Hormonal treatment before radical prostatectomy: a 3-year followup

Co-Inhibition of Androgen Receptor and PARP as a Novel Treatment Paradigm in Prostate Cancer-Where Are We Now?

Metastatic prostate cancer remains lethal with a 5-year survival rate of about 30%, indicating the need for better treatment options. Novel antiandrogens (NAA)-enzalutamide and abiraterone-have been the mainstay of treatment for advanced disease since 2011. In patients who progress on the first NAA, responses to the second NAA are infrequent (25-30%) and short-lasting (median PFS ~3 months). With the growing adoption of NAA therapy in pre-metastatic castration-resistant settings, finding better treatment options for first-line mCRPC has become an urgent clinical need. The regulatory approval of two PARP inhibitors in 2020-rucaparib and olaparib-has provided the first targeted therapy option for patients harboring defects in selected DNA damage response and repair (DDR) pathway genes. However, a growing body of preclinical and clinical data shows that co-inhibition of AR and PARP induces synthetic lethality and could be a promising therapy for patients without any DDR alterations. In this review article, we will investigate the limitations of NAA monotherapy, the mechanistic rationale for synthetic lethality induced by co-inhibition of AR and PARP, the clinical data that have led to the global development of a number of these AR and PARP combination therapies, and how this may impact patient care in the next 2-10 years.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant)

BACKGROUND

In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term.

CONCLUSION

Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.

Radical prostatectomy versus high-dose irradiation in localized/locally advanced prostate cancer: A Swedish multicenter randomized trial with patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC) is controversial. This is the first randomized study comparing an open surgery procedure (radical prostatectomy) with a combination of high-dose rate brachytherapy (2×10 Gy) and external beam radiotherapy (25×2 Gy) in PC patients in Sweden 1996-2001. The two randomization arms were compared regarding differences in patients-reported outcomes, such as complications and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The patients had localized/locally advanced PC, clinical category T1b-T3a, N0, M0 and PSA≤50 ng/ml. All underwent total androgen blockade (six months). Self-reported HRQoL and symptoms including urinary, bowel, and sexual side effects were investigated prospectively before randomization and 12 and 24 months after randomization. A total of 89 patients were randomized and completed the EORTC QLQ C-33 and EORTC PR-25 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Over the study period, there were no discernible differences in HRQoL, or complications between the two groups. Emotional functioning, however, improved statistically significantly over time, whereas Social functioning decreased, and financial difficulties increased. No statistically significant differences in group-by-time interactions were found. The survival rate was 76%. Only eight patients (9%) died of PC.

CONCLUSION

Open radical prostatectomy and the combined high-dose rate brachytherapy with external beam radiation appeared to be comparable in the measured outcomes. It was not possible to draw any conclusion on the efficacy of the two treatments due to insufficient power of the study.

Pharmacologic androgen deprivation and cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used to treat prostate cancer. Observational studies suggest ADT is associated with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors; however, such studies may be subject to bias. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of ADT on cardiovascular disease risk factors using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (1950-June 2013), EMBASE (1974-June 2013) and Web of Science (1900-June 2013) for all RCTs in men with prostate cancer that compared pharmacologic ADT (i.e. use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist) with a group that did not receive ADT and reported data on cardiovascular disease risk factors including blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, fibrinogen, biomarkers of insulin sensitivity, adiposity and C-reactive protein. We also searched for ongoing or unpublished trials. This study was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42013005035).

RESULTS

Of the 3272 unique publications identified in our systematic review, we did not identify a single RCT that reported data on any cardiovascular disease risk factor. We were unable to locate unreported data from corresponding authors or study sponsors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of published, reliable evidence describing the effects of ADT on cardiovascular disease risk factors. RCTs have likely collected data on these risk factors as part of routine study monitoring; however, these data have not been published. To understand the effect of ADT on cardiovascular morbidity, these data must be made available to the scientific community.

Intense androgen-deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate plus leuprolide acetate in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer: results of a randomized phase II neoadjuvant study

PURPOSE

Cure rates for localized high-risk prostate cancers (PCa) and some intermediate-risk PCa are frequently suboptimal with local therapy. Outcomes are improved by concomitant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiation therapy, but not by concomitant ADT with surgery. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa; leuprolide acetate) does not reduce serum androgens as effectively as abiraterone acetate (AA), a prodrug of abiraterone, a CYP17 inhibitor that lowers serum testosterone (< 1 ng/dL) and improves survival in metastatic PCa. The possibility that greater androgen suppression in patients with localized high-risk PCa will result in improved clinical outcomes makes paramount the reassessment of neoadjuvant ADT with more robust androgen suppression.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A neoadjuvant randomized phase II trial of LHRHa with AA was conducted in patients with localized high-risk PCa (N = 58). For the first 12 weeks, patients were randomly assigned to LHRHa versus LHRHa plus AA. After a research prostate biopsy, all patients received 12 additional weeks of LHRHa plus AA followed by prostatectomy.

RESULTS

The levels of intraprostatic androgens from 12-week prostate biopsies, including the primary end point (dihydrotestosterone/testosterone), were significantly lower (dehydroepiandrosterone, Δ(4)-androstene-3,17-dione, dihydrotestosterone, all P < .001; testosterone, P < .05) with LHRHa plus AA compared with LHRHa alone. Prostatectomy pathologic staging demonstrated a low incidence of complete responses and minimal residual disease, with residual T3- or lymph node-positive disease in the majority.

CONCLUSION

LHRHa plus AA treatment suppresses tissue androgens more effectively than LHRHa alone. Intensive intratumoral androgen suppression with LHRHa plus AA before prostatectomy for localized high-risk PCa may reduce tumor burden.

Overview of randomized controlled treatment trials for clinically localized prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance and the United States preventative task force report on screening?

Prostate cancer and its management have been intensely debated for years. Recommendations range from ardent support for active screening and immediate treatment to resolute avoidance of screening and active surveillance. There is a growing body of level I evidence establishing a clear survival advantage for treatment of subsets of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. This chapter presents a review of these randomized controlled trials. We argue that an understanding of this literature is relevant not only to those considering active surveillance but also to those evaluating the merits of screening. In addition, a number of important evidence-based conclusions concerning what should and should not be done can be gleaned from these trials.

Phase 2 study of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus bevacizumab in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer remains inadequate. The authors performed a phase 2 multicenter trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus bevacizumab before radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Eligibility included any of the following: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL or PSA velocity >2 ng/mL/y, cT3 disease, any biopsy Gleason score 8 to 10, and Gleason score 7 with T3 disease by endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1.5 T. Also, those with ≥50% biopsy cores involved and either Gleason score 7, PSA >10, or cT2 disease were eligible. Patients were treated with docetaxel 70 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and bevacizumab 15 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 5 cycles. The primary endpoint was partial response by endorectal MRI.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were treated. Median age was 55 years (range, 40-66 years). Baseline characteristics included: median PSA, 10.1 ng/mL; cT2, 49%, cT3, 32%; and Gleason score 8 to 10, 73%. Thirty-eight of 41 (93%) patients completed all 6 cycles. Grade ≥3 adverse events were rare, although 3 of 41 (7%) experienced febrile neutropenia. Twelve patients (29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16%-45%) achieved a >50% reduction in tumor volume, and 9 patients (22%; 95% CI, 11%-38%) achieved a >50% post-treatment decline in PSA. Thirty-seven of the 41 patients underwent radical prostatectomy; there were no complete pathologic responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant docetaxel and bevacizumab is safe, and results in reductions in both tumor volume and serum PSA, in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in prostate cancer, and perioperative antiangiogenic therapy in general, requires further elucidation through ongoing and planned trials.

Bicalutamide inhibits androgen-mediated adhesion of prostate cancer cells exposed to ionizing radiation

BACKGROUND

Cell adhesion plays an important role in proliferation, metastasis, and tumor growth and may represent a potential vulnerability in treatment of prostate cancer patients. Bicalutamide (Casodex) has been used as an anti-androgen agent for prostate cancer patients during hormone ablation therapy. This study focuses on the effect of Bicalutamide on cell adhesion to fibronectin (FN) in prostate cancer cells.

METHODS

Androgen-dependent LNCaP prostate cancer cells were stimulated with androgen before being irradiated with doses of 0, 5, 10, or 15 Gy. Cell adhesion to fibronectin was then measured to ascertain androgen's role in integrin mediated prostate cancer cell adhesion. Flow cytometry was used to analyze surface expression of integrin subtypes in LNCaP cells.

RESULTS

LNCaP cell adhesion to FN was significantly increased by stimulation with androgen when treated with 10 or 15 Gy ionizing radiations but not at 0 or 5 Gy. This increase was inhibited by treatment with Bicalutamide. LNCaP cells exposed to high dose radiation showed an increased expression of alpha(V) and beta(1) integrins in response to androgen treatment while Bicalutamide abolished this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that Bicalutamide inhibits the effect of androgen on cell adhesion to FN through changes of integrin subtypes in cells given high dose radiation. This suggests new molecular targets and possible treatment strategies for prostate cancer patients to improve the outcome during hormone ablation therapy and radiation therapy.

[PSA and follow-up after treatment of prostate cancer]

A first serum total PSA assay is recommended during the first three months after treatment. When PSA is detectable, PSA assay should be repeated three months later to confirm this elevation and to estimate the PSA doubling time (PSADT). In the absence of residual cancer, PSA becomes undetectable by the first month after total prostatectomy: less than 0.1 ng/ml (or less than 0.07 ng/ml) for the ultrasensitive assay method and less than 0.2 ng/ml for the other methods. In the presence of residual cancer, PSA either does not become undetectable or increases after an initial undetectable period. A consensus has been reached to define recurrence as PSA greater than 0.2 ng/ml confirmed on two successive assays. After external beam radiotherapy, PSA can decrease after a mean interval of one to two years to a value less than 1 ng/ml (predictive of recurrence-free survival). Biochemical recurrence after radiotherapy is defined by an increase of PSA by 2 ng or more above the PSA nadir, whether or not it is associated with endocrine therapy. After endocrine therapy, the PSA nadir is correlated with recurrence-free survival. PSA is decreased for a mean of 18 to 24 months followed by a rise in PSA, corresponding to hormone-independence. The time to recurrence or the time to reach the nadir and the PSA doubling time after local therapy with surgery or radiotherapy have a diagnostic value in terms of the site of recurrence, local or metastatic and a prognostic value for survival and response to complementary radiotherapy or endocrine therapy. A PSADT less than eight to 12 months is correlated with a high risk of metastatic recurrence and 10-year mortality. The histological and biochemical characteristics in favour of local recurrence are Gleason score less or equal to seven (3+4), elevation of PSA after a period greater than 12 months and PSADT greater than 10 months. In other cases, recurrence is predominantly metastatic. The risk of demonstrating metastasis in the case of biochemical recurrence after total prostatectomy and before endocrine therapy depends on the PSA level and the PSADT. No consensus has been reached concerning the indication for complementary investigations by bone scan and abdominopelvic CT in patients with biochemical recurrence after treatment of localized cancer without endocrine therapy. However, when PSADT greater than six months, the risk of metastasis is less than 3% even for PSA greater than 30 ng/ml. When PSADT less than six months and PSA greater than 10 ng/ml, the risk of metastasis is close to 50%.

Morphological changes induced by androgen blockade in normal prostate and prostatic carcinoma

Maximal androgen blockade (MAB), combining a luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a pure or non-steroidal anti-androgen, induces significant morphologic changes in the prostate. The tumor volume, density, capsular penetration, and surgical margin involvement are strongly reduced following such treatment. On histology, normal prostate tissue and tumor undergo marked atrophy and shrinkage. Although residual cancer cells are readily identifiable in most cases, they may often be sparse and easily overlooked. The increased Gleason score apparent after MAB is most likely related to fragmentation of acinar structures, and grading is not recommended following MAB. Residual cancer cells show features of lower activity and increased apoptosis. Such therapy-induced changes may be reversible, although occasional clones of cancer cells are apparently not affected and have probably developed resistance. Finally, MAB leads to marked but reversible morphologic changes and reduction in prevalence and extent of prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PIN). Monotherapy using a variety of agents causes comparable but often less extensive changes.

The role of hormonal treatment in prostate cancer

In 1941 Huggins and Hodges published for the first time the favorable effects of surgical castration and estrogen treatment on the progression of metastatic prostate cancer. However, this hormonal therapy is not without side effects. Since this pioneering milestone in history of prostate cancer, a further tremendous innovation did not take place. Today, due to intensive clinical, biochemical, nuclear-biological and molecular-biological research, many hormone active treatment variations are available. Besides traditional hormonal therapy, surgical or chemical castration, maximal androgen blockade, nontraditional forms of hormonal therapy, intermittent hormonal therapy, antiandrogens, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, and their combinations, we discuss options toward creating an increased number of side effect-oriented offers of hormonal treatment options, guaranteeing a longer and more comfortable exhaustion of the individual hormonal period of response and probably a longer survival. The prerequisite is a closer-than-ever monitoring by tumor marker and an early observation of symptomatic changes.

Adjuvant and salvage treatment options for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy

The management of high-risk prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy remains a treatment dilemma. Multimodality approaches incorporating surgery, radiation therapy and systemic agents offer the hope of improved cure rates; however, most randomized studies to date are either immature or negative. The systemic treatment options best studied is androgen deprivation, which has been shown to demonstrate a survival advantage in patients with lymph node-positive disease. Systemic chemotherapy has demonstrated a modest survival advantage in androgen-independent disease. Current studies are exploring its role in the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant setting. Lastly, recent randomized trials have demonstrated a biochemical advantage to adjuvant radiation therapy, but it remains to be seen if this will translate to an improvement is survival end points or if salvage radiation therapy would be just as effective. In this update article, we review the use of external beam radiation therapy and systemic agents in combination with surgery for high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Management of prostate cancer. Part 2: localized and locally advanced disease

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent nondermatological malignancy affecting men in the Western world. An increase in public awareness has led to earlier detection. Accepted treatments for localized prostate cancer include active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, interstitial brachytherapy, external beam radiotherapy and watchful waiting. The authors discuss the rationale for the different approaches together with outcomes including toxicity. Novel approaches are also explored. The management of locally advanced disease has long been a challenge and the evolving evidence is reviewed.

Evolving Role of Surgery, Radiation, Hormone Therapy, and Chemotherapy in High-Risk Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer encompasses several disease states that vary in the risk for progression and recurrence after initial treatment. Further, the optimal treatment strategies for locally advanced prostate cancer are continuing to evolve, reflecting the complex nature of this disease state. For many patients, clinical experience demonstrates that a combined approach of locally directed therapy and systemic therapy is likely to provide better long-term outcome than single-modality therapy. Randomized studies have established hormone ablation with external-beam radiation as an important form of treatment for this group of patients. However, additional progress needs to be made, particularly in the subgroup of patients with very high-risk disease features. As the optimal integration of local and systemic treatments becomes more clearly defined, the long-term prognosis for patients with high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer will improve.

Cancer of the prostate

Prostate carcinoma, with about 190,000 new cases occurring each year (15% of all cancers in men), is the most frequent cancer among men in northern and western Europe. Causes of the disease are essentially unknown, although hormonal factors are involved, and diet may exert an indirect influence; some genes, potentially involved in hereditary prostate cancer (HPC) have been identified. A suspect of prostate cancer may derive from elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values and/or a suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) finding. For a definitive diagnosis, however, a positive prostate biopsy is requested. Treatment strategy is defined according to initial PSA stage, and grade of the disease and age and general conditions of the patient. In localized disease, watchful waiting is indicated as primary option in patients with well or moderately differentiated tumours and a life expectancy <10 years, while radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy (with or without hormone-therapy) could be appropriate choices in the remaining cases. Hormone-therapy is the treatment of choice, combined with radiotherapy, for locally advanced or bulky disease and is effective, but not curative, in 80-85% of the cases of advanced disease. Patients who develop a hormone-refractory prostate cancer disease (HRPC) have to be evaluated for chemotherapy because of the recent demonstration of improved overall survival (2-2.5 months) and quality of life with docetaxel in more than 1,600 cases.

An update on randomized clinical trials in localized and locoregional prostate cancer

It is important that treatment decisions be based upon scientific data, as opposed to anecdotal experience and expert opinion. The goal of this article is to provide an update on phase III clinical trials in localized and locoregional prostate cancer. Studies comparing surgery and observation for localized disease are reviewed, as are studies comparing various forms of radiotherapy. The effectiveness of certain neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies is also addressed. Although there are numerous phase III studies ongoing in these areas, there are still large gaps in our understanding of the treatment of localized disease, and additional clinical trials are needed.

An interdisciplinary approach to treating prostate cancer

Urologists often are faced with challenges in treating men with metastatic prostate cancer. Although historically chemotherapy has had limited utility in treating this disease, therapeutic nihilism surrounding its use is no longer warranted, as demonstrated by results of 2 recent randomized clinical trials showing that docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Although the survival benefit was a modest 2 months, the results hold the promise that docetaxel-based treatment in earlier-stage disease may provide a longer survival advantage. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 90203 and TAX 3501 studies are phase 3 neoadjuvant and adjuvant radical prostatectomy trials designed to assess the role of docetaxel in patients with high-risk localized disease. These 2 trials, along with the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 9921 trial, which will assess the potential for adjuvant mitoxantrone, are paving the way for earlier systemic treatment. The need for better therapies for patients routinely seen in the urology clinic and the potential for improvements with chemotherapy necessitate an increasing collaboration between urologists and oncologists. Referral to a medical oncologist for a full discussion of treatment options is in the best interest of patients with HRPC, and patients at high-risk for treatment failure should be encouraged to consider clinical trial enrollment.

High dose fractionated ionizing radiation inhibits prostate cancer cell adhesion and beta(1) integrin expression

BACKGROUND

The effect of ionizing radiation on extracellular matrix (ECM)-mediated cellular functions is an important area of research for translational science. Mechanisms of tumor cell ability to proliferate, migrate, and survive appear dependent on integrin-mediated adhesion to the ECM; however, the exact role therapeutic radiation plays in altering signaling pathways and promoting cell death within remains less well established.

METHODS

To examine these effects on prostate carcinoma cell lines, cells were irradiated at sub-lethal doses. We have studied two human prostate cancer cell lines (PC3 and DU-145) irradiated with different fractionated radiation schedules. Three groups were compared to non-irradiated controls. Group A was given a single dose of 5 Gy. Group B was given 5 Gy the first week and then 10 Gy the second week for a total of 15 Gy. Group C was given 5 Gy the first week, and then 10 Gy the second and third week for a total of 25 Gy. Cells were analyzed at their prescribed total dose. At 48 hr post irradiation, cells were detached from culture dishes and were subsequently used for adhesion assays and immunoblotting analysis.

RESULTS

Our findings revealed that two prostate carcinoma cell lines, PC3 and DU-145, had a reduced cellular adhesion to fibronectin (FN) compared to the non-irradiated control groups. Both prostate cancer cell lines showed decreased adhesion to FN and reduced beta(1) integrin protein levels at a total dose of 25 Gy, but not at the doses of 15 and 5 Gy. In a parallel analysis, at the maximum total dose of 25 Gy, both PC3 and DU-145 demonstrated a significant decrease in cell proliferation.

CONCLUSIONS

High dose radiation treatment of prostate cancer cell lines inhibits integrin expression. Our study suggests that promoting a synergistic decrease in adhesion could bring additional therapeutic benefit to patients treated with radiation therapy.

The role of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer and biochemical failure: considerations for optimal use

BACKGROUND

More patients are being diagnosed with prostate cancer at an earlier age with earlier stage disease because of advances in screening and detection. Investigators continue to explore the use of hormone therapy, particularly luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues, earlier in the course of disease.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes clinical evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of LHRH analogues in the treatment of locoregional disease or following biochemical failure.

METHODS

Relevant information from clinical studies was identified through a MEDLINE search of the medical literature published in English in the last 5 years (search terms: LHRH and prostate cancer). The search included prospective and retrospective clinical studies on LHRH therapy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Additional relevant publications published before 1999 were identified from citations in the resulting articles.

RESULTS

The available clinical evidence suggests that the use of LHRH analogues as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in conjunction with radiation therapy may improve survival outcomes. Few studies have evaluated the use of LHRH analogues after biochemical failure. However, several related studies indicate that initiating hormone therapy earlier rather than later may provide some clinical benefit. When considering early initiation of LHRH therapy, the potential risks of long-term treatment must be considered. Physiologic changes, such as deterioration of body composition and bone quality, may have important effects on the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some clinical evidence supports the use of LHRH analogues as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy or following biochemical failure, further study is needed. In the meantime, clinicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks of early hormone therapy when making treatment decisions.

Prostate carcinoma: opportunities for translational research

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate continues to be a major health concern. Although modern screening techniques have increased the number of men presenting with early stage disease, a significant population of men will present with intermediate or advanced pathological risk factors for recurrence. There are defined limitations in outcome with traditional therapies including surgery, radiation therapy, and hormone manipulation. Patients with intermediate and high-risk factors for treatment failure are candidates for protocols using translational research strategies incorporated into studies currently in development. These strategies may be able to selectively treat expression products of tumor and thus be more selective in the target for treatment. Carefully designed studies using these translational strategies have great potential in improving clinical outcome, tumor kill, and normal tissue tolerance in the care of these patients.

Use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy to prevent or delay recurrence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer

There have been improvements in the outcome of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy. However, some patients treated with radical prostatectomy will have clinical or biochemical progression. These men are at increased risk of dying of their disease. Identification of patients with adverse features at the time of radical prostatectomy may permit the use of additional multimodality therapies to improve outcomes. Whether this additional multimodality therapy should be administered in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting remains controversial. Further, whether a patient at increased risk for progression after radical prostatectomy requires additional therapy before the development of documented progression remains controversial. This article reviews the potential multimodality approaches to prevent or delay recurrence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

No Apparent Benefit at 5 Years From a Course of Neoadjuvant/Concurrent Androgen Deprivation for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With a High Total Radiation Dose

PURPOSE

We examined the survival impact of a course of 6 months or less of adjuvant/concurrent androgen deprivation in patients with unfavorable prostate cancer treated to high radiation doses with external beam (EBRT) and a high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1986 and 2000, 507 patients were treated with pelvic EBRT (46 Gy) with HDR prostate brachytherapy as a boost. The biological equivalent EBRT dose was between 90 and 130 Gy. At Kiel University and at William Beaumont Hospital 198 and 309 patients were treated. Patient eligibility was pretreatment prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 7 or greater, or clinical stage T2b or greater. The brachytherapy dose was escalated from 5.5 x 3 to 15 x 2 Gy. Patients were divided between 177 receiving and 330 not receiving androgen suppression therapy (AST). AST was given for a mean of 6 months. The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology biochemical failure definition was used.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 68 years. Mean followup was 4.8 years (range 0.7 to 15.3), that is 4.5 years for AST and 4.9 for radiation alone. Five-year actuarial rates for biochemical control were 74% and 76%, for overall survival they were 81% and 87%, and for disease-free survival they were 67% and 66%, while cause specific survival with and without AST was 90% and 98%, and the 5-year metastatic rates were 10.7% and 6.9%, respectively. On multivariate analysis AST did not improve biochemical control.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic EBRT interdigitated with a transrectal ultrasound guided HDR boost is an excellent method of delivering a high radiation dose to the prostate without rendering the patient radioactive. This trial showed high overall, cause specific and no biochemical evidence of disease survival. For this unfavorable group of patients the addition of a course of 6 months or less of neoadjuvant/concurrent AST to a high radiation dose did not appear to confer a 5-year therapeutic advantage. However, it added side effects and the significant cost of hormones.

Management of high-risk populations with locally advanced prostate cancer

Prostate cancer that extends beyond the confines of the prostatic gland on clinical and/or radiographic assessment, without evidence of lymph node or distant metastases, is regarded as locally advanced. The locally advanced prostate cancer patient population consists of a heterogeneous group of men, some of whom have tumors that may be amenable to primary curative intent with local definitive therapy associated with acceptable long-term cancer control rates. In order to optimally manage this group of patients, it is important to be able to recognize who is at a high risk of tumor recurrence after primary local therapy. In this brief review, we discuss the factors that contribute to the prediction of high risk in populations with locally advanced disease and the treatment options available.

Long-term followup of a randomized trial of 0 versus 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

In 1992 we initiated a national randomized prospective trial of 3 months of cyproterone acetate before radical prostatectomy compared to prostatectomy alone. Initial results indicated a 50% decrease in the rate of positive surgical margins. This decrease did not translate into a difference in prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression at 3 years. This report is on the long-term outcome (median followup 6 years) of this cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, open label trial compared 100 mg cyproterone acetate 3 times daily for 3 months before surgery to surgery alone. Randomization occurred between January 1993 and April 1994. Patients were stratified according to clinical stage, baseline serum PSA and Gleason sum. A total of 213 patients were accrued. Biochemical progression was defined as 2 consecutive detectable PSAs (greater than 0.2 ng/ml) at least 4 weeks apart, re-treatment or death from prostate cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 34 (33.6%) patients undergoing surgery only and 42 (37.5%) patients given neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) had biochemical recurrence during the median followup of 6 years. Despite the significant pathological down staging in this study, there was no significant difference in number of patients with no evidence of biochemical disease (bNED) survival (p = 0.732). A bNED survival benefit favoring NHT was seen in men with a baseline PSA greater than 20 (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

After 6 years of followup there was no overall benefit with 3 months of NHT. Improved bNED survival was seen in the highest risk PSA group (PSA greater than 20). The possibility that high risk patients may benefit from NHT warrants further investigation.

Value of endocrine therapy for early and locally advanced prostate cancer

Prostate-specific antigen-based screening and increased public awareness of prostate cancer have led to earlier detection of localised and potentially curable tumour stages. Nevertheless, disease recurrence after radical treatment of prostate cancer remains a problem for a considerable number of patients. Endocrine therapy plays a role in the treatment of almost all stages of prostate cancer, either as definitive or as temporary therapy. Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment has its place mainly in the external beam radiotherapy setting, where it reduces target volume and adverse effects. When used prior to and during external beam radiotherapy, endocrine therapy has shown a survival advantage in the subset of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (cT2-4, N0-1, M0) with Gleason scores 2-6. Several studies have shown that adjuvant endocrine treatment is able to delay disease progression in any stage. There is, however, an ongoing controversy regarding the possible survival benefit of such treatment that has to be balanced against its considerable adverse effects and costs. Survival improvements associated with adjuvant hormonal treatments have mainly been seen in patients with lymph node metastases or those with a high probability of micrometastatic disease. Several large studies are under way to investigate the role of adjuvant treatment in the field of early prostate cancer.

Management of high-risk localized prostate cancer: the integration of local and systemic therapy approaches

Using a combination of PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage, it is possible to identify a group of patients with prostate cancer who have a high risk of relapse following initial treatment (e.g., radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy). For these patients, multi-modal therapy may result in improved outcomes. We reviewed published literature to identify methods to identify high-risk patients as well as options for adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy to reduce risk of disease recurrence. At the present time, the most promising adjuvant therapy is hormonal therapy following radiotherapy for locally advanced disease (T3-T4, or N1). In phase III trials in these patients, survival is improved. For all other applications, including adjuvant and neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy, the benefits are unclear. Perhaps most promising at this time, and the subject of a current phase III trial, is the utility of adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk patients. It will be through the conduct of phase III trials that the benefits of multi-modal therapy will be evaluated. Patients with high-risk prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy or surgery should be offered participation in these clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant flutamide monotherapy for locally confined prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

We compared the clinical effects and impact on quality of life (QOL) of patients who received a 3-month course of flutamide monotherapy before radical prostatectomy with those who received a 3-month course of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist monotherapy.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in this study (19, flutamide; 18, LHRH agonist). The rates of change of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and testosterone levels, downsizing of prostate volume, the rate of organ confined disease, adverse effects and perioperative scores measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-P) and the Sapporo Medical University Sexual Function Questionnaire (SMUF) were analyzed.

RESULTS

At radical prostatectomy, pathological variables were not significantly different in the two groups. Serum testosterone level was significantly higher (mean 359.2 compared to 10.5, P < 0.001), complete response rate of PSA (13% compared to 57%, P = 0.028) and rate of downsizing of prostate volume (mean, -17.7% compared to -35.4%, P = 0.038) were significantly lower in the flutamide group than in the LHRH group. After neoadjuvant hormone therapy, the scores on the sexual problem domain of EORTC-P (P = 0.033) and sexual desire score of SMUF (P = 0.021) were significantly higher in the flutamide group than in the LHRH group. At a median follow-up of 34 months after prostatectomy, biochemical failure-free survival rate in the flutamide group did not differ from that in the LHRH group.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that flutamide monotherapy can be an acceptable modality as an option for neoadjuvant hormone therapy.

Three-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy: a 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcome, assessed as the level of prostate specific antigen (PSA), of a mature (more than half the events recorded) prospective randomized study with a median follow-up of 82 months of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy, as this has been suggested to decrease the rate of positive surgical margins (i.e. provide greater potential to completely excise the tumour).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1991 to March 1994, 126 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized between direct radical prostatectomy or a 3-month course of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue before surgery. The patients were followed by PSA determinations and a value of > 0.5 ng/mL used to define progression.

RESULTS

The incidence of positive surgical margins decreased from 45.5% to 23.6% (P = 0.016) with hormone treatment. Despite this there was no difference in PSA progression-free survival at the last follow-up; it was 51.5% for those undergoing radical prostatectomy only and 49.8% for those who received hormonal pretreatment (P = 0.588).

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy offers no benefit to the patient and cannot be recommended for routine clinical use.

Contemporary patterns of androgen deprivation therapy use for newly diagnosed prostate cancer

Although once reserved for the management of metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is being used increasingly to treat lower stages of disease. We sought to assess patterns of ADT use in a contemporary cohort of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who had > or =12 months of follow-up evaluation were identified in a national disease registry of patients with prostate cancer. The patterns of ADT use, both primary and secondary, were characterized and stratified by risk according to prostate-specific antigen levels, clinical stage, and Gleason score. In a cohort of 1485 men, 46% underwent ADT at some point during their treatment: 41% as primary therapy (either sole therapy or neoadjuvant therapy), and 5% as secondary therapy. In all, 50% of men receiving initial ADT had low- or intermediate-risk disease characteristics. Among patients treated with radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy, neoadjuvant ADT was administered in 20% and 48% of patients, respectively. Secondary hormonal manipulation was observed in 5% and 7% of patients treated initially with surgery or radiation, respectively. ADT is commonly used to treat men with prostate cancer. Much of the use of ADT is in men with low- and intermediate-risk disease characteristics. The appropriateness of such therapy requires further study, including its effect, not only on disease endpoints, but also on resource utilization and health-related quality of life.

The evolving role of systemic therapy in high risk prostate cancer: strategies for cure in the 21st century

High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous group that includes patients with clinically locally advanced stage disease at diagnosis. Unlike overt locally advanced disease, prediction of risk in clinically localized disease at an individual patient level, is not always easy or accurate with present knowledge. Gleason score, pretreatment prostate specific antigen (PSA), and stage (capsular invasion, seminal vesicle and nodal involvement) are the universally recognized criteria used to define risk. Overall, this group of patients have a greater than 50% risk of relapse. Historically, local treatment modalities with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy constituted the mainstay of therapy in the majority of localized prostate cancer patients. However, the primary cause of failure and disease mortality stems from the development of systemic metastases. As we continue to witness stage migration towards earlier stage disease (presumably PSA related) and mortality reduction, devising better strategies for cure is a must. Recently completed randomized trials indicate a benefit from the use of hormonal therapy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy or node positive patients, post radical prostatectomy. While hormone-based combined modality trials have consistently shown improvements in local and systemic disease control, only two of these demonstrated improvements in overall survival. The palliative benefit of chemotherapy in hormone refractory disease and the promising response rates with newer agents has evoked interest in the use of chemotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. Several phase II and III trials are ongoing. Novel avenues of therapy such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors, gene therapy and angiogenesis inhibitors incorporated in a multimodality treatment strategy are likely to impact the course of this disease in the future.

Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that androgen ablation before and during radiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate may, by reducing tumor bulk and enhancing tumor cell kill, improve locoregional control and ultimately survival.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study was conducted from 1987 to 1991. Eligible patients were those with bulky tumors (T2--T4) with or without pelvic lymph node involvement and without evidence of distant metastases. They were randomized to receive goserelin, 3.6 mg every 4 weeks; and flutamide, 250 mg t.i.d. for 2 months before radiation therapy and during radiation therapy (Arm I), or radiation therapy alone (Arm II). Of 471 randomized patients, 456 were evaluable: 226 on Arm I and 230 on Arm II.

RESULTS

As of November 1999, the median follow-up has reached 6.7 years for all patients and 8.6 years for alive patients. At 8 years, androgen ablation has been associated with an improvement in local control (42% vs. 30%, p = 0.016), reduction in the incidence of distant metastases (34% vs. 45%, p = 0.04), disease-free survival (33% vs. 21%, p = 0.004), biochemical disease-free survival = PSA <1.5 (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001), and cause-specific mortality (23% vs. 31%, p = 0.05). However, subset analysis indicates that the beneficial effect of short-term androgen ablation appears preferentially in patients with Gleason score 2--6. In that population, there is a highly significant improvement in all endpoints, including survival (70% vs. 52%, p = 0.015). In patients with Gleason 7--10 tumors, the regimen has not resulted in a significant enhancement in either locoregional control or survival.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Gleason score 2--6 carcinoma of the prostate, a short course of androgen ablation administered before and during radiotherapy has been associated with a highly significant improvement in local control, reduction in disease progression, and overall survival.

Duration of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy before radical prostatectomy and disease-free survival in men with prostate cancer

There is little evidence that neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) of 3 months' duration before radical prostatectomy (RP) favorably influences disease-free survival. However, recent data suggest that prolonged treatment may improve outcome. We conducted a prospective cohort study to determine whether ADT of either standard or prolonged duration before RP influences the risk of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. We followed 756 men treated for prostate cancer by RP between 1991 and 1998 in Quebec City. Of these, 240 received combined neoadjuvant ADT for either </=92 days (129 men) or >/=93 days (111 men), and 516 were treated by RP alone. Multivariate Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) of PSA failure (>0.3 ng/mL) associated with treatment regimen controlling for age, clinical stage, grade, and initial PSA level. The median duration of follow-up was 4 years. Compared with men treated by RP alone, those who received neoadjuvant ADT for >/=93 days had an HR of PSA failure of 0.60. The inverse association with the risk of PSA failure became statistically significant from the third year on, reached its greatest magnitude after 4 years, and was still present 8 years after RP. No association was observed for ADT of </=92 days. These results suggest that neoadjuvant ADT before RP has a real, delayed, and persistent effect on disease-free survival, if and only if ADT is prolonged beyond 3 months.

Subset analysis of RTOG 85-31 and 86-10 indicates an advantage for long-term vs. short-term adjuvant hormones for patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The benefit of adjuvant hormones in prostate cancer patients receiving definitive radiation therapy (RT) in RTOG 85-31 and 86-10 has previously been reported. This analysis excludes those patients with positive lymph nodes or postprostatectomy to determine the benefit of adjuvant hormones in men with locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer receiving definitive RT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Nine hundred ninety-three eligible patients from RTOG 85-31 and 86-10 treated between 1987-1992 were included in this study. Five hundred seventy-five patients with T3N0M0 disease were included from RTOG 85-31 and 418 patients with T2b-T4N0M0 disease from RTOG 86-10. Patients randomized to receive long-term hormones (LTH) on 85-31 received goserelin starting the last week of RT and continued indefinitely. Patients treated with short-term hormones (STH) on 86-10 received goserelin and flutamide 2 months prior to and during RT. The median follow-up for all patients in this analysis was 71 months (range, 0.6-129 months).

RESULTS

Combining both studies, statistically significant improvements in outcome were observed between the RT and hormones (I) and RT alone (II) groups for biochemical disease-free survival (bNED control) and distant metastases failure (DMF). Statistically significant improvements in bNED control, DMF and cause-specific failure (CSF) were observed for patients receiving LTH compared with STH. In those patients receiving LTH, the benefit in bNED control (p = 0.0002), DMF (p = 0.05), and CSF (p = 0.02) was limited to centrally reviewed Gleason score of 7 and 8-10 tumors. For all patients treated on 85-31, statistically significant improvements for bNED control, DMF, and CSF were observed between Group I and II. Multivariate analysis demonstrated Gleason score and the use of LTH to be independent predictors for bNED control (p < 0.0001), DMF (p < 0.0001), and CSF (p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this analysis, adjuvant long-term hormones compared to short-term hormones resulted in statistically significant improvements in bNED control, DMF, and CSF rates for patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

Effect of complete androgen blockade on pathologic stage and resection margin status of prostate cancer: progress pathology report of the Italian PROSIT study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the pathologic stage and surgical margin status in patients undergoing either immediate radical prostatectomy or surgery preceded by 3 or 6 months of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (NHT) in a prospective, randomized study.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-one men with prostate cancer were enrolled in the Italian randomized prospective PROSIT study. The whole-mount sectioning technique was used. By May 1999, the reviewing pathologist had evaluated 303 specimens. One hundred seven patients were untreated before radical prostatectomy was performed, and 114 and 82 patients had been treated for 3 and 6 months, respectively, with complete androgen blockade.

RESULTS

Pathologic organ-confined disease was found in 63.1% of patients with clinical Stage B disease treated with 6 months of NHT versus 61.0% after 3 months of NHT and 37.5% after immediate surgery. Among patients with clinical Stage C tumors, pathologic staging found organ-confined disease in 62.5%, 32.1%, and 11.1% of patients after 6 months of NHT, 3 months of NHT, and immediate surgery, respectively. Three months of NHT produced a significant increase in negative margins both in patients with clinical Stage B and C disease, but the addition of another 3 months of treatment did not significantly improve this result. A lower degree of benefit was observed in patients with clinical Stage C tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that complete androgen blockade before surgery is beneficial in men with clinical Stage B disease. The effects are more pronounced after 6 months of NHT than after 3 months.

Differential response of prostate specific antigen to testosterone surge after luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue in prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate any differences in changes in serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels in patients with benign and malignant prostatic disease in response to the testosterone surge after administering a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 54 patients referred to the urology clinic with intermediate PSA levels (4-10 ng/mL) or an abnormal digital rectal examination. Forty-five patients received a single injection of LHRH analogue depot each at one week before prostate biopsy and nine served as a control group. Changes in PSA levels in response to the testosterone surge from the LHRH analogue were recorded after 5 and 7 days, and were correlated with the biopsy results. The PSA changes were compared with basal PSA levels and the free/total PSA ratio(f/tPSA).

RESULTS

Of the 45 patients who underwent prostate biopsy, histopathology showed prostate cancer in 11, benign prostatic hyperplasia in 33 and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in one. Patients with cancer had a significantly greater increase in serum PSA levels during the first week after LHRH injection than those in the benign and control groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that the percentage change in PSA level on day 5 was more diagnostic than total PSA and f/tPSA.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a marked difference in the PSA response of patients with benign or malignant disease to the testosterone surge produced by the LHRH analogue. Although a larger study would be needed before LHRH-induced provocation could be proposed as a clinical test, in this small series the response was better than that for total PSA or f/tPSA in differentiating benign and malignant disease.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy: feasibility and preliminary results

PURPOSE

We assessed the feasibility and efficacy of integrating chemotherapy and androgen ablation with radical prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. The neoadjuvant approach was adopted because it allows an in situ assessment of antitumoral activity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients were enrolled who met the clinical criteria of stage T1-2, Gleason score of >/= 8 or T2b-T2c, Gleason score of 7 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level greater than 10 ng/mL (n = 15), or clinical stage T3 (n = 18). Therapy consisted of 12 weeks of ketoconazole and doxorubicin alternating with vinblastine, estramustine, and androgen ablation followed by prostatectomy. The ability of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy to induce a 20% rate of pT0 in the prostatectomy specimen as well as surgical feasibility were assessed.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy complications were comparable to those reported with this regimen previously. No major intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 (33%) of 30 patients. One patient died at home after discharge (postoperative day 17; no autopsy was performed). Ten (33%) of the 30 patients had organ-confined disease, and 20 (70%) of 30 had extraprostatic extension; 11 (37%) of the 30 had positive lymph nodes. Only five (17%) of 30 exhibited positive surgical margins. All patients achieved an undetectable PSA level postoperatively, and 20 of the surviving 29 patients remain without disease recurrence with a median follow-up of 13 months (range, 9 to 18 months).

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy and androgen ablation followed by radical prostatectomy was feasible in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Although the goal of achieving a 20% rate for pT0 status was not achieved, we believe this type of integrated therapeutic strategy should be investigated further for its ability to alter the course of regionally advanced prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate specific antigen failure

PURPOSE

To date there is little information on the long-term effect of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on prostate cancer progression. We performed a prospective study to determine whether patients with prostate cancer receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy (hormonal therapy group) have a lower risk of prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure than those treated with radical prostatectomy alone (prostatectomy group). We also evaluated whether type of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and duration were associated with the risk of PSA failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We followed 680 men initially treated for prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy between January 1988 and December 1997 at our university hospital. Of the patients 292 received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Median followup was 38 months. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and PSA failure (greater than 0.3 ng./ml.) controlling for age, clinical stage, grade, initial PSA and adjuvant therapies.

RESULTS

Surgical margins were positive less often in the hormonal therapy (25%) than the prostatectomy (47%) group (p = 0.0001). PSA failure was observed in 163 patients and the 5-year failure rate was 33%. No difference in risk of PSA failure was observed overall between the hormonal therapy and prostatectomy groups (hazards ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.30). Treatments with antiandrogen alone for any duration, and those combining antiandrogen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue for 3 months or less were not associated with improved survival. However, patients receiving combined therapy for more than 3 months had a significantly lower risk of PSA failure than those treated with radical prostatectomy alone (hazards ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged neoadjuvant hormonal therapy combining antiandrogen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue may improve disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy.