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

Androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Current status and future trends

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) has been recognized as an androgen-sensitive disease since the investigations from Huggins and Hodges in 1941. Thanks to these findings, they received the Nobel Prize in 1966. This was the beginning of the development of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as treatment for patients with PCa.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current indications of ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive English and Spanish language literature research, focused on the main indications for ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nowadays, the indications for ADT as monotherapy in localized PCa have been limited to specific situations, to patients unwilling or unable to receive any form of local treatment if they have a PSA-DT < 12 months, and either a PSA > 50 ng/mL, a poorly differentiated tumor, or troublesome local disease-related symptoms. ADT can be used in combination with local treatment in different scenarios. Although neoadjuvant treatment with ADT prior to surgery with curative intent has no clear oncological impact, as a future sight, PCa is a heterogeneous disease, and there could be a group of patients with high-risk localized disease that could benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to optimize the treatment with ADT in localized PCa, selecting the patients accordingly to their disease characteristics. Given that the therapeutic armamentarium evolves day by day, there is a need for the development of new clinical trials, as well as a molecular studies of patients to identify those who might benefit from an early multimodal treatment.

Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Morphologic Features and Predictive Parameters of Therapy Response

The primary goals of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) in prostate cancer (PCa) are to reduce the size of the tumor, lower positive surgical margin rate, attempt to reach pathologic remission, and improve survival. Although NHT has not been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as a primary treatment option for patients with localized PCa, NHT is increasingly used in clinical trials for locally advanced PCa. More importantly, with the development of novel androgen signaling inhibitors, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, there has been renewed interests in revisiting the role of such treatment in the neoadjuvant setting. Following NHT, the PCa tissues shows characteristic morphologic alterations. Of note, the collapse of malignant glands most likely leads to an artificial increase of Gleason score in the residual disease. Communicating these changes to the clinician in a way that can help assess the tumor's response poses a challenge for pathologists. In addition, little is known of morphologic features and predictive makers both in pretreated and posttreated specimens that can be of value in predicting tumor response to NHT. In the current review, we summarize the morphologic changes associated with neoadjuvant-treated PCa, focusing on the predictive value of pathologic parameters to therapy response. We also describe the evaluation system in the stratification of pathologic response to NHT in PCa management.

Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy in Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (NCHT) on patients with prostate cancer (PCa) before radical prostatectomy (RP) and attempt to provide meaningful evidence.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases in February 2022 based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The relevant studies were critically screened and we extracted the data of demography, postoperative pathology, and survival to calculate the pooled effect sizes. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the source of heterogeneity.

Results

Six identified studies involving 1717 subjects were included according to the selection criteria. There was no significant difference between NCHT plus RP and RP alone groups regarding lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR]=1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.87, P=0.92). However, NCHT prior to RP significantly decreased the rates of positive surgical margin (PSM, RR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.22-0.55, P<0.0001) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI, RR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, P=0.01), and increase pathological downstaging (RR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.17-2.29, P=0.004). Additionally, biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly prolonged under the administration of NCHT (HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.85, P=0.008 and HR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.94, P=0.02, respectively).

Conclusions

Compared to the RP alone group, patients with NCHT plus RP showed significant improvements in PSM, SVI, pathological downstaging, BRFS, and OS, whereas further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to consolidate this concept.

Comparison of short-term and long-term neoadjuvant hormone therapy prior to radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of long-term neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) before radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

We conducted meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, which included randomized controlled trials that assessed patients with prostate cancer (PC) who received either short-term (<6 months) or long-term (≥6 months) neoadjuvant ADT before RP.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles with 2778 patients were eligible for analysis. Short-term neoadjuvant ADT was neither associated with biochemical recurrence (OR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.93-1.51, p = 0.17), metastasis (OR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, p = 0.21), nor overall mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.21, p = 0.22); no study investigated survival outcomes in patients on long-term neoadjuvant ADT. In terms of pathologic outcomes, long-term neoadjuvant ADT was significantly associated with a reduced risk of positive surgical margin (SM) and an increased rate of organ-confined disease (OCD) compared to short-term neoadjuvant ADT (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.80, p = 0.001, and OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-1.99, p = 0.009, respectively). These findings were confirmed in the network meta-analyses. Meanwhile, only a non-significant trend favoring long-term neoadjuvant ADT was observed for pathologic complete response (OR 1.98, 95% Crl 1.00-3.93).

CONCLUSION

Long-term neoadjuvant ADT was associated with more favorable pathologic outcomes, but whether these findings translate into favorable survival outcomes still remains unproven due to very limited evidence. Since there are no reliable survival data, long-term neoadjuvant ADT before RP should not be used in clinical practice until more robust evidence arises from ongoing trials.

Biomarkers of Response to Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation in Localised Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men. Attempts to improve patient outcomes include trials of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for patients with high-risk disease. Neoadjuvant treatment refers to androgen deprivation therapy that is administered prior to surgery (or radiation therapy). Patients typically respond well to this treatment regimen, showing a decrease in tumour size, but a significant proportion of patients eventually relapse and progress to metastatic disease. The mechanisms driving this resistance to neoadjuvant treatment are currently unknown. This review explores theories of resistance broadly, and their possible applications in the prostate cancer setting. Additionally, this review draws comparisons between breakthrough resistance and neoadjuvant resistance, and lastly investigates the current biomarkers for treatment sensitivity.

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a hormone driven cancer, characterised by defects in androgen receptor signalling which drive the disease process. As such, androgen targeted therapies have been the mainstay for PCa treatment for over 70 years. High-risk PCa presents unique therapeutic challenges, namely in minimising the primary tumour, and eliminating any undetected micro metastases. Trials of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy aim to address these challenges. Patients typically respond well to neoadjuvant treatment, showing regression of the primary tumour and negative surgical margins at the time of resection, however the majority of patients relapse and progress to metastatic disease. The mechanisms affording this resistance are largely unknown. This commentary attempts to explore theories of resistance more broadly, namely, clonal evolution, cancer stem cells, cell persistence, and drug tolerance. Moreover, it aims to explore the application of these theories in the PCa setting. This commentary also highlights the distinction between castration resistant PCa, and neoadjuvant resistant disease, and identifies the markers and characteristics of neoadjuvant resistant disease presented by current literature.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with curative intent are at an increased risk of biochemical recurrence, metastatic progression and cancer-related death compared with patients treated for low-risk or intermediate-risk disease. Thus, these patients often need multimodal therapy to achieve complete disease control. Over the past two decades, multiple studies on the use of neoadjuvant treatment have been performed using conventional androgen deprivation therapy, which comprises luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists and/or first-line anti-androgens. However, despite results from these studies demonstrating a reduction in positive surgical margins and tumour volume, no benefit has been observed in hard oncological end points, such as cancer-related death. The introduction of potent androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs), such as abiraterone, apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide, has led to a renewed interest in using neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in high-risk prostate cancer. The addition of ARSIs to androgen deprivation therapy has demonstrated substantial survival benefits in the metastatic castration-resistant, non-metastatic castration-resistant and metastatic hormone-sensitive settings. Intuitively, a similar survival effect can be expected when applying ARSIs as a neoadjuvant strategy in high-risk prostate cancer. Most studies on neoadjuvant ARSIs use a pathological end point as a surrogate for long-term oncological outcome. However, no consensus yet exists regarding the ideal definition of pathological response following neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and pathologists might encounter difficulties in determining pathological response in hormonally treated prostate specimens. The neoadjuvant setting also provides opportunities to gain insight into resistance mechanisms against neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and, consequently, to guide personalized therapy.

Practice Patterns of Korean Urologists Regarding Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: a Survey and Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus on the optimal treatment with curative intent for patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists regarding the resection margin after RP.

METHODS

A preliminary questionnaire was prepared by analyzing various studies on resection margins after RP. Eight experienced urologists finalized the 10-item questionnaire. In July 2019, the final questionnaire was delivered via e-mail to 105 urologists in Korea who specialize in urinary cancers.

RESULTS

We received replies from 91 of the 105 urologists (86.7%) in our sample population. Among them, 41 respondents (45.1%) had performed more than 300 RPs and 22 (24.2%) had completed 500 or more RPs. In the question about whether they usually performed an additional biopsy beyond the main specimen, to get information about surgical margin invasion during surgery, the main opinion was that if no residual cancer was suspected, it was not performed (74.7%). For PSMs, the Gleason score of the positive site (49.5%) was judged to be a more important prognostic factor than the margin location (18.7%), multifocality (14.3%), or margin length (17.6%). In cases with PSMs after surgery, the prevailing opinion on follow-up was to measure and monitor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels rather than to begin immediate treatment (68.1%). Many respondents said that they considered postoperative radiologic examinations when PSA was elevated (72.2%), rather than regularly (24.4%). When patients had PSMs without extracapsular extension (pT2R1) or a negative surgical margin with extracapsular extension (pT3aR0), the response 'does not make a difference in treatment policy' prevailed at 65.9%. Even in patients at high risk of PSMs on preoperative radiologic screening, 84.6% of the respondents said that they did not perform neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Most respondents (75.8%) indicated that they avoided nerve-sparing RP in cases with a high risk of PSMs, but 25.7% said that they had tried nerve-sparing surgery. Additional analyses showed that urologists who had performed 300 or more prostatectomies tended to attempt more nerve-sparing procedures in patients with a high risk of PSMs than less experienced surgeons (36.6% vs. 14.0%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The most common response was to monitor PSA levels without recommending any additional treatment when PSMs were found after RP. Through this questionnaire, we found that the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists differed considerably according to RP resection margin status. Refined research and standard practice guidelines are needed.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Neoadjuvant Approaches Prior To Radical Prostatectomy

Patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer benefit from multimodality therapy of curative intent. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation improves survival in this population. However, prior clinical trials of neoadjuvant ADT and surgery failed to consistently demonstrate a survival advantage. The development of novel, more potent hormonal agents presents an opportunity to revisit the potential for neoadjuvant therapy to improve long-term outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer. We review recent advances in neoadjuvant approaches for prostate cancer and emerging clinical trials data supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy.

The Impact of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy on Surgical and Oncological Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This systematic study aimed to assess and compare the comprehensive evidence regarding the impact of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) on surgical and oncological outcomes of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) before radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Literature searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases, we identified relevant studies published before July 2020. The pooled effect sizes were calculated in terms of the odds ratios (ORs)/standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed or random-effects model.

Results

We identified 22 clinical trials (6 randomized and 16 cohort) including 20,199 patients with PCa. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences in body mass index (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.08-0.29, p = 0.274) and biopsy Gleason score (GS) (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.76-2.35 p = 0.321) between the two groups. However, the NHT group had a higher mean age (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.07-0.31, p = 0.001), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.19-0.75, p = 0.001), and clinic tumor stage (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.53-3.29, p < 0.001). Compared to the RP group, the NHT group had lower positive surgical margins (PSMs) rate (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p < 0.001) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.83, p = 0.009). Between both groups, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.24-0.13, p = 0.556), operation time (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: -0.12-0.51, p = 0.219), pathological tumor stage (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54-1.06, p = 0.104), specimen GS (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.49-1.68, p = 0.756), and lymph node involvement (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.40-1.45, p = 0.404).

Conclusions

NHT prior to RP appeared to reduce the tumor stage, PSMs rate, and risk of BCR in patients with PCa. According to our data, NHT may be more suitable for older patients with higher tumor stage. Besides, NHT may not increase the surgical difficulty of RP.

Do androgen-directed therapies improve outcomes in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). While some men will be cured with surgery alone, a substantial proportion will experience cancer recurrence. Androgen-directed therapy (ADT) is an effective adjuvant therapy for patients treated with prostate radiation. Comparatively, the efficacy of ADT in surgical patients has not been well-studied.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2020 was performed. Randomized trials comparing ADT with RP vs. prostatectomy alone in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were included. Neoadjuvant ADT and adjuvant ADT interventions were assessed separately. The primary outcomes were cancer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Pathological outcomes following neoadjuvant ADT were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized trials met eligibility criteria; 11 evaluated neoadjuvant ADT (n=2322) and four evaluated adjuvant ADT (n=5205). Neoadjuvant ADT (three months of treatment) did not improve RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.11) or OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62-2.41). Neoadjuvant ADT significantly decreased the risk of positive surgical margins (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.41-0.56) and extraprostatic tumor extension (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.89). Adjuvant ADT improved RFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.93) but did not improve OS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant ADT causes a pathological downstaging of prostate tumors but has not been found to delay cancer recurrence nor extend survival. Few studies have evaluated adjuvant ADT. Trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of intermediate- or long-term adjuvant ADT for RP patients.

Surgical Delay and Pathological Outcomes for Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

IMPORTANCE

There is a lack of data evaluating the association of surgical delay time (SDT) with outcomes in patients with localized, high-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of SDT of radical prostatectomy and final pathological and survival outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the US National Cancer Database (NCDB) and identified all patients with clinically localized (cT1-2cN0cM0) high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 who underwent radical prostatectomy. Data analyses were performed from April 1 to April 12, 2020.

EXPOSURES

SDT was defined as the number of days between the initial cancer diagnosis and radical prostatectomy. SDT was categorized into 5 groups: 31 to 60, 61 to 90, 91 to 120, 121 to 150, and 151 to 180 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were predetermined as adverse pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy, including pT3-T4 disease, pN-positive disease, and positive surgical margin. The adverse pathological score (APS) was defined as an accumulated score of the 3 outcomes (0-3). An APS of 2 or higher was considered a separate outcome to capture cases with more aggressive pathological features. The secondary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 32 184 patients included in the study, the median (interquartile range) age was 64 (59-68) years, and 25 548 (79.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with an SDT of 31 to 60 days, longer SDTs were not associated with higher risks of having any adverse pathological outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.12; P = .53), pT3-T4 disease (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.17; P = .87), pN-positive disease (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06; P = .12), positive surgical margin (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17), or APS greater than or equal to 2 (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P = .17). Longer SDT was also not associated with worse overall survival (for SDT of 151-180 days, hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.59, P = .53). Subgroup analyses performed for patients with very high-risk disease (primary Gleason score 5) and sensitivity analyses with SDT considered as a continuous variable yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy within 180 days of diagnosis for high-risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer could be safely delayed up to 6 months after diagnosis.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer

High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with higher rates of biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, metastasis, and PCa-specific death, compared to low-and intermediate-risk disease. Herein, we review the various definitions of high-risk PCa, describe the rationale for neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy, and summarize the contemporary data on neoadjuvant therapies. Since the 1990s, several randomized trials of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have consistently demonstrated improved pathological parameters, specifically tumor downstaging and reduced extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and positive surgical margins without improvements in cancer-specific or overall survival. These studies, however, were not exclusive to high-risk patients and were limited by suboptimal follow-up periods. Newer studies of neoadjuvant ADT in high-risk PCa show promising pathological and oncological outcomes. Recent level 1 data suggests neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) may improve longer-term survival in high-risk PCa. Immunologic neoadjuvant trials are in their infancy, and further study is required. Neoadjuvant therapies may be promising additions to the multimodal therapeutic landscape of high-risk and locally advanced PCa in the near future.

Neoadjuvant Leuprolide Therapy with Radical Prostatectomy: Long-term Effects on Health-related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant androgen ablation (neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy [NADT]) is used prior to radical prostatectomy, contrary to guidelines, but its long-term effects on quality of life is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of NADT on patient's long-term recovery following surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From March 2011 to August 2013, 5808 men with newly diagnosed prostate were followed up to 24 mo. A cohort of men who received NADT prior to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP; n=51) was compared 1:3 with a matched group that underwent RALP only (n=153).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Patients were matched on Charlson comorbidities, biopsy Gleason score, and node status on final pathology. The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to compare the groups on their bowel, urinary, sexual, and hormonal domains of the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo postoperatively.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, and bowel domains were similar in the two groups during the 24 mo (p=0.832, 0.901, and 0.732, respectively). In the hormonal domain, the NADT group did worse (p<0.001). The sexual domain was also worse for the NADT group. However, when accounting for nerve sparing, there was no significant difference in sexual outcomes between the two groups (p=0.069).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received NADT prior to RALP do not have worse sexual function, but have worse hormonal scores for up to 2yr after surgery.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) is administered prior to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), contrary to clinical guidelines. NADT may not have worse sexual function outcomes up to 2yr after RALP.

Systemic treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer

The majority of patients with prostate cancer who later develop lethal metastatic disease have high-risk localized disease at presentation, emphasizing the importance of effective treatment strategies at this stage. Multimodal treatment approaches that combine systemic and local therapies offer a promising strategy for improving the clinical outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Combinations of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or chemohormonal therapy are considered to be the standard of care in most solid tumours and should be investigated in the future for the treatment of prostate cancer to improve patient outcomes. However, although the combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy is a standard of care in high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, the benefit of chemotherapy or chemohormonal therapy has yet to be demonstrated outside of the metastatic setting. Moreover, the benefit of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy has not been proved. The development of next-generation hormonal agents, which have been approved for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer, offers further therapeutic possibilities that are being assessed in early-phase clinical trials.

Short-term benefit of neoadjuvant hormone therapy in patients with localized high-risk or limited progressive prostate cancer

Purpose: Radical surgery is the preferred method for local high-risk and limited progressive prostate cancer in the routine clinical setting. However, current guidelines do not recommend neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT). Opinions regarding NHT vary among individual clinicians. According to the experience gained at our center, we explored the benefits of NHT for patients with prostate cancer during the perioperative period in this study.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we explored the perioperative benefits of NHT among 189 patients with local high-risk or limited progressive prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and divided them into two groups: the NHT group and the non-NHT group. The NHT regimens were a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist alone (3.75/11.25 mg of leuprolide or 3.6/10.8 mg of goserelin acetate), an androgen receptor antagonist (ARA) alone, or a combination of the two. The duration of treatment was <3 months, 3 to 6 months, or >6 months.

Results: We found that NHT could reduce the surgery time and intraoperative hemorrhage, thus reducing the difficulty of surgery; NHT could also improve the postoperative recovery of patients. However, it did not reduce the stage of prostate cancer or positive surgical margin rate.

Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy is optional for some patients. We believe that NHT will improve the overall prognosis of patients as progress continues in the medical field in the future.

Randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant everolimus in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer

Background Despite definitive local therapy, patients with high-risk prostate cancer have a significant risk for local and distant failure. To date, no systemic therapy given prior to surgery has been shown to improve outcomes. The phosphatidilinositol 3-kinase/AKT/mTOR pathway is commonly dysregulated in men with prostate cancer. We sought to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of the mTOR/TORC1 inhibitor everolimus in men with high-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Methods This is a randomized phase II study of everolimus at two different doses (5 and 10 mg daily) given orally for 8 weeks before radical prostatectomy in men with high-risk prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was the pathologic response (histologic P0, margin status, extraprostatic extension) and surgical outcomes. Secondary endpoints included changes in serum PSA level and treatment effects on levels of expression of mTOR, p4EBP1, pS6 and pAKT. Results Seventeen patients were enrolled: nine at 10 mg dose and eight at 5 mg dose. No pathologic complete responses were observed and the majority of patients (88%) had an increase in their PSA values leading to this study being terminated early due to lack of clinical efficacy. Treatment-related adverse events were similar to those previously reported with the use of everolimus in other solid tumors and no additional surgical complications were observed. A significant decrease in the expression of p4EBP1 was noted in prostatectomy samples following treatment. Conclusions Neoadjuvant everolimus given at 5 mg or 10 mg daily for 8 weeks prior to radical prostatectomy did not impact pathologic responses and surgical outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Trial registration NCT00526591 .

The effect of metformin therapy on incidence and prognosis in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The relationship between metformin and prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. To clarify this association, the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched from their inception dates to May 23, 2018, using the keywords “metformin” and “prostate cancer” to identify the related studies. The results included incidence, overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (CSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), which were measured as hazard ratios (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 30 cohort studies, including 1,660,795 patients were included in this study. Our study revealed that metformin treatment improves OS, CSS and RFS in PCa (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.88, P = 0.001; HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.94, P = 0.009; and HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42–0.87 P = 0.006, respectively) compared with non-metformin treatment. However, metformin usage did not reduce the incidence of PCa (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55–1.34, P = 0.51). In conclusion, compared with non-metformin treatment, metformin therapy can significantly improve OS, CSS and RFS in PCa patients. No association was noted between metformin therapy and PCa incidence. This study indicates a useful direction for the clinical treatment of PCa.

Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Recent Trends in Utilization and Association with Postoperative Surgical Margin Status

PURPOSE

In this study, we sought to describe the contemporary trends in utilization of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). As a secondary endpoint, we assessed the community-level effect of neoadjuvant ADT on positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2014), we identified patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) [cT1-4N0M0] treated with RP. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) mixed linear regression methodology was used for temporal trend analysis of neoadjuvant ADT. Observed differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated with neoadjuvant ADT versus those who were not were then controlled for using an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach. IPTW-adjusted analyses were then performed to examine the odds of positive surgical margins.

RESULTS

Overall, 8184 (2.12%) and 377,843 (97.88%) individuals with PCa were treated with neoadjuvant ADT prior to RP versus RP only, respectively. There was a consistent trend in decreasing use of neoadjuvant ADT over time, with a nadir observed in 2011 [EAPC - 8.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7 to - 4.32; p < 0.05]. In IPTW-adjusted analyses, the odds of positive surgical margins were lower in patients receiving neoadjuvant ADT with low-risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.65; 95% CI 0.51-0.84; p < 0.001] and intermediate-risk [OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.69-0.85; p < 0.001] PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

After a period of steady decline, there appears to be a modest trend towards increased utilization of neoadjuvant ADT in more recent years. We found an association between neoadjuvant ADT and decreased odds of positive surgical margins among low- and intermediate-risk patients.

Neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in association with age and serum testosterone

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify the candidate prostate cancer patients suitable for neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 711 Japanese patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were treated with RP between 2000 and 2013. Patients were treated with or without neoadjuvant ADT before RP. The prognostic significance of neoadjuvant ADT on biochemical recurrence (BCR) was analyzed according to various clinicopathological characteristics.

RESULTS

BCR occurred in 186 (26.2%) of 711 patients. The group treated with neoadjuvant ADT showed higher levels of prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis and advanced clinical T-stage, but suppressed pathological T-stage. Neoadjuvant ADT was not associated with the risk of BCR. In subgroup analysis, neoadjuvant ADT was significantly associated with increased BCR in patients aged >65 years [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 2.04 (1.13-3.43), P = 0.020]. Among the 53 patients with available serum testosterone levels, neoadjuvant ADT was associated with the risk of BCR according to serum testosterone levels.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that neoadjuvant ADT showed potential deleterious effects in older patients and patients with lower serum testosterone levels, while a possible improved prognosis in patients with high serum testosterone levels treated with neoadjuvant ADT was suggested, warranting further exploration.

Changes in penile length after radical prostatectomy: effect of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy

Although reports have shown evidence for penile length (PL) shortening after radical prostatectomy (RP), the association between neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) and PL after RP has yet to be determined. This study evaluates chronological changes in PL after NADT and RP. Stretched PLs (SPLs) of 143 patients, 41 of whom had undergone NADT, were measured before, 10 days after, and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after RP. Chronological erectile function and testosterone levels were then evaluated. SPL was shortest 10 days after RP in both the NADT (-) and NADT (+) groups and gradually recovered in length thereafter. SPL in the NADT (-) group was significantly longer than that in the NADT (+) group before RP. However, no significant differences in SPLs were found between both groups 6 months after RP. Although all subjects in the NADT (+) group had testosterone levels of <50 ng/dL before RP, such levels increased after RP. Before RP, the NADT (-) group was found to have significantly better erectile function than the NADT (+) group. However, differences in erectile function between the NADT (-) and NADT (+) groups after RP were not significant. This report is the first to show that among patients with prostate cancer, those who underwent NADT had greater PL recovery after RP than those who did not. Data regarding PL recovery after NADT and RP obtained in this study could be useful for patients with prostate cancer who plan to undergo such procedures.

Radical prostatectomy in T4 prostate cancer after inductive androgen deprivation: results of a single-institution series with long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To determine the outcomes of complete surgical resection of T4 prostate cancer after inductive androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), as inductive ADT and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended by any guideline yet.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A monocentric RP database was queried for patients initially diagnosed with T4 prostate cancer, considered primarily as inoperable because of a fixed mass defined by rectal examination in combination with high PSA level and/or large foci of biopsy confirmed undifferentiated prostate cancer. Treatment consisted of primary ADT until PSA nadir with consecutive RP. Patients underwent retropubic RP (RRP) or robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) after inductive ADT until achievement of the PSA nadir, which is in general reached after 6-7 months. The intraoperative course and complications were analysed. Finally, Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS).

RESULTS

We retrospectively identified 116 patients treated between 2000 and 2014. At diagnosis, the median (range) PSA level was 37.6 (2.44-284) ng/mL. The preoperative median (range) PSA after inductive ADT was 0.73 (0.01-34) ng/mL. Thereafter, patients underwent RRP or, since 2006, RALP. The median (95% confidence interval) OS was 156 (118.9-193.1) months. The PCSS at 150 months was 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical therapy of primarily inoperable prostate cancer is feasible and safe after inductive ADT. The OS of this cohort seems comparable with results described for patients with primary operable high-risk prostate cancer.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

High-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) represents a heterogeneous disease with potential risk for local and distant progression. In these patients, a multi-modal approach consisting of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies has been proposed. The aim of this review is to summarize the emerging roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HRPCa patients. Areas covered: This review collects the most relevant phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for HRPCa patients. Specifically, the review examines the benefit provided by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy (CHT), and novel antiandrogen agents in this setting. A search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Expert commentary: Three decades of RCTs demonstrated that adjuvant ADT is fundamental in HRPCa treated with RT. Conversely, ADT and CHT did not improve the survival of HRPCa patients managed with RP. The recent introduction of novel antiandrogen agents combined with an appropriated selection of patients at risk of cancer progression, may ultimately extend the indication of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in surgical- and radio-treated patients.

Post prostatectomy outcomes of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant androgen blockade

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer have an increased likelihood of experiencing a relapse following radical prostatectomy (RP). We previously conducted three neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) trials prior to RP in unfavorable intermediate and high-risk disease.

METHODS

In this analysis, we report on the post-RP outcomes of a subset of patients enrolled on these studies. We conducted a pooled analysis of patients with available follow-up data treated on three neoadjuvant trials at three institutions. All patients received intense ADT prior to RP. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical recurrence (BCR). BCR was defined as a PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL or treatment with radiation or androgen-deprivation therapy for a rising PSA < 0.2 ng/mL.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 patients were included of whom the majority had a Gleason score ≥ 8 (n = 46, 63.9%). Following neoadjuvant therapy, 55.7% of patients (n = 39/70) had pT3 disease, 40% (n = 28) had seminal vesicle invasion, 12.9% (n = 9) had positive margins, and 11.4% (n = 8) had lymph node involvement. Overall, 11 (15.7%) had tumor measuring ≤ 0.5 cm, which included four patients (5.7%) with a pathologic complete response and seven (10.0%) with residual tumor measuring 0.1-0.5 cm. Compared to pretreatment clinical staging, 10 patients (14.3%) had pathologic T downstaging at RP. The median follow-up was 3.4 years. Overall, the 3-year BCR-free rate was 70% (95% CI 57%, 90%). Of the 15 patients with either residual tumor ≤ 0.5 cm or pathologic T downstaging, no patient experienced a recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In this exploratory pooled clinical trials analysis, we highlight that neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP in unfavorable intermediate and high-risk patients may potentially have a positive impact on recurrence rates. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods are warranted to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant hormone therapy on pathologic and long-term outcomes.

Approach to the Patient with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Men classified as having high-risk prostate cancer warrant treatment because durable outcomes can be achieved. Judicious use of imaging and considerations of risk factors are essential when caring for men with high-risk disease. Radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and androgen deprivation therapy all play pivotal roles in the management of men with high-risk disease, and potentially in men with metastatic disease. The optimal combinations of therapeutic regimens are an evolving area of study and future work looking into therapies for men with high-risk disease will remain critical.

Docetaxel and mitoxantrone before radical prostatectomy in men with high-risk prostate cancer: 10-year follow-up and immune correlates

The aims of this study were to report the clinical outcomes in a cohort of men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and mitoxantrone 10 years after treatment, identify pretreatment clinical parameters that may be predictors of recurrence, and describe tumor-infiltrating leukocytes present in radical prostatectomy specimens. We conducted a phase I/II study of neoadjuvant docetaxel and mitoxantrone before radical prostatectomy in high-risk localized prostate cancer to determine the feasibility of this combination and predictors of prostate cancer recurrence after cytotoxic chemotherapy. After 10 years of follow-up, 34 (63%) of 54 participants experience a recurrence. In univariate analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (P=0.01), pathological stage (P=0.03), lymph node status (P<0.0001), seminal vesicle invasion (P=0.003), and tissue vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression (P=0.016) were significantly associated with recurrence. In multivariate analysis, only lymph node status, PSA density, and VEGF expression were significant predictors of disease recurrence. We used a tissue microarray for the first 50 participants to characterize the tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and evaluate them for association with recurrence. We measured CD3, CD4, CD8, FoxP3, CD20, CD15, CD68, and CD163 by immunohistochemistry in both tumor and normal prostate specimens, but did not find an association between immunophenotype and recurrence. There was a significantly different density of CD68 and CD163 cells between normal and tumor tissue. Lymph node status, PSA density, and tissue VEGF expression predict recurrence after chemotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Additional studies are needed to determine the potential benefit of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting.

Testicular vs adrenal sources of hydroxy-androgens in prostate cancer

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) is one strategy for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer; however, the long-term outcomes of NADT with radical prostatectomy including biochemical failure-free survival are not promising. One proposed mechanism is incomplete androgen ablation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of serum hydroxy-androgen suppression in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer under NADT (leuprolide acetate plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone) and interrogate the primary sources of circulating hydroxy-androgens using our recently described stable isotope dilution liquid chromatography mass spectrometric method. For the first time, three androgen diols including 5-androstene-3β,17β-diol (5-adiol), 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol (3α-adiol), 5α-androstane-3β,17β-diol (3β-adiol), the glucuronide or sulfate conjugate of 5-adiol and 3α-adiol were measured and observed to be dramatically reduced after NADT. By comparing patients that took leuprolide acetate alone vs leuprolide acetate plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone, we were able to distinguish the primary sources of these androgens and their conjugates as being of either testicular or adrenal in origin. We find that testosterone, 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), 3α-adiol and 3β-adiol were predominately of testicular origin. By contrast, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), epi-androsterone (epi-AST) and their conjugates, 5-adiol sulfate and glucuronide were predominately of adrenal origin. Our findings also show that NADT failed to completely suppress DHEA-sulfate levels and that two unappreciated sources of intratumoral androgens that were not suppressed by leuprolide acetate alone were 5-adiol-sulfate and epi-AST-sulfate of adrenal origin.

Stromal Androgen Receptor in Prostate Cancer Development and Progression

Prostate cancer development and progression is the result of complex interactions between epithelia cells and fibroblasts/myofibroblasts, in a series of dynamic process amenable to regulation by hormones. Whilst androgen action through the androgen receptor (AR) is a well-established component of prostate cancer biology, it has been becoming increasingly apparent that changes in AR signalling in the surrounding stroma can dramatically influence tumour cell behavior. This is reflected in the consistent finding of a strong association between stromal AR expression and patient outcomes. In this review, we explore the relationship between AR signalling in fibroblasts/myofibroblasts and prostate cancer cells in the primary site, and detail the known functions, actions, and mechanisms of fibroblast AR signaling. We conclude with an evidence-based summary of how androgen action in stroma dramatically influences disease progression.

Adenovirus vector carrying REIC/DKK-3 gene: neoadjuvant intraprostatic injection for high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy

As the First-In-Human study of in situ gene therapy using an adenovirus vector carrying the human REIC (reduced expression in immortalized cell)/Dkk-3 gene (Ad-REIC), we conducted neoadjuvant intraprostatic injections in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients with recurrence probability of 35% or more within 5 years following RP, as calculated by Kattan's nomogram, were enrolled. Patients received two ultrasound-guided intratumoral injections at 2-week intervals, followed by RP 6 weeks after the second injection. After confirming the safety of the therapeutic interventions with initially planned three escalating doses of 1.0 × 10¹⁰, 1.0 × 10¹¹ and 1.0 × 10¹² viral particles (vp) in 1.0-1.2 ml (n=3, 3 and 6), an additional higher dose of 3.0 × 10¹² vp in 3.6 ml (n=6) was further studied. All four DLs including the additional dose level-4 (DL-4) were feasible with no adverse events, except for grade 1 or 2 transient fever. Laboratory toxicities were grade 1 or 2 elevated aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (n=4). Regarding antitumor activities, cytopathic effects (tumor degeneration with cytolysis and pyknosis) and remarkable tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the targeted tumor areas were detected in a clear dose-dependent manner. Consequently, biochemical recurrence-free survival in DL-4 was significantly more favorable than in patient groups DL-1+2+3.

Neoadjuvant therapy for localized prostate cancer: Examining mechanism of action and efficacy within the tumor

OBJECTIVES

Efforts to improve the clinical outcome for patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer have led to the development of neoadjuvant systemic therapies. We review the different modalities of neoadjuvant therapies for localized prostate cancer and highlight emerging treatment approaches including immunotherapy and targeted therapy.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed search of clinical trials evaluating preoperative systemic therapies for treating high-risk prostate cancer published after 2000, and those studies with the highest clinical relevance to current treatment approaches were selected for review. The database at clinicaltrials.gov was queried for neoadjuvant studies in high-risk prostate cancer, and those evaluating novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies are spotlighted here.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become standard of care for treating some malignancies, including breast and bladder cancers. In prostate cancer, preoperative hormonal therapy or chemotherapy has failed to demonstrate improvements in overall survival. Nevertheless, the emergence of novel treatment modalities such as targeted small molecules and immunotherapy has spawned neoadjuvant clinical trials that provide a unique vantage from which to study mechanism of action and biological potency. Tissue-based biomarkers are being developed to elucidate the biological efficacy of these treatments. With targeted therapy, these can include phospho-proteomic signatures of target pathway activation and deactivation. With immunotherapies, including sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, recruitment of immune cells to the tumor microenvironment can also be used as robust markers of a biological effect. Such studies can provide insight not only into mechanism of action for these therapies but can also provide paths forward to improving clinical efficacy like with rationally designed combinations and dose selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy and chemotherapy either singly or in combination before radical prostatectomy is generally safe and feasible while reducing prostate volume and tumor burden. However, pathologic complete response rates are low and no long-term survival benefit has been observed with the addition of neoadjuvant therapies over surgery alone at present, and therefore preoperative therapy is not the current standard of care in prostate cancer treatment.

Feasibility of Neoadjuvant Ad-REIC Gene Therapy in Patients with High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

In a phase I/IIa study of in situ gene therapy using an adenovirus vector carrying the human REIC/Dkk‐3 gene (Ad‐REIC), we assessed the inhibitory effects of cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP), in patients with high risk localized prostate cancer (PCa). After completing the therapeutic interventions with initially planned three escalating doses of 1.0 × 10¹⁰, 1.0 × 10¹¹, and 1.0 × 10¹² viral particles (VP) in 1.0–1.2 mL (n = 3, 3, and 6), an additional higher dose of 3.0 × 10¹² VP in 3.6 mL (n = 6) was further studied. Patients with recurrence probability of 35% or more within 5 years after RP as calculated by Kattan's nomogram, were enrolled. They received two ultrasound‐guided intratumoral injections at 2‐week intervals, followed by RP 6 weeks after the second injection. Based on the findings of MRI and biopsy mapping, as a rule, one track injection to the most prominent cancer area was given to initial 12 patients and 3 track injections to multiple cancer areas in additional 6 patients. As compared to the former group, biochemical recurrence‐free survival of the latter showed a significantly favorable outcome. Neoadjuvant Ad‐REIC, mediating simultaneous induction of cancer selective apoptosis and augmentation of antitumor immunity, is a feasible approach in preventing cancer recurrence after RP. (199)

Neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5,194 patients

Background

Neo-adjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy has been utilized in the multimodal approach to patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized trials to evaluate the clinical efficacy of NHT.

Methods

Literatures were searched from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for comparing neo-adjuvant therapy group (NHT plus radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) with traditional therapy (radiotherapy or prostatectomy) alone. Quality of the research was assessed on the basis of the Cochrane’s risk of bias of randomized controlled trial. Comparable information were obtained from eligible trials and assembled for meta-analysis up to 31 August 2014. RevMan 5.2 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Fifteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (total 5,194 patients) were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed there was a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.87, P = 0.0002), positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.38, P < 0.00001), and biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) (OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.39, P = 0.02), but no significant difference in disease-free survival (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.59, P = 0.12) and clinical disease-free survival (cDFS) (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.18, P = 0.95). Heterogeneity and risk of bias were observed between different studies.

Conclusions

Patients with aggressive prostate cancer would better benefit from the receipt of neo-adjuvant therapy. Physicians should make individualized treatment strategies according to adverse reactions, financial capacities, and personal wishes.

Metformin is not associated with improved biochemical free survival or cause-specific survival in men with prostate cancer treated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy

Purpose

Several recent studies have suggested improved clinical outcomes in diabetic men with prostate cancer who also use metformin. We explore whether metformin use is associated with improved outcomes specifically in men undergoing prostate brachytherapy.

Material and methods

2,298 consecutive patients underwent permanent interstitial brachytherapy by a single brachytherapist (GSM). The cohort included 2028 non-diabetic men, 144 men with diabetes who were not taking metformin, and 126 men with diabetes who were taking metformin. Median follow up was 8.3 years. Differences in biochemical free survival, cause specific survival, and overall survival between men taking metformin and those not taking metformin were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank tests.

Results

Fifteen year biochemical failure rate, cause specific mortality and overall mortality for non-diabetic men was 4.6%, 1.5%, 47.0%, respectively; for diabetic men taking metformin 4.8%, 2.0%, 37.2%; and for diabetic men not taking metformin was 2.8%, 0%, 72.7%, respectively. Metformin use was not predictive in multivariate analysis of biochemical failure or prostate cancer specific mortality. However, diabetic men not taking metformin had higher overall mortality than non-diabetic men.

Conclusions

Metformin use was not associated with improved biochemical survival or cancer specific survival in this cohort of men treated with prostate brachytherapy.

Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular risk in chinese patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of prostate

Background. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in nonmetastatic prostate cancer is unclear. Recent data suggests possible increase in the cardiovascular risks receiving ADT. The aim of the study was to investigate the cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of Chinese nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients with no previously documented cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results. 745 patients with no previously documented cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus diagnosed to have nonmetastatic prostate cancer were recruited. Of these, 517 patients received ADT and the remaining 228 did not. After a mean follow-up of 5.3 years, 60 patients developed primary composite endpoint including (1) coronary artery disease, (2) congestive heart failure, and (3) ischemic stroke. Higher proportion of patients on ADT (51 patients, 9.9%) developed composite endpoint compared with those not on ADT (9 patients, 3.9%) with hazard ratio (HR) of 2.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03–3.24, P = 0.04). Furthermore, Cox regression analysis revealed that only the use of ADT (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.03–4.25, P = 0.04) and hypertension (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.21–3.33, P < 0.01) were independent predictors for primary composite endpoint. Conclusion. ADT in Chinese patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer with no previously documented cardiovascular disease was associated with subsequent development of cardiovascular events.

[Neoadjuvant before surgery treatments: state of the art in prostate cancer]

GOAL

To study the impact of systemic treatment in neoadjuvant strategy before surgery in prostate cancer.

MATERIALS

Literature reviews with data analysis from PubMed search using the keywords "neoadjuvant", "chemotherapy", "hormonal therapy", "prostate surgery", "radical prostatectomy", but also reports from ASCO and ESMO conferences. The articles on neoadjuvant treatment before radiotherapy were excluded.

RESULTS

First studies with former therapy are more than 15-years-old and with questionable methodology: lack of power to have a clear idea of the impact on survival criteria such as overall survival or relapse-free survival. However, the impact of neoadjuvant hormone therapy on the classic risk factors for relapse (positive margins, intraprostatic disease, positive lymph nodes) was demonstrated by these studies and a Cochrane meta-analysis. The association with hormone therapy seems mandatory in comparison to treatment based solely on chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. Promising data on the use of new drugs and their combinations arise: abiraterone acetate combined with LHRH analogue showed a fast PSA decrease and higher rates of pathologic complete response. Other results are promising with hormonal blockages at various key points.

CONCLUSION

Studies with 2nd generation anti-androgene agents or enzyme inhibitors seem to show very promising results. To provide answers about the effectiveness of current neoadjuvant strategy in terms of survival, other studies are needed: randomized phase III or phase II exploring predictive biomarkers. The design of such trials requires a multidisciplinary approach with urologists, oncologists, radiologists and methodologists.

Rationale for and review of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer

Despite state of the art local therapy, a significant portion of men with high-risk prostate cancer develop progressive disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) is an approach that can potentially maximize survival outcomes in patients with localized disease. This approach is under investigation with a wide array of agents and provides an opportunity to assess pathologic and biologic activity of novel treatments. The aim of this review is to explore the past and present role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to definitive therapy with RP in patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced disease. The results of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), including use of newer agents such as abiraterone, are promising. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel, with or without ADT has also demonstrated efficacy in men with high-risk disease. Other novel agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), clusterin, and the immune system are currently under investigation and have led to variable results in early clinical trials. Despite optimistic data, approval of neoadjuvant therapy prior to RP in patients with high-risk prostate cancer will depend on positive results from well designed phase III trials.

Multimodality therapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: current status and future directions

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and second most common cause of cancer death in American men. Although high-risk disease accounts for less than 15% of diagnoses, high-risk prostate cancer patients have a cancer-specific mortality rate of 15% at 10 years. There is currently no consensus on the optimal management of high-risk disease because (1) there are different primary modalities available (ie, surgery, radiation), for which there are no randomized trials comparing efficacy; and (2) unstandardized timing of different therapies (ie, neoadjuvant v concurrent v adjuvant), which makes comparisons of efficacy problematic. Increased understanding into the mechanisms leading to the formation of advanced metastatic disease has spurred the development of agents to target these pathways. However, new questions regarding optimal management of disease arise with regard to the role of these therapies in combination with "conventional" primary modalities for earlier stage, high-risk prostate cancer patients. In this article, we review the transforming world of multimodality therapy in high-risk prostate cancer.

An economic analysis of conservative management versus active treatment for men with localized prostate cancer

Comparative effectiveness research suggests that conservative management (CM) strategies are no less effective than active initial treatment for many men with localized prostate cancer. We estimate longer-term costs of initial management strategies and potential US health expenditure savings by increased use of conservative management for men with localized prostate cancer. Five-year total health expenditures attributed to initial management strategies for localized prostate cancer were calculated using commercial claims data from 1998 to 2006, and savings were estimated from a US population health-care expenditure model. Our analysis finds that patients receiving combinations of active treatments have the highest additional costs over conservative management at $63 500, followed by $48 550 for intensity-modulated radiation therapy, $37 500 for primary androgen deprivation therapy, and $28 600 for brachytherapy. Radical prostatectomy ($15 200) and external beam radiation therapy ($18 900) were associated with the lowest costs. The population model estimated that US health expenditures could be lowered by 1) use of initial CM over all active treatment ($2.9-3.25 billion annual savings), 2) shifting patients receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy to CM ($680-930 million), 3) foregoing primary androgen deprivation therapy($555 million), 4) reducing the use of adjuvant androgen deprivation in addition to local therapies ($630 million), and 5) using single treatments rather than combination local treatment ($620-655 million). In conclusion, we find that all active treatments are associated with higher longer-term costs than CM. Substantial savings, representing up to 30% of total costs, could be realized by adopting CM strategies, including active surveillance, for initial management of men with localized prostate cancer.

Factors associated with reduction in use of neoadjuvant androgen suppression therapy before radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the prescribing patterns for nonindicated androgen suppression therapy (AST), using neoadjuvant AST as the model, changed according to the prevailing clinical evidence, changes in reimbursement, or evidence of increased harm from treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 34,976 men with prostate cancer who had undergone radical prostatectomy within 12 months of diagnosis from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data set (1992-2007), and their clinical and demographic parameters were assessed. We measured the Medicare claims for receipt of AST before radical prostatectomy and calculated the annual rates of neoadjuvant AST, which were adjusted for confounding variables using multivariate logistic regression analysis, and compared them with the prevailing published clinical data on the outcomes of neoadjuvant AST, changes in reimbursement, or published data on clinical harm from treatment.

RESULTS

The use of neoadjuvant AST increased from 7.8% in 1992 to a peak of 17.6% in 1996 and then decreased steadily to 4.6% in 2007. This rate change was significant on multivariate regression analysis, with a single join point in 1996 (P <.001), and corresponded to published data showing improved surgical margin rates and pathologic downstaging in the early 1990s and data showing no improvement in disease recurrence or overall survival beginning in 1997. Changes in reimbursement and evidence of harm from AST were not associated with the decreased use of neoadjuvant AST.

CONCLUSION

Using neoadjuvant AST as the model for the nonindicated use of AST, physicians reduced AST use in response to high-level evidence showing a lack of benefit, despite the high reimbursement. This suggests that physicians adapt to emerging evidence and use evidence-based practice.