How will focal therapy fit in with existing treatments?

A Preliminary Study of the Ability of the 4Kscore test, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial-Risk Calculator and the European Research Screening Prostate-Risk Calculator for Predicting High-Grade Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

To prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer (PC), therapeutic strategies have been established such as active surveillance and focal therapy, as well as methods for clarifying the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) (defined as a Gleason score ≥7), such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and new markers such as the 4Kscore test (4KsT). By means of a pilot study, we aim to test the ability of the 4KsT to identify HGPC in prostate biopsies (Bx) and compare the test with other multivariate prognostic models such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC 2.0) and the European Research Screening Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 4 (ERSPC-RC 4).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients underwent a prostate Bx according to standard clinical practice, with a minimum of 10 cores. The diagnosis of HGPC was agreed upon by 4 uropathologists. We compared the predictions from the various models by using the Mann-Whitney U test, area under the ROC curve (AUC) (DeLong test), probability density function (PDF), box plots and clinical utility curves.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent of the patients had PC, and 23.5% had HGPC. The medians of probability for the 4KsT, PCPTRC 2.0 and ERSPC-RC 4 were significantly different between the patients with HGPC and those without HGPC (p≤.022) and were more differentiated in the case of 4KsT (51.5% for HGPC [25-75 percentile: 25-80.5%] vs. 16% [P 25-75: 8-26.5%] for non-HGPC; p=.002). All models presented AUCs above 0.7, with no significant differences between any of them and 4KsT (p≥.20). The PDF and box plots showed good discriminative ability, especially in the ERSPC-RC 4 and 4KsT models. The utility curves showed how a cutoff of 9% for 4KsT identified all cases of HGPC and provided a 22% savings in biopsies, which is similar to what occurs with the ERSPC-RC 4 models and a cutoff of 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessed predictive models offer good discriminative ability for HGPCs in Bx. The 4KsT is a good classification model as a whole, followed by ERSPC-RC 4 and PCPTRC 2.0. The clinical utility curves help suggest cutoff points for clinical decisions: 9% for 4KsT and 3% for ERSPC-RC 4. This preliminary study should be interpreted with caution due to its limited sample size.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer. Alternative treatment

CONTEXT

The great controversy surrounding the treatment of localized prostate cancer is related with its possibilities of radical treatment or active surveillance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the rationale selection among current focal therapy modalities regarding tumor and patient selection.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Current articles about advantages and disadvantages on the treatment of localized prostate cancer as well as information about focal therapy regarding tumour selection, characteristics and indications cited in MEDLINE search were reviewed.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Focal therapy standardized criteria must be: low risk tumors, PSA<10-15, Gleason score ≤ 6, and unilateral presentation all supported by image-guided biopsy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). There are doubts about the suitability of focal therapy in cases of bilateralism or in those with Gleason score 3+4 or PSA>15.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal therapy is an alternative for localized prostate cancer treatment. However, some aspects of their diagnosis and selection criteria should be defined by prospective studies which should provide knowledge about the indication for focal therapy.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer. Rationale, indications and selection

CONTEXT

The great controversy surrounding the treatment of localized prostate cancer is related with its possibilities of radical treatment or active surveillance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the rationale selection among current focal therapy modalities regarding tumor and patient selection.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Current articles about advantages and disadvantages on the treatment of localized prostate cancer as well as information about focal therapy regarding tumour selection, characteristics and indications cited in MEDLINE search were reviewed.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Focal therapy standardized criteria must be: low risk tumors, PSA<10-15, Gleason score ≤ 6, and unilateral presentation all supported by image-guided biopsy and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). There are doubts about the suitability of focal therapy in cases of bilateralism or in those with Gleason score 3+4 or PSA>15.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal therapy is an alternative for localized prostate cancer treatment. However, some aspects of their diagnosis and selection criteria should be defined by prospective studies which should provide knowledge about the indication for focal therapy.