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

Cardiovascular and Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Receiving Intensified Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Several phase II trials have investigated neoadjuvant novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) in prostate cancer (PC) patients. However, data regarding complications of intense hormone therapy and surgical complications are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the occurrence of cardiovascular (CV) and thromboembolic (TE) adverse events (AE) in patients with localized PC who have received intense neoadjuvant ADT followed by prostatectomy. A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and conference abstracts was performed. The strategies were developed and applied for each electronic database on March 7th, 2023. Eligible studies included randomized and single-arm trials testing ARSIs prior to prostatectomy that adequately reported safety data regarding CV and TE AE, peri-operative complications, and mortality during therapy. Pooled incidence (PI) of AE with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was estimated using a random effects model. Quality assessment and reporting followed Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. PROSPERO: CRD42022344104. Nine randomized controlled trials and three single-arm phase II trials were included, comprising 702 patients (702 patients for CV AE and 522 for perioperative complications). The neoadjuvant regimen was classified as monotherapy with ARSI (100 patients), combination therapy with ADT + ARSI (383 patients), or ADT + ARSI + ARSI (219 patients). The PI of TE within the perioperative interval was 4.2% (95% CI = 2.6%-6.6%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .65), and the PI for CV AE was 4.6% (95% CI = 3.1%-6.7%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .71). Seven deaths were reported, resulting in a PI of 2.2% (95% CI = 1.3%-3.8%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .99), of which two were considered treatment-related and occurred within the perioperative period. The PI of hypertension grade 3-5 was 7.3% (95% CI = 4.8%-11.0%, I2 = 38.8%, P = .04). CV and TE AE associated with intense neoadjuvant hormone therapy in patients with localized PC can occur in up to 4.6% of cases. Our data warns for further assessment of thrombotic risk and prophylactic anticoagulation in this setting.

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.

Drug-induced epigenomic plasticity reprograms circadian rhythm regulation to drive prostate cancer towards androgen-independence

In prostate cancer, androgen receptor (AR)-targeting agents are very effective in various disease stages. However, therapy resistance inevitably occurs and little is known about how tumor cells adapt to bypass AR suppression. Here, we performed integrative multi-omics analyses on tissues isolated before and after 3 months of AR-targeting enzalutamide monotherapy from high-risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in a neoadjuvant clinical trial. Transcriptomic analyses demonstrated that AR inhibition drove tumors towards a neuroendocrine-like disease state. Additionally, epigenomic profiling revealed massive enzalutamide-induced reprogramming of pioneer factor FOXA1 - from inactive chromatin sites towards active cis-regulatory elements that dictate pro-survival signals. Notably, treatment-induced FOXA1 sites were enriched for circadian clock component ARNTL. Post-treatment ARNTL levels associated with poor outcome, and ARNTL knockout strongly decreased prostate cancer cell growth. Our data highlight a remarkable cistromic plasticity of FOXA1 following AR-targeted therapy, and revealed an acquired dependency on circadian regulator ARNTL, a novel candidate therapeutic target.

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.

Negative impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on detecting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Background

Routine use of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended, but it is sometimes performed to reduce the prostate size and tumor volume or to prevent tumor progression during the wait times for surgery in clinical practice. On the other hand, the impact of NHT on the pattern of biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unknown.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 1749 consecutive patients who underwent RP between 1996 and 2017. Among the patients who met the inclusion criteria, BCR developed in 240 of non-NHT patients and in 120 of NHT patients during the mean follow-up period of 6.9 years. We examined the impact of NHT on the PSA-doubling time (DT) following BCR at different times after RP.

Results

The median PSA-DTs in non-NHT patients who experienced BCR in the first year after surgery, between 1 and 2 years, between 2 and 3 years, between 3 and 4 years, between 4 and 5 years, and at > 5 years were 5.5, 8.8, 11.3, 17.7, 18.2, and 18.4 months, respectively. On the other hand, those in NHT patients were 1.4, 4.1, 9.1, 13.4, 27.2, and 19.3 months, respectively. The differences of PSA-DTs in the first year after surgery (p < 0.001) and between 1 and 2 years (p = 0.005) were significant between non-NHT and NHT patients.

Conclusion

Patients who received NHT had a higher risk of a rapid PSA increase when they experienced BCR, especially within 2 years after RP. In order to not miss the optimal timing of salvage treatment for BCR, intensive PSA follow-up is necessary.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10147-021-01942-8.

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.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients after Primary Local Therapy: Recurrence, Metastasis, and Survival - A Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have recently tested adjuvant chemotherapy to high-risk prostate cancer patients (PCA) after primary local therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer patients after primary local therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS).

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify relevant studies published in English up to March 2020. Six trials were selected for inclusion.

RESULTS

There were 7 studies included in the present study. The meta-analysis did not show a significant OS benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after primary local therapy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.05; p = 0.15). But docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after primary local therapy was associated with a slightly OS improvement (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98; p = 0.03). It also did not show a significant benefit in DFS and BRFS in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.75-1.06, p = 0.18; HR: 0.85, 95% CI, 0.69-1.06, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows a slightly OS benefit from docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after primary local therapy. It did not show a significant benefit in DFS and BRFS from adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

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.

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.

Optimizing the role of androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer: Challenges beyond the guidelines

BACKGROUND

For specific clinical indications, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will induce disease prostate cancer (PC) regression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival; however, ADT has a well-described range of side effects, which may have a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life, necessitating additional interventions or changes in PC treatment. The risk-benefit analysis for initiating ADT in PC patients throughout the PC disease continuum warrants review.

METHODS

A 14-member panel comprised of urologic and medical oncologists were chosen for an expert review panel, to provide guidance on a more judicious use of ADT in advanced PC patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their academic and community experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, and were tasked with addressing the role of ADT in specific PC settings.

RESULTS

This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel for the use of ADT throughout the PC disease continuum, as well as an algorithm summarizing the key recommendations. The target for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting.

CONCLUSION

The panel has provided recommendations for monitoring PC patients while on ADT, recognizing that PC patients will progress despite testosterone suppression and, therefore, early identification of conversion from castrate-sensitive to castration resistance is critical. Also, the requirement to both identify and mitigate side effects of ADT as well as the importance of quality of life maintenance are essential to the optimization of patient care, especially as more combinatorial therapeutic strategies with ADT continue to emerge.

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.

Response of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate to androgen deprivation therapy predicts prostate cancer prognosis in radical prostatectomy patients

BACKGROUND

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has a poor prognosis and is thought to be completely resistant to current therapies, including androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, to date, there are no data showing direct evidence of such resistance.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 145 patients with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) with neoadjuvant ADT between 1991 and 2005. All patient data were collected from slides prepared from needle biopsy (NB) samples of prostate tissue and RP specimens. Data were analyzed in terms of serum level of prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score of NB samples, clinical T stage, the positive cancer core rate, maximum cancer extension rate, presence of Gleason pattern 5, and presence of IDC-P in both NB samples and RP specimens.

RESULTS

The median initial PSA was 33.2 ng/mL (range, 2.4-296 ng/mL), and the median follow-up period was 109 months (range, 11-257 months). The preoperative median ADT period was 4 months (range, 1-20 months). IDC-P was present in 53 patients (37%) in NB samples and 65 (45%) in RP. The patients were divided into three groups based on the presence or absence of IDC-P in NB/RP samples (IDC-P-negative at biopsy: 92 cases, IDC-P-positive at biopsy with IDC-P disappearance: 15 cases, and IDC-P-positive at biopsy with IDC-P persistence: 38 cases). Overall, 28% of IDC-P-positive cases in NB samples showed the disappearance of IDC-P at RP. IDC-P persistence cases showed the poorest prognosis, while IDC-P disappearance cases had a similar prognosis to that of IDC-P-negative at biopsy cases in terms of disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (P = .0018, P = .0087, and P = .0034, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Some cases with IDC-P responded to ADT and demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes similar to those of cases without IDC-P. These findings indicate that cases with IDC-P are heterogeneous.

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.

mpMRI preoperative staging in men treated with antiandrogen and androgen deprivation therapy before robotic prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), we sought to preoperatively characterize prostate cancer (PCa) in the setting of antiandrogen plus androgen deprivation therapy (AA-ADT) prior to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We present our preliminary findings regarding mpMRI depiction of changes of disease staging features and lesion appearance in treated prostate.

METHODS

Prior to RARP, men received 6 months of enzalutamide and goserelin. mpMRI consisting of T2 weighted, b = 2,000 diffusion weighted imaging, apparent diffusion coefficient mapping, and dynamic contrast enhancement sequences was acquired before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Custom MRI-based prostate molds were printed to directly compare mpMRI findings to H&E whole-mount pathology as part of a phase II clinical trial (NCT02430480).

RESULTS

Twenty men underwent imaging and RARP after a regimen of AA-ADT. Positive predictive values for post-AA-ADT mpMRI diagnosis of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, organ-confined disease, and biopsy-confirmed PCa lesions were 71%, 80%, 80%, and 85%, respectively. Post-treatment mpMRI correctly staged disease in 15/20 (75%) cases with 17/20 (85%) correctly identified as organ-confined or not. Of those incorrectly staged, 2 were falsely positive for higher stage features and 1 was falsely negative. Post-AA-ADT T2 weighted sequences best depicted presence of PCa lesions as compared to diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhancement sequences.

CONCLUSION

mpMRI proved reliable in detecting lesion changes after antiandrogen therapy corresponding to PCa pathology. Therefore, mpMRI of treated prostates may be helpful for assessing men for surgical planning and staging.

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 .

Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To formulate consensus statements to facilitate physician management strategies for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in Hong Kong by jointly convening a panel of 12 experts from the two local professional organizations representing PCa specialists, who had previously established consensus statements on the management of metastatic PCa for the locality.

METHODS

Through a series of meetings, the panellists discussed their clinical experience and the published evidence regarding various areas of the management of localized PCa, then drafted consensus statements. At the final meeting, each drafted statement was voted on by every panellist based on its practicability of recommendation in the locality.

RESULTS

A total of 76 consensus statements were ultimately accepted and established by panel voting.

CONCLUSION

Derived from the recent evidence and major overseas guidelines, along with local clinical experience and practicability, the consensus statements were aimed to serve as a practical reference for physicians in Hong Kong for the management of localized PCa.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy on Resection Margin and Survival Prognoses in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer after Prostatectomy Using Propensity-Score Matching

This study aimed to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) on resection margin positivity, biochemical-recurrence- (BCR-) free survival, and overall survival (OS) in 176 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) treated with radical prostatectomy using propensity-score matching, including 79 (44.9%) patients treated with the NHT. Fifty pairs of one-to-one propensity-score matching were matched to investigate the pure effect of NHT on resection margin positivity, BCR, and OS with a statistical significance of p<0.050. Before matching, NHT, tumor volume percentage, and extracapsular extension were significant factors for resection margin positivity (p≤0.001); however, after matching, NHT became insignificant in the multivariate analysis (p=0.084). In the survival analysis, NHT was not associated with BCR or OS before and after matching (BCR: hazard ratio, 1.35 and 0.84, respectively; OS: hazard ratio, 1.05 and 0.77, respectively; p≥0.539 for all). Conversely, PSA level (HR, 2.23), extracapsular extension (HR, 2.10), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.85) were significant factors for BCR (p≤0.001 for all), but none were significant factors for OS in the propensity-score matching analysis (p≥0.948). Therefore, NHT was not a significant factor for resection margin positivity, BCR-free survival, and OS before and after propensity-score matching in patients with LAPC.

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.

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.

Drug development for noncastrate prostate cancer in a changed therapeutic landscape

The unprecedented progress in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is only beginning to be realized in patients with noncastrate disease. This slow progress in part reflects the use of trial objectives focused on time-to-event end points, such as time to metastasis and overall survival, which require long follow-up durations and large sample sizes, and has been further delayed by the use of approved therapies that are effective at the time of progression. Our central hypotheses are that progress can be accelerated, and that outcomes can be improved by shifting trial objectives to response measures occurring early that solely reflect the effects of the treatment. To test these hypotheses, a continuously enrolling multi-arm, multi-stage randomized trial design, analogous to that used in the STAMPEDE trial, has been developed. Eligibility is focused on patients with incurable disease or those with a high risk of death with any form of monotherapy alone. The primary objective is to eliminate all disease using a multimodality treatment strategy. End points include pathological complete response and an undetectable level of serum prostate-specific antigen, with recovery of serum testosterone levels. Both are binary, objective, and provide an early, quantitative indication of efficacy.

Treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer (Stage T3)

Objective

Formerly, locally advanced prostate cancer exhibited poorly prognosis. In the late 1990s, new surgical and radiation technologies were introduced in combination with androgen deprivation. To evaluate respective strategies, outcomes were examined.

Patients and methods

Between 2001 and 2010, 224 patients with T3N0M0 (10.9% of all prostate cancer cases) were treated with prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with/without androgen deprivation or hormone alone. Complete records were obtained by the end of 2015.

Results

Operation group first started without adjuvant treatment and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse occurred in 39% of cases. Radiation therapy group was alternatively divided into two subgroups, that received either monotherapy or combination with androgen deprivation, and PSA relapse rates were 65 and 16%, respectively. High rates of PSA relapse in both the operation and radiation therapy groups were observed in patients without adjuvant therapy, but after relapse androgen deprivation proceeded favorable outcomes. In the radiation subgroups, PSA relapse rates were different, but both subsequent survival rates were the same. This may be due to the effect of androgen deprivation after relapse, indicating effect of delayed therapy. PSA relapse rate in the hormone therapy group was 25% and after relapse, patients applied to treatment with other hormonal and anticancer drugs. Overall survival rates were 91, 88 and 67% in the operation, radiation therapy and hormone therapy groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Aggressive treatment with short-term androgen deprivation for locally advanced prostate cancer could be beneficial and not harmful when suitable candidates are selected. Delayed androgen deprivation was effective for no adjuvant patients after PSA relapse.

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.

A Pilot Study of a Multimodal Treatment Paradigm to Accelerate Drug Evaluations in Early-stage Metastatic Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a multimodal strategy aimed at treating all sites of disease that provides a rapid readout of success or failure in men presenting with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancers that are incurable with single modality therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty selected men with oligometastatic M1a (extrapelvic nodal disease) or M1b (bone disease) at diagnosis were treated using a multimodal approach that included androgen deprivation, radical prostatectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy (retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the presence of clinically positive retroperitoneal nodes), and stereotactic body radiotherapy to osseous disease or the primary site. Outcomes of each treatment were assessed sequentially. Androgen deprivation was discontinued in responding patients. The primary end point was an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after testosterone recovery. The goal was to eliminate all detectable disease.

RESULTS

Each treatment modality contributed to the outcome: 95% of the cohort achieved an undetectable PSA with multimodal treatment, including 25% of patients after androgen deprivation alone and an additional 50% and 20% after surgery and radiotherapy, respectively. Overall, 20% of patients (95% confidence interval: 3%-38%) achieved the primary end point, which persisted for 5, 6, 27+ , and 46+ months. All patients meeting the primary end point had been classified with M1b disease at presentation.

CONCLUSION

A sequentially applied multimodal treatment strategy can eliminate detectable disease in selected patients with metastatic spread at diagnosis. The end point of undetectable PSA after testosterone recovery should be considered when evaluating new approaches to rapidly set priorities for large-scale testing in early metastatic disease states and to shift the paradigm from palliation to cure.

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.

The Effects of Enzalutamide Monotherapy on Multiparametric 3T MR Imaging in Prostate Cancer

The effects of enzalutamide monotherapy on prostate tumor downsizing and multiparametric MRI are currently unknown. Here we present the first case in literature of a patient with high-grade prostate cancer who underwent 3 months of neoadjuvant enzalutamide, for which the effects on mpMRI and histology were determined. Tumor size reduction and downstaging were noted. Neoadjuvant enzalutamide resulted in an increase in ADC value on the DWI-MRI sequences. Histological changes were also observed.

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)

Patterns of prescription and adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: an Italian multicentre cross-sectional analysis from the Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate both the patterns of prescription of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and the adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for ADT prescription.

METHODS

The Choosing Treatment for Prostate Cancer (CHOICE) study was an Italian multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between December 2010 and January 2012. A total of 1 386 patients, treated with ADT for PCa (first prescription or renewal of ADT), were selected. With regard to the EAU guidelines on ADT, the cohort was categorized into discordant ADT (Group A) and concordant ADT (Group B).

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1 075 patients with a geographical distribution including North Italy (n = 627, 58.3%), Central Italy (n = 233, 21.7%) and South Italy (n = 215, 20.0%). In the category of patients treated with primary ADT, a total of 125 patients (56.3%) were classified as low risk according to D'Amico classification. With regard to the EAU guidelines, 285 (26.51%) and 790 patients (73.49%) were classified as discordant (Group A) and concordant (Group B), respectively. In Group A, patients were more likely to receive primary ADT (57.5%, 164/285 patients) than radical prostatectomy (RP; 30.9%, 88/285 patients), radiation therapy (RT; 6.7%, 19/285 patients) or RP + RT (17.7%, 14/285 patients; P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for clinical and pathological variables, showed that patients from Central Italy (odds ratio [OR] 2.86; P < 0.05) and South Italy (OR 2.65; P < 0.05) were more likely to receive discordant ADT.

CONCLUSION

EAU guideline adherence for ADT was low in Italy and was influenced by geographic area. Healthcare providers and urologists should consider these results in order to quantify the inadequate use of ADT and to set policy strategies to overcome this risk.

Long-term oncological outcomes of a phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localised, high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) after neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (CHT) for clinically localised, high-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this phase II multicentre trial of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PSA level >20 ng/mL, Gleason ≥8, or clinical stage ≥T3), androgen-deprivation therapy (goserelin acetate depot) and paclitaxel, carboplatin and estramustine were administered before RP. We report the long-term oncological outcomes of these patients and compared them to a contemporary cohort who met oncological inclusion criteria but received RP only.

RESULTS

In all, 34 patients were enrolled and followed for a median of 13.1 years. Within 10 years most patients had biochemical recurrence (BCR-free probability 22%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-37%). However, the probability of disease-specific survival at 10 years was 84% (95% CI 66-93%) and overall survival was 78% (95% CI 60-89%). The CHT group had higher-risk features than the comparison group (123 patients), with an almost doubled risk of calculated preoperative 5-year BCR (69% vs 36%, P < 0.01). After adjusting for these imbalances the CHT group had trends toward improvement in BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.43-1.34; P = 0.3) and metastasis-free survival (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.24-1.29; P = 0.2) although these were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP was associated with lower rates of BCR and metastasis compared with the RP-only group; however, these results were not statistically significant. Because this treatment strategy has known harms and unproven benefit, this strategy should only be instituted in the setting of a clinical trial.

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.

Chemotherapy and novel therapeutics before radical prostatectomy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer

Although both surgery and radiation are potential curative options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, a significant proportion of men with high-risk and locally advanced disease will demonstrate biochemical and potentially clinical progression of their disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy before radical prostatectomy (RP) is a logical strategy to improve treatment outcomes for men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. Furthermore, delivery of chemotherapy and other systemic agents before RP affords an opportunity to explore the efficacy of these agents with pathologic end points. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel (with or without androgen deprivation therapy), has demonstrated feasibility and safety in men undergoing RP, but no study to date has established the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapies. Other novel agents, such as those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, clusterin, and immunomodulatory therapeutics, are currently under investigation.

[Risk factors of recurrence after radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer]

PURPOSE

We reviewed our retrospective surgical database and assessed the outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with clinical T3 (cT3) prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty four men underwent RP for cT3 PC in our hospital from 1995 to 2011. Clinical stage was diagnosed with MRI and rectal digital examination in all cases. We investigated the postoperative outcome, cancer specific survival and overall survival of all patients. We also investigated the risk factors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in the patients without any adjuvant therapy. All survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier plots. We performed univariate analysis by Mann-Whitney test, Fisher exact test and Log-Rank test, and multivariate analysis by Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median age at RP was 67 years (range: 48-74), and median initial PSA was 14.1 ng/ml (2.2-76.2). Sixty cases (93.8%) were classified into cT3a, and 4 cases (6.3%) into cT3b. Median follow-up period after RP was 62 months (3-172). Fifty three (83%) patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Median duration of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was 7 months (3-31). Adjuvant therapy underwent in 20 cases. Of the 64 patients, overall survival and cancer specific survival rates at 10 years were 98% and 100%, respectively. Of the 44 patients who didn't receive any adjuvant therapy, BCR free survival rates at 5 and 10 years was 59% and 51%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that both PSA > or = 15 ng/ml and GS > or = 8 were associated with a significant risk of BCR. Any significant risk factor was not identified by multivariate analysis. In 16 patients who have cT3a, PSA < 15 ng/ml and GS < 8, BCR free survival rate at 5 years was 78%. On the other hand, that of the other patients was 37% (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that RP is effective for some patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, especially who have cT3a diagnosed by MRI, PSA < 15 ng/ml and GS < 8.

Evolving treatment paradigms for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer

While men with early stage prostate cancer typically enjoy long-term survival after definitive management, for those who present with locally advanced or metastatic disease, survival is compromised. Multimodality therapy can prolong survival in these patients, with state-of-the-art options including intensity-modulated radiation or brachytherapy in conjunction with androgen ablation, adjuvant androgen ablation and/or chemotherapy with radical retropubic prostatectomy. In addition, novel biological therapies are being explored to target the unique molecular changes in prostate cancer cells and their interactions with the microenvironment. With these advances the outlook will undoubtedly improve, even for patients presenting with advanced disease. Careful application of these emerging therapies to a select group of prostate cancer patients most likely to obtain benefit from them is the challenge for urologists, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists for the future.