post-treatment biopsies were variable between ablative modalities. Expert consensus suggested that posterior lesions are better amenable to FT using HIFU. Cryotherapy provides best possible outcomes for anterior tumours. Apical lesions, when treated with FBT, may yield the least urethral morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective trials are required to assess medium to long term disease control of different ablative modalities for FT. Amongst different available FT modalities our ESUT expert consensus suggests that some may be better for diffe`rent tumour locations. Tumour risk, tumour size, tumour location, and prostate volume are all important factors to consider and might aid in designing future FT trials.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options

PURPOSE

This guideline is structured to provide a clinical framework stratified by cancer severity to facilitate care decisions and guide the specifics of implementing the selected management options. The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing risk stratification and care options by cancer severity. Please refer to Part I for discussion of specific care options and outcome expectations and management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic review utilized in the creation of this guideline was completed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and through additional supplementation by ECRI Institute. This review included articles published between January 2007 and March 2014 with an update search conducted through August 2016. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. Additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 2 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).

RESULTS

The AUA (American Urological Association), ASTRO, and SUO (Society of Urologic Oncology) formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk stratified clinical framework for the management of localized prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients. In all cases, patient preferences should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: the technical challenges

Focal therapy for prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative treatment to whole gland therapy, offering the opportunity for tumor dose escalation and/or reduced toxicity. Brachytherapy, either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate, provides an ideal approach, offering both precision in dose delivery and opportunity for a highly conformal, non-uniform dose distribution. Whilst multiple consensus documents have published clinical guidelines for patient selection, there are insufficient data to provide clear guidelines on target volume delineation, treatment planning margins, treatment planning approaches, and many other technical issues that should be considered before implementing a focal brachytherapy program. Without consensus guidelines, there is the potential for a diversity of practices to develop, leading to challenges in interpreting outcome data from multiple centers. This article provides an overview of the technical considerations for the implementation of a clinical service, and discusses related topics that should be considered in the design of clinical trials to ensure precise and accurate methods are applied for focal brachytherapy treatments.

Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

There is increasing interest in focal therapy (male lumpectomy) of localized low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is typically associated with low morbidity and provides the possibility of retreatment. Imaging is pivotal in stratification of men with localized prostate cancer for active surveillance, focal therapy or radical intervention. This article provides a concise review of focal therapy and the evolving role of imaging in this clinical setting.

METHODS

We performed a narrative and critical literature review by searching PubMed/Medline database from January 1997 to January 2017 for articles in the English language and the use of search keywords "focal therapy", "prostate cancer", and "imaging".

RESULTS

Most imaging studies are based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Transrectal ultrasound is inadequate independently but multiparametric ultrasound may provide new prospects. Positron emission tomography with radiotracers targeted to various underlying tumor biological features may provide unprecedented new opportunities. Multimodal Imaging appears most useful in localization of intraprostatic dominant index lesions amenable to focal therapy, in early assessment of therapeutic efficacy and potential need for additional focal treatments or transition to whole-gland therapy, and in predicting short-term and long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal imaging is anticipated to play an increasing role in the focal therapy planning and assessment of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer and thereby moving this form of treatment option forward in the clinic.

[Radical prostatectomy as part of a multimodal concept for patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases at initial diagnosis]

In patients with metastatic prostate cancer presenting with synchronous bone metastases, the surgical removal of the primary is an experimental treatment approach. In the following article, we evaluate the rationale for this approach.

Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Pending Questions

Focal therapy (FT) represents a potential shift in clinical practice by featuring a tissue-sparing approach for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. It stands midway between active surveillance (AS) and more aggressive options like radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy. The field has enormously evolved in the last few years but there are still pending questions to answer in the future. The manuscript overlooks FT in terms of indications, available energies, situation of tumor microenvironment, follow-up, re-interventions, and the future of this approach for PCa.

[Localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines recommend radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (EBRT) as standard treatment for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Survival benefit of RP in prostate cancer has been proven in prospectively randomized trials. In contrast, the benefit of EBRT as well as the direct comparison of EBRT and RP have been investigated in several retrospective analyses, but are limited by typical problems associated with retrospective studies.

RESULTS

Most of the studies comparing RP with EBRT favor RP with regard to overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Especially in young patients with high-grade prostate cancer, RP seems to be superior in comparison with EBRT. These patient are at high risk of a PSA recurrence and subsequently need an additional radiotherapy. Mortality and morbidity related to these both methods are low. Main complications of RP are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast, rectal sequelae, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary symptoms are the main cause for postinterventional morbidity in patients after EBRT.