Results of a randomized trial of treatment modalities in patients with low or early-intermediate risk prostate cancer (PREFERE trial)

Cost-utility analysis of MR imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation for the treatment of low- to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (MR-TULSA) is a new focal therapy for treating localised prostate cancer that is associated with fewer adverse effects (AEs) compared with established treatments. To support large-scale clinical implementation, information about cost-effectiveness is required.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of MR-TULSA compared with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for patients with low- to favourable intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed targeting 60-year-old men diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer over a time horizon of 40 years from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. To assess the robustness of the results, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

INTERVENTION

Four different treatment strategies were compared: minimally invasive MR-TULSA, two definitive approaches (RARP and EBRT) and one observational strategy (AS).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcomes were measured in overall costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

AS generated the highest number of QALYs (12.67), followed by MR-TULSA (12.35), EBRT (12.35) and RARP (12.20). RARP generated the lowest costs (€ 46 997) over one patient's lifetime, while MR-TULSA was a slightly more expensive alternative (€48 826). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AS compared with RARP was €11 600 per QALY and of MR-TULSA compared with RARP was €12 193 per QALY, while EBRT was dominated. At a willingness-to-pay of €20 000 per QALY, the probability of being cost-effective is 44% for AS, 25% for RARP, 25% for MR-TULSA and 6% for EBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment options for 60-year-old men diagnosed with low- to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer are affected by considerable uncertainty. Accepting high follow-up costs by applying a higher willingness-to-pay, AS is the most favourable treatment option.

Radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer: a multicenter analysis evaluating tumor control and late toxicity after brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy in 1293 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Comparing oncological outcomes and toxicity after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer using HDR- or LDR-mono-brachytherapy (BT), or conventionally (CF) or moderately hypofractionated (HF) external beam radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospectively, patients with low- (LR) or favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer treated between 03/2000 and 09/2022 in two centers were included. Treatment was performed using either CF with total doses between 74 and 78 Gy, HF with 2.4-2.6 Gy per fraction in 30 fractions, or LDR- or HDR-BT. Biochemical control (BC) according to the Phoenix criteria, and late gastrointestinal (GI), and genitourinary (GU) toxicity according to RTOG/EORTC criteria were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 1293 patients, 697 with LR and 596 with IR prostate cancer. Of these, 470, 182, 480, and 161 were treated with CF, HF, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT, respectively. For BC, we did not find a significant difference between treatments in LR and IR (p = 0.31 and 0.72). The 5‑year BC for LR was between 93 and 95% for all treatment types. For IR, BC was between 88% in the CF and 94% in the HF group. For CF and HF, maximum GI and GU toxicity grade ≥ 2 was between 22 and 27%. For LDR-BT, we observed 67% grade ≥ 2 GU toxicity. Maximum GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity was 9%. For HDR-BT, we observed 1% GI grade ≥ 2 toxicity and 19% GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

All types of therapy were effective and well received. HDR-BT caused the least late toxicities, especially GI.

[Long-term evaluation of low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy in localized prostate cancer]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As a result of technical innovation, i.e., improvement of seed quality, implantation method, and dose calculation, it has been possible to continuously improve oncological results in the treatment of localized prostate cancer with low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT). Randomized controlled trials have shown that there is no significant difference in oncological control between the use of radical prostatectomy and LDR-BT in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate the oncological efficacy of LDR-BT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective multicenter analysis was conducted on 618 patients treated with LDR-BT as monotherapy, who received a dose of 145 Gy. We used iodine125 as the radioactive source. The analysis was conducted with follow-up data from two brachytherapy centers in Germany between 2004 and 2019. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), whereby the Phoenix definition (PSA - nadir +2 ng/ml; PSA: prostate-specific antigen) was used to define biochemical relapse, i.e., therapeutic failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 52 months (range 3-180 months). The bRFS across all risk groups was 87.87%. Oncological efficacy was significantly higher in patients with a Gleason score of 6 and 7a (p-value < 0.0001); however, there was no significant difference in bRFS between these two groups. Bilateral tumor infiltration or prostate volume had no significant influence on bRFS.

CONCLUSION

Our results show no difference in bRFS between Gleason score 6 and 7a.

Robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: final analysis of the German HYPOSTAT trial

PURPOSE

We report results of the first German prospective multicenter single-arm phase II trial (ARO 2013-06; NCT02635256) of hypofractionated robotic stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with localized prostate cancer (HYPOSTAT).

METHODS

Patients eligible for the HYPOSTAT study had localized prostate cancer (cT1‑3 cN0 cM0), Gleason score ≤ 7, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 15 ng/ml, prostate volume ≤ 80 cm³, and an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≤ 12. Initially, inclusion was limited to patients ≥ 75 years or patients 70-74 years with additional risk factors. The trial protocol was later amended to allow for enrolment of patients aged ≥ 60 years. The treatment consisted of 35 Gy delivered in 5 fractions to the prostate and for intermediate- or high-risk patients, also to the proximal seminal vesicles using the CyberKnife system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Primary endpoint was the rate of treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity based on the RTOG scale 12-15 months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were acute toxicity, late toxicity, urinary function, quality of life, and PSA response.

RESULTS

From July 2016 through December 2018, 85 eligible patients were enrolled and received treatment, of whom 83 could be evaluated regarding the primary endpoint. Patients mostly had intermediate-risk disease with a median PSA value of 7.97 ng/ml and Gleason score of 7a and 7b in 43.5% and 25.9% of patients, respectively. At the final follow-up 12-15 months after treatment, no patient suffered from treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity. Acute toxicity was mostly mild, with three grade 3 events, and the cumulative rate of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity was 8.4% (95% CI 4.1-16.4%). There were no major changes in urinary function or quality of life. The median PSA value dropped to 1.18 ng/ml 12-15 months after treatment. There was one patient who developed distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SBRT with 35 Gy in 5 fractions was associated with a favorable short-term toxicity profile. Recruitment for the HYPOSTAT‑2 trial (ARO-2018‑4; NCT03795337), which further analyses the late toxicity of this regimen with a planned sample size of 500 patients, is ongoing.

Pattern of Radiotherapy Treatment in Low-Risk, Intermediate-Risk, and High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Analysis of National Cancer Database

Background: In this study, the utilization rates and survival outcomes of different radiotherapy techniques are compared in prostate cancer (PCa) patients stratified by risk group. Methods: We analyzed an extensive data set of N0, M0, non-surgical PCa patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were grouped into six categories based on RT modality: an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) group with brachytherapy (BT) boost, IMRT with/without IMRT boost, proton therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT LDR), and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT HDR). Patients were also stratified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines: low-risk (clinical stage T1−T2a, Gleason Score (GS) ≤ 6, and Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) < 10), intermediate-risk (clinical stage T2b or T2c, GS of 7, or PSA of 10−20), and high-risk (clinical stage T3−T4, or GS of 8−10, or PSA > 20). Overall survival (OS) probability was determined using a Kaplan−Meier estimator. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by risk group for the six treatment modalities. Results: The most utilized treatment modality for all PCa patients was IMRT (53.1%). Over the years, a steady increase in SBRT utilization was observed, whereas BT HDR usage declined. IMRT-treated patient groups exhibited relatively lower survival probability in all risk categories. A slightly better survival probability was observed for the proton therapy group. Hormonal therapy was used for a large number of patients in all risk groups. Conclusion: This study revealed that IMRT was the most common treatment modality for PCa patients. Brachytherapy, SBRT, and IMRT+BT exhibited similar survival rates, whereas proton showed slightly better overall survival across the three risk groups. However, analysis of the demographics indicates that these differences are at least in part due to selection bias.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer: outstanding questions and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance has become the preferred management strategy for patients with low risk prostate cancer, but it is unclear if active surveillance can be safely extended to favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, defining a favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer population safe for active surveillance remains elusive due to paucity of high-level data in this population. This article serves to review relevant data, particularly the safety of active surveillance in grade group 2 patients, and what tools are available to aid in selecting a favorable subset of intermediate risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance studies with long-term data appear to report worsened survival outcomes in intermediate risk patients when compared to those undergoing definitive treatment, but there exists a subset of intermediate risk patients with nearly equivalent outcomes to low risk patients on active surveillance. Tools such as percentage and total length of Gleason pattern 4, tumor volume, prostate specific antigen density, magnetic resonance imaging, and genomic modifiers may help to select a favorable subset of intermediate risk prostate cancer appropriate for active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is a viable strategy in select patients with low volume group grade 2 (GG2) prostate cancer. Prospective and retrospective data in the FIR population appear to be mostly favorable in regards to survival outcomes, but there exists some heterogeneity with respect to long-term outcomes in this patient population.

ROBOCOP II (ROBOtic assisted versus conventional open partial nephrectomy) randomised, controlled feasibility trial: clinical trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open PN (OPN) are lacking. Therefore, we aim to report the study protocol and a trial update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing RAPN versus OPN for renal neoplasms.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ROBOtic assisted versus conventional Open Partial nephrectomy II trial is designed as a single-centre, randomised, open-label, feasibility trial. Participation will be offered to patients with renal neoplasms and deemed feasible for both, OPN and RAPN. We aim to enrol 50 patients within 15 months using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint of the trial is feasibility of recruitment and will be successful if one third of eligible patients agree to participate. Secondary endpoints include perioperative results, health-related quality of life, inflammatory response as well as surgical ergonomics of the operating team. If the primary outcome, feasibility of recruitment, is successful, the secondary results of the trial will be used for planning a confirmative phase III trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the local institutional review board (Ethik-Kommission II at Heidelberg University: 2020-542N). Results will be made publicly available in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at appropriate congresses and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04534998.

Comparison of EBRT and I-125 seed brachytherapy concerning outcome in intermediate-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

This study's objective was the comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and I‑125 seed brachytherapy regarding clinical outcome and development of side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 462 localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated between 2000 and 2019 at our department using either I‑125 seed brachytherapy or EBRT with a dose of 74 or 78 Gy were included: 297 patients were treated with EBRT and 165 with seeds. Biochemical no evidence of disease (bNED) rates according to Phoenix definition as well as late gastrointestinal and urogenital side effects (EORTC/RTOG) were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients were followed up yearly with a median follow-up of 54 (3-192) months. Observed bNED rates for 74 Gy, 78 Gy and seeds were 87, 92, and 88% after 5 years and 71, 85, and 76% after 9 years, respectively. No significant differences were found comparing seeds with 74 Gy (p = 0.81) and 78 Gy (p = 0.19), as well as between 74 and 78 Gy (p = 0.32). Concerning gastrointestinal side effects, EBRT showed significantly higher rates of RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity compared to seeds, but at no point of the follow-up more than 10% of all patients. However, genitourinary side effects were significantly more prevalent in patients treated with seeds, with 33% RTOG grade ≥ 2 toxicity 12 months after treatment. Nevertheless, both types of side effects decreased over time.

CONCLUSION

Favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients can be treated either by external beam radiotherapy (74/78 Gy) or permanent interstitial seed brachytherapy.