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?

Age 70 +/- 5 Years and Cancer-Specific Outcomes After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A secondary analysis of 2 randomized Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials demonstrated that age ≥70 years was a favorable prognostic factor among men treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). In contrast, several series based on men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) suggested that older age was an unfavorable prognostic factor. Our study was initiated to determine whether these observations reflect a true but paradoxical underlying age-related treatment-dependent biological phenomenon. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, January 1, 1999-January 30, 2023) evaluating the effect of age on cancer-specific outcomes after definitive local treatment with either RP or EBRT. Our main objective was to assess possible interactions between age (using a cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years) and treatment type, with regard to adverse cancer-specific outcomes (eg, pathology, biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or prostate cancer-specific survival). Forty-five studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review, including 30 and 15 studies with patients treated with RP and EBRT, respectively. Among patients treated with RP, 10 (50%) of these studies suggested that older age was associated with worse outcome(s) after RP. None suggested that age was a favorable prognostic factor after RP. Among the EBRT-based studies, 8 (53%) suggested that older age was associated with better outcomes, with an additional 3 studies (21%) trending to support a better outcome. None of these studies involving EBRT suggested that older age was an adverse prognostic factor. This systematic review suggests that age using a categorical cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years may be an adverse prognostic factor for men undergoing RP but a favorable prognostic factor for men treated with EBRT. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Real-world Evidence to Estimate Prostate Cancer Costs for First-line Treatment or Active Surveillance

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Changes in screening guidelines, adoption of active surveillance (AS), and implementation of high-cost technologies have changed treatment costs. Traditional cost-effectiveness studies rely on clinical trial protocols unlikely to capture actual practice behavior, and existing studies use data predating new technologies. Real-world evidence reflecting these changes is lacking.

Objective

To assess real-world costs of first-line prostate cancer management.

Design setting and participants

We used clinical electronic health records for 2008-2018 linked with the California Cancer Registry and the Medicare Fee Schedule to assess costs over 24 or 60 mo following diagnosis. We identified surgery or radiation treatments with structured methods, while we used both structured data and natural language processing to identify AS.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Our results are risk-stratified calculated cost per day (CCPD) for first-line management, which are independent of treatment duration. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare unadjusted CCPD while analysis of covariance log-linear models adjusted estimates for age and Charlson comorbidity.

Results and limitations

In 3433 patients, surgery (54.6%) was more common than radiation (22.3%) or AS (23.0%). Two years following diagnosis, AS ($2.97/d) was cheaper than surgery ($5.67/d) or radiation ($9.34/d) in favorable disease, while surgery ($7.17/d) was cheaper than radiation ($16.34/d) for unfavorable disease. At 5 yr, AS ($2.71/d) remained slightly cheaper than surgery ($2.87/d) and radiation ($4.36/d) in favorable disease, while for unfavorable disease surgery ($4.15/d) remained cheaper than radiation ($10.32/d). Study limitations include information derived from a single healthcare system and costs based on benchmark Medicare estimates rather than actual payment exchanges.

Patient summary

Active surveillance was cheaper than surgery (-47.6%) and radiation (-68.2%) at 2 yr for favorable-risk disease, which decreased by 5 yr (-5.6% and -37.8%, respectively). Surgery was less costly than radiation for unfavorable risk for both intervals (-56.1% and -59.8%, respectively).

PSA Testing Use and Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Stage After the 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Changes

BACKGROUND

Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes.

RESULTS

In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (<T2) decreased across age groups at the academic center and in the SEER database.

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care, PSA testing decreased significantly and fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting provider adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes. Long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of decreased screening on prostate cancer survival.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

BACKGROUND

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

OBJECTIVE

To present the report of APCCC 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: What Do Clinicians Have to Know?

Radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PC) has steadily evolved over the last decades, with improving biochemical disease-free survival. Recently population based research also revealed an association between overall survival and doses ≥ 75.6 Gray (Gy) in men with intermediate- and high-risk PC. Examples of improved RT techniques are image-guided RT, intensity-modulated RT, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic ablative body RT, which could facilitate further dose escalation. Brachytherapy is an internal form of RT that also developed substantially. New devices such as rectum spacers and balloons have been developed to spare rectal structures. Newer techniques like protons and carbon ions have the intrinsic characteristics maximising the dose on the tumour while minimising the effect on the surrounding healthy tissue, but clinical data are needed for confirmation in randomised phase III trials. Furthermore, it provides an overview of an important discussion issue in PC treatment between urologists and radiation oncologists: the comparison between radical prostatectomy and RT. Current literature reveals that all possible treatment modalities have the same cure rate, but a different toxicity pattern. We recommend proposing the possible different treatment modalities with their own advantages and side-effects to the individual patient. Clinicians and patients should make treatment decisions together (shared decision-making) while using patient decision aids.

Effect of rTsP53 on the M1/M2 activation of bone-marrow derived macrophage in vitro

We investigated that if rTsP53 could be used to activate bone-marrow derived macrophage (BMDM) into M2 macrophage and stop M1 macrophage activation. After 72 h incubation in blank culture medium, cells with PE-CCR7 (-) and FITC-CD206 (-) was extracted and its mean proportion was 92.30 ± 0.22%. With the stimulation of 20 μg/ml IFN-γ for 72 h, cells with PE-CCR7 (+) was extracted and its mean proportion was 16.24 ± 0.82%. With the stimulation of IL-3/IL-14 (both 10 μg/ml) for 72 h, cells with FICT-CD206 (+) was extracted and its mean proportion was 87.32 ± 4.29%. Co-incubation with different dose of rTsP53 (0.001 μg/ml, 0.01 μg/ml, 0.1 μg/ml, 1 μg/ml, 2 μg/ml, 5 μg/ml, 10 μg/ml, respectively) for 72 h, FITC-CD206 (+) macrophage was extracted. The mean proportion in each group was 1.09 ± 0.22%, 2.13 ± 0.13%, 4.91 ± 0.07%, 5.48 ± 0.29%, 9.81 ± 0.06%, 12.83 ± 0.55%, 17.87 ± 0.02%, respectively. The dose of rTsP53 was significantly positive correlated to the proportion of FITC-CD206 (+) macrophage. Co-incubation with 20 μg/ml IFN-γ and 5 μg/ml rTsP53 for 72 h, cells with PE-CCR7 (+) was extracted and its mean proportion was 10.60 ± 0.19%. Compared to that of mere co-incubation with IFN-γ, there was significant difference between the two groups. ELISA showed that Th1 cytokines' (IFN-γ, IL-6 and TNF-α) level decreased in the culture medium supernatant of BMDM co-incubated with rTsP53. There was negative correlation between the Th1 cytokines' level and the dose of rTsP53. Both Th2 cytokines (IL-4 and IL-13) and regulatory cytokines in the culture medium increased. There was positive correlation between the Th2 cytokines' level and the dose of rTsP53. There was also positive correlation between the regulatory cytokines' level and the dose of rTsP53. Compared to that of BMDM co-incubated with IFN-γ, levels of TNF-α and IL-6 were significant lower than that of BMDM co-incubated with both IFN-γ and rTsP53 (both P < 0.05), while the levels of IL-4 and TGF-β were significant higher (both P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the levels of IL-13 and IL-10 between the two groups.

Current trends for the use of androgen deprivation therapy in conjunction with radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, localized, and locally advanced prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is now a well-established standard of care in combination with definitive radiotherapy for patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk to high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer. It is also well established that combination modality treatment with ADT and radiotherapy is superior to either of these modalities alone for the treatment of patients with high-risk locally advanced disease. Current treatment guidelines for prostate cancer in the United States are based on the estimated risk of recurrence and death. This review examines the clinical evidence underpinning the use of ADT and radiotherapy among patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced disease in the United States. This review also considers the rationale for moving from traditional luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists to more recently developed gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists.

Adjuvant leuprolide with or without docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (TAX-3501): important lessons for future trials

BACKGROUND

The current trial evaluated 2 common therapies for patients with advanced prostate cancer, docetaxel and hormonal therapy (HT), in the surgical adjuvant setting.

METHODS

TAX-3501 was a randomized, phase 3, adjuvant study post-radical prostatectomy (RP) in high-risk patients with prostate cancer (n=228) comparing 18 months of HT with (CHT) without docetaxel chemotherapy either immediately (I) or deferred (D). High-risk disease was defined as a 5-year freedom-from-disease-progression rate of ≤ 60% as predicted by a post-RP nomogram. Progression-free survival (PFS), including prostate-specific antigen disease recurrence, was the primary endpoint. The authors also assessed the accuracy of the nomogram and analyzed testosterone recovery in 108 patients treated with HT who had at least 1 posttreatment testosterone value.

RESULTS

Between December 2005 and September 2007, 228 patients were randomized between the treatment cohorts. TAX-3501 was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges, leaving it underpowered to detect differences in PFS. After a median follow-up of 3.4 years (interquartile range, 2.3-3.8 years), 39 of 228 patients (17%) demonstrated PSA disease progression, and metastatic disease progression occurred in 1 patient. The median time to baseline testosterone recovery after the completion of treatment was prolonged at 487 days (95% confidence interval, 457-546 days). The nomogram's predicted versus observed freedom from disease progression was significantly different for the combination D(HT) and D(CHT) group (P<.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAX-3501 illustrated several difficulties involved in conducting postoperative adjuvant systemic trials in men with high-risk prostate cancer: the lack of consensus regarding patient selection and treatment, the need for long follow-up time, nonvalidated intermediate endpoints, evolving standard approaches, and the need for long-term research support. Except for selected patients at very high-risk of disease recurrence and death, surgical adjuvant trials in patients with prostate cancer may not be feasible.