Effects of complete androgen blockade for 12 and 24 weeks on the pathological stage and resection margin status of prostate cancer

Quality rectal hydrogel placement allows for gel-enabled dose-escalated EBRT (GEDE-EBRT) without rectal interference in prostate cancer

Multiple trials have shown that dose-escalation of radiation for prostate cancer provides a biochemical progression-free survival benefit (bPFS); however, rectal constraints are often limiting. In this dosimetric study, we hypothesized that a well-placed rectal hydrogel (RH) would permit improved dose-escalation and target coverage. We selected patients with good-quality RH and created plans with and without RH, prescribing 70 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles (PSV), and a peripheral zone (PZ) boost to 84 Gy, 98 Gy, or 112 Gy. We then compared plans with and without RH, prescribing a 112 Gy boost to 1 to 2 cm simulated dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL). In the 18 plans created with a PZ boost, the PTV_boost D95% was higher in RH plans compared to non-RH plans (median 98.5 Gy vs 75.53 Gy, p < 0.01). The PSV planning target volume (PTV_PSV) D95% was also marginally higher with RH (71.87 Gy vs 71.04 Gy, p < 0.01). All rectal metrics were improved with RH. For the 32 plans created for simulated DILs treated to 112 Gy, the PTV_boost coverage (median D95% 112.48 Gy vs 102.63 Gy, p < 0.01) and rectal metrics were improved with RH. Four non-RH plans with at least a 4 mm rectal-PTV_boost gap achieved D95% > 98% of the prescription dose for the PTV_boost. Our study showed that placement of a high-quality RH allowed for GEDE-EBRT up to 112 Gy in 28 fractions (EQD2 160 Gy with α/β = 2.5). This concept should be tested prospectively, particularly to assess for increases in nonrectal toxicities.

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 androgen deprivation therapy combined with abiraterone acetate in patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: When to perform radical prostatectomy?

The surgical timing after neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus abiraterone acetate (AA) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is unknown. We divided patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa into three groups according to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir after neoadjuvant ADT plus AA: group 1 (PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/ml), group 2 (0.2 < PSA ≤ 4.0 ng/ml), and group 3 (PSA > 4.0 ng/ml).The median PSA baseline levels in groups 1, 2, 3 were 118.42 (32.03-457.78), 143.48 (17.7-8100.16), and153.35 (46.44-423.31) ng/ml, respectively. The median times of progression to CRPC in groups 1, 2,and 3 were 30, 26, and 26 months, respectively. Compared to patients with PSA nadir >0.2 ng/ml, patients with PSA nadir <0.2 ng/ml presented with longer PFS (p = 0.048).Our results suggested that, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa, the time to progression to CRPC was longer after radical prostatectomy when PSA decreased below 0.2 ng/ml using neoadjuvant ADT plus AA.

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.

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.

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.

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 hormone therapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) administered to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing NHT plus RP or RT with RP or RT alone, administered to patients with HRPCa. We used a random-effects model to compute risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quantified heterogeneity using the I "2" statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. We selected 16 studies. NHT before RP significantly decreased lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.87) and increased the rates of pathological downstaging (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.22-5.61) and organ-confinement (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.25), but did not improve overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). The administration of NHT before RT to patients with HRPCa was associated with significant benefits for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), disease-free survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.60), and bPFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.46-0.64). Short-term NHT combined with RT administered to patients with HRPCa conferred significant improvements. Although the advantage of local control was observed when NHT was administered before RP, there was no significant survival benefit associated with HRPCa. Therefore, short-term NHT combined with RT is recommended for implementation in standard clinical practice but not for patients who undergo RP.

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.

Added Clinical Value of Whole-mount Histopathology of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

Whole-mount histopathology, that is, large format histology or whole-mount sectioning, refers to the histopathological examination of tissue sections from specimens processed with large tissue cassette. In some institutions, it is applied routinely to specimens with genitourinary cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To give an overview of the application of the large format histology to the morphological examination of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive PubMed search was performed up to May 2020, using the keywords "prostate carcinoma," "radical prostatectomy specimens," "whole-mount histopathology," "whole mount sectioning," "large format histology," "macrosectioning," "diagnostic criteria," and "prognosis." The search, supplemented with a hand search, was restricted to articles published in the English language. No limitations were placed on the publication year. References in relevant articles were also reviewed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Even though the whole-mount sections of RPs appear not to be superior to regular sections in detecting adverse pathological features, their use has the advantage of displaying the architecture of the prostate gland and identifying and locating tumor nodule(s) more clearly, with particular reference to the index tumor. Further, it is easier to compare the pathological features with clinical findings derived, for instance, from digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, surgical operation, and prostate biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologists, radiologists, and oncologists are updated about the step forward made by pathologists when diagnostic and prognostic information is derived from an approach that closely resembles that used by the clinicians when dealing with imaging findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Adoption of the whole-mount histopathology adds clinical value in correlation with clinical/imaging findings of radical prostatectomy specimens.

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.

Differential response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in prostate cancer: Predictive morphological parameters and molecular markers

OBJECTIVES

The predictive value of the histological parameters and molecular markers for neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) in prostate cancer (PCa) has not been well established. The aim of this study is to determine pathological variables that can predict differences in response to NHT in PCa.

METHODS

A total of 85 locally high risk PCa patients with matched preoperative needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens were included. All patients were treated with NHT for at least 3 months. We quantified the response to NHT using a new proposed pathological grading system. The system classified tumors into five groups (grades 0-4) according to the severity of histological response. We then categorized the PCa patients into drug-sensitive (DS) group (Grades 2-4) and drug-resistant (DR) group (Grades 0-1). Two pathologists assessed each pretreated tumors for presence or absence of nine morphological features. The expression of androgen receptor (AR), ERG, and PTEN were evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) as well. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant associations between differentially histological response to NHT and morphological features as well as molecular aberrations. We evaluated different prediction models using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis.

RESULTS

73% (n = 62/85) of tumors in our cohort belonged to DS group, whereas 27% (n = 23/85) of tumors were DR. Univariate logistic analysis suggested four pathological variables, cribriform growth pattern, macronucleoli, ductal adenocarcinoma differentiation, and PTEN loss in needle biopsies were significantly associated with DR effect, all with P-value < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the three parameters as significant predictive factors for predicting DR effect. These were macronucleoli (RR = 4.008, P = 0.002), ductal adenocarcinoma differentiation (RR = 11.659, P = 0.009) and PTEN loss expression (RR = 7.275, P = 0.015). The AUC of three integrated indicators model was 0.781.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that the presence of tumor cribriform growth pattern, macronucleoli, ductal adenocarcinoma differentiation, and PTEN loss in needle biopsies are of value in predicting tumor response to NHT regimen. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the performance of combined pathological indicators in predicting DR response was better than that of model based on individual factor alone.

Androgen deprivation therapy in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients: Indications, treatment effects, and new predictive biomarkers

Men with prostate cancer with positive margins, extraprostatic extension, positive lymph nodes, high prostate‐specific antigen, or high Gleason Score are at high risk of recurrence following primary therapy. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which includes medical/surgical castration, antiandrogen therapy, and combined androgen blockade, can be combined with primary therapy to shrink the tumor, reduce margin positivity, and reduce the risk of recurrence. However, many problems still remain, such as optimizing the application of ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer, for example, ideal patient population and optimal timing and duration of therapy. To investigate these problems, we searched PubMed for relevant publications on clinical studies of deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we discuss our findings on the role of ADT in the treatment of castrate‐sensitive nonmetastatic prostate cancer and the adverse effects associated with ADT. We also examine the recent advances in new predictive biomarkers for ADT, many of which are currently in the exploratory phase. Overall, the addition of ADT to primary therapy improves outcomes for patients with intermediate‐ or 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.

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 Novel System for Estimating Residual Disease and Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pathologic variables that characterize response of prostate carcinoma to current neoadjuvant therapy have not been characterized in detail. This study reports (i) the histological features of prostate cancer treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide and inter-pathologist variance in identifying these features, and (ii) the effect of the novel androgen deprivation agents on residual cancer volume.

METHODS

We reviewed sections of prostatectomies from 37 patients treated with neoadjuvant agents and 22 untreated patients, tabulated the frequency of nine features of cancer (intact cancer glands, isolated cancer cells, poorly formed glands, cribriform architecture, clear spaces, intraductal carcinoma, solid sheets of cancer cells, prominent nucleoli, and previously described ABC grouping) and two features of benign glands (prominent basal cells and coalescent corpora amylacea). We used several methods, including a novel metric (visual grid system), to estimate residual tumor volume.

RESULTS

The most highly reproducible features were ABC grouping (κ = 0.56-0.7), presence of intraductal carcinoma (κ = 0.34-0.72), cribriform architecture (κ = 0.42-0.68), solid sheets of tumor cells (κ = 0.44-0.56), and coalescent corpora amylacea (κ = 0.4-0.54). Among poorly reproducible features were prominent nucleoli (κ = 0.03-0.11), clear spaces (κ = 0.05-0.07), and poorly formed cancer glands (κ = 0.02-0.1). Determination of tumor mass was excellent regardless of the method used-maximum tumor size (κ = 0.9-0.94), tumor area (κ = 0.94-0.96), and grid-based tumor cellularity (κ = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose using a set of parameters including maximum tumor size, tumor area/volume, cellularity, volume, and ABC grouping for evaluating radical prostatectomies post-neoadjuvant therapy. Prostate 76:1285-1292, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Is the Post-Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score a Valid Predictor of Mortality after Neoadjuvant Hormonal Treatment?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the validity of the Gleason score after neoadjuvant hormonal treatment as predictor of disease-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2,880 patients with a complete data set and a mean follow-up of 10.3 years were studied; 425 of them (15%) had a history of hormonal treatment prior to surgery. The cumulative incidence of deaths from prostate cancer was determined by univariate and multivariate competing risk analysis. Cox proportional hazard models for competing risks were used to study combined effects of the variables on prostate cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

A higher portion of specimens with a history of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment were assigned Gleason scores of 8-10 (28 vs. 17%, p < 0.0001). The mortality curves in the Gleason score strata <8 vs. 8-10 were at large congruent in patients with and without neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. In patients with neoadjuvant hormonal treatment, a Gleason score of 8-10 was an independent predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality; the hazard ratio was, however, somewhat lower than in patients without neoadjuvant hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the prognostic value of the post-radical prostatectomy Gleason score is not meaningfully jeopardized by heterogeneous neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in a routine clinical setting.

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.

Gleason grading after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy retains prognostic value for systemic progression following radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The Gleason grading system in prostatectomy specimens following receipt of neoadjuvant therapy has been considered inaccurate. However, with continuing expansion of novel therapeutics, it is important to understand whether the Gleason system can be effectively utilized in this setting. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of the Gleason grading system to predict systemic progression among prostatectomy specimens treated with neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective analysis from 1987 to 2009 of 13,427 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) without NHT and 1148 patients with NHT. NHT consisted of leuprolide alone (n = 415), antiandrogen therapy alone (n = 400) and combined treatment (n = 333). Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated 15-year systemic progression-free survival among NHT and non-NHT patients. Cox proportional hazard regression models estimated risk of systemic progression following RP according to NHT use and nonuse.

RESULTS

Median duration of NHT was 3 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2-4) whereas median follow-up after RP was 8.3 years (IQR 5-10.8). NHT patients were more likely to be D'Amico high risk, have locally advanced pathologic T stage (≥ pT3), pathologic Gleason scores (GS) of 8-10 and lymph node involvement (P<0.0001 for all). NHT use was associated with lower rates of positive surgical margins, more downgrading to pT0 and less GS upgrading from biopsy (P ≤ 0.001 for all). GS could not be assigned to only 3% of NHT patients. On multivariate analysis, pathologic GS remained a predictor of systemic progression (SP) following NHT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.6, P = 0.005), but the association was less strong compared with non-NHT patients (HR 2.9, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of the Gleason system appears feasible among hormonally pretreated prostatectomy specimens and shows continued prognostication for systemic progression. Confirmatory investigations are needed before the Gleason system can be reliably applied in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy.

Prostate changes related to therapy: with special reference to hormone therapy

Hormone and radiation therapy have traditionally been used in prostate cancer (PCa). Morphological effects are often identified in needle biopsies and surgical specimens. A range of histological changes are seen in the non-neoplastic prostate and in the pre-neoplastic and neoplastic areas. Other ablative therapies, including cryotherapy, and emerging focal therapies, such as high-intensity focused ultrasound, photodynamic therapy and interstitial laser thermotherapy, may induce changes on the prostate. As new compounds are developed for prostate cancer treatment, it is important to document their effects on benign and neoplastic prostate tissue.

Surgical management of prostate cancer

Surgery remains a mainstay in the management of localized prostate cancer. This article addresses surgical aspects germane to the management of men with prostate cancer, including patient selection for surgery, nerve-sparing approaches, minimization of positive surgical margins, and indications for pelvic lymph node dissection. Outcomes for men with high-risk prostate cancer following surgery are reviewed, and the present role of neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy is discussed. In addition, there is a review of the published literature on surgical ablative therapies for prostate cancer.

[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.

[Prostate cancer surgical margin: review by the CCAFU (Oncology Committee of the French Association of Urology)]

OBJECTIVE

Literature showed the impact of surgical margin status on prognosis after radical prostatectomy (mostly on biochemical survival). Margin status is an easy self-evaluation of surgical practice to assess. The aim of this paper was to define what a positive surgical margin (PSM) is and how to prevent the occurrence, to precise the impact on survival and how to treat.

METHOD

A literature analysis with Pubmed has been performed to 2012, furthermore conclusions of the main congresses with selection committee and review publication have also been studied.

RESULTS

PSM is defined as "tumor cells touching the ink on the specimen edge". The most frequent reported incidence is between 15 to 20%. Margin status remains one of the major criteria to determine the need of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. Quality of life is not or only lightly modified by radiotherapy with the current techniques. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves biological survival but is synonymous with overtreatment in many times. Salvage radiotherapy has to be quickly performed after Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) relapse (PSA<1 ng/mL even<0.5 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

This literature review did not allow to suggest superiority of one surgical technique over another. In the same way, the kind of dissection i.e. bladder neck or neurovascular bundle preservation does no clearly modify PSM rate. However, it seems logical to "customize" dissection according to prostate cancer characteristics (D'Amico criteria for instance) guided with multiparametric MRI. Intrafascial dissection has to be applied only to low risk. Lastly, the debate between adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy is always ongoing.

Anatomic variation and dosimetric consequences of neoadjuvant hormone therapy before radiation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To characterize anatomic variation during neoadjuvant androgen deprivation (NAD) and determine a treatment planning strategy to maintain acceptable normal tissue dose while treating potential microscopic disease in the original (pre-NAD) tumor bed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively examined the effects of treating the post-NAD anatomy with plans derived before and after NAD in a group of 44 patients enrolled in an institutional review board-approved protocol. An 8-field intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan was generated on anatomy both before and after NAD for the first 35 patients. The pre-NAD treatment plan was applied to the post-NAD anatomy to evaluate the effect of complete pre-NAD tumor bed treatment on normal tissue sparing, and the post-NAD treatment plan was applied to the pre-NAD anatomy to investigate whether microscopic disease might go untreated in the location of the pre-NAD tumor bed.

RESULTS

The prostate decreased in volume by an average of about 14 cm(3) (24.3%) and was correlated with NAD duration (P = .002). The prostate center of volume systematically shifted in the inferior direction (mean = 1.4 mm, P = .005) and inferior shift was correlated with absolute volume reduction of the prostate (P = .044) in a multivariate model containing rectal and bladder volume change and initial prostate volume. Pre-NAD treatment planning resulted in a significant increase in the bladder volume (P < .01) but little increase in the rectal volume treated to all dose levels. Post-NAD treatment planning resulted in decreased treatment of the prostate and seminal vesicles (on the pre-NAD anatomy) at the prescribed and 95% isodose levels (prostate: P = .033 and 0.025; seminal vesicles: P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anisotropic volume reduction of the prostate was found during NAD and correlated with NAD duration. Post-NAD based treatment planning can minimize excess bladder and rectal dose.

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.

Agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the first-line standard of care for treating patients with hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer (PCa) for many decades. The agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), also called gonadotropin-releasing hormone, are still the most frequently used form of medical ADT.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the available data and most recent information concerning the use of LHRH agonists in advanced PCa. This article also reviews the discovery and development of LHRH agonists and summarizes the clinical evidence for their efficacy in PCa.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction and application of agonists of LHRH has modernized and improved the treatment of advanced PCa. The life-saving benefits of LHRH agonists are well established, yet underestimated. Despite their efficacy, agonists of LHRH have several disadvantages or drawbacks including disease flare. The approach to ADT has been recently further refined with the development of the LHRH antagonist degarelix. Degarelix, a highly clinically effective third-generation LHRH antagonist, is currently available in most countries for therapy of advanced PCa. This new drug offers attractive alternatives to LHRH agonists for treatment of advanced PCa. A therapy for castration-resistant PCa based on a targeted cytotoxic analog of LHRH, AEZS-108, is also emerging.

A systematic review of the role of adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmacotherapy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Between 25 and 30% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer are classified as high risk for an adverse prognosis. A significant number of these will progress to biochemical or clinical relapse. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of these cases, a multimodal therapeutic approach, including radical prostatectomy, remains an option.

AREAS COVERED

The Pubmed/Medline database was searched to identify trials that have evaluated adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmaceutical protocols combined with radical prostatectomy and provided information regarding efficacy and safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Improvements in adverse pathological findings, following operations in patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, have been reported in the majority of the reviewed studies. Furthermore, the addition of pharmacotherapy to radical prostatectomy has produced beneficial results in survival surrogates. However, no benefits in overall survival were observed with adjuvant or neoadjuvant protocols and toxicity was a concern, especially in combination regimens. New studies on the effects of current pharmacotherapy and of new agents on overall survival and quality of life, after defining well-established criteria for patient stratification and inclusion, are required urgently.

Use of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer: indications and prevalence

Androgens play a prominent role in the development, maintenance and progression of prostate cancer. The introduction of androgen deprivation therapies into the treatment paradigm for prostate cancer patients has resulted in a wide variety of benefits ranging from a survival advantage for those with clinically localized or locally advanced disease, to improvements in symptom control for patients with advanced disease. Controversies remain, however, surrounding the optimal timing, duration and schedule of these hormonal approaches. Newer hormonal manipulations such as abiraterone acetate have also been investigated and will broaden treatment options for men with prostate cancer. This review highlights the various androgen-directed treatment options available to men with prostate cancer, their specific indications and the evidence supporting each approach, as well as patterns of use of hormonal therapies.

Neoadjuvant therapy preceding prostatectomy for prostate cancer: rationale and current trials

Neoadjuvant therapy improves outcomes for a number of malignancies and provides intermediate pathologic outcomes, which correlate with long-term outcomes. Neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, alone or with docetaxel chemotherapy, preceding prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer is feasible and demonstrates pathologic activity, but evidence for improved long-term outcomes is lacking. Data in support of the further exploration of neoadjuvant therapy for localized prostate cancer preceding prostatectomy are reviewed. Ongoing randomized trials are elucidating the impact of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation combined with docetaxel chemotherapy on pathologic and long-term outcomes. The correlation of pathologic and biologic outcomes with long-term outcomes in this setting is unknown. The neoadjuvant therapy approach followed by prostatectomy is feasible with a wide array of agents and provides a paradigm for evaluating the activity, and mechanism of action and resistance to new treatments. This promising modality may aid the rapid development of novel therapeutic agents. A multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, urologists and pathologists is critical to the success of this model.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. Advances in surgical therapies have paralleled advances in radiation therapy and chemotherapy for metastatic disease. There is a great interest in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for patients at intermediate and high risk of recurrence and prostate cancer-specific death. Because high-risk prostate cancer patients can be readily identified by clinical criteria, many studies have attempted to use local and systemic adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence. This review discusses neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in prostate cancer, including hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy.

Morphologic characterization of preoperatively treated prostate cancer: toward a post-therapy histologic classification

BACKGROUND

Preoperative treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) changes morphology of residual tumors so that the Gleason score is no longer valid.

OBJECTIVE

To codify morphologic features of preoperatively treated PCa and identify potential classifiers predictive of outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a detailed morphologic evaluation of specimens obtained from 115 patients with high-risk PCa who had preoperative androgen ablation, alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

MEASUREMENTS

Included hierarchical clustering analysis of morphologic characteristics, associations with other pathologic parameters, and univariate and multivariate analyses in search for associations with disease outcome.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Based on hierarchical clustering analysis, we categorized pretreated prostate cancer in three morphologically distinct groups: group A, characterized by a predominance of cell clusters, cell cords, and isolated cells; group B tumors, by intact and fused small glands; and group C tumors by any degree of cribriform growth pattern or intraductal tumor spread. Univariate analysis identified associations between this grouping, pathologic tumor stage (p<0.01) and residual tumor volume (p<0.001). Presence of intraductal spread or cribriform pattern in biopsies was associated with group C tumors. The presence of cribriform or intraductal spread morphology and positive surgical margins were stronger predictors of biochemical relapse than pathologic stage on multivariate analysis. The number of specimens evaluated in this study was limited, and a prospective validation is warranted along with molecular studies to validate the proposed morphologic classifier.

CONCLUSIONS

If validated, this classification will introduce uniformity in the selection of tissue samples for biomarker studies, facilitate the comparison of trials among different institutions, and may provide a new prognostic tool for preoperatively treated PCa.