The risk of malignancy in the surgical margin at radical prostatectomy reduced almost three-fold in patients given neo-adjuvant hormone treatment

Hypogonadism and urologic surgeries: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Previous studies indicated that the treatment of male hypogonadism can be beneficial for intraoperative and postsurgical outcomes. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of male hypogonadism on urologic surgeries. We provided an overview of the key studies in the field with the focus on the outcomes of urologic surgeries in hypogonadal men with/without testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

Methods

We performed a literature review in PubMed and Google Scholar databases for the most relevant articles pertaining to the outlined topics without placing any limitations on publication years or study designs. We included full-text English articles published in peer reviewed journals between January 1970 and March 2022.

Key Content and Findings

Androgen deficiency is a common finding after major urologic surgeries. Although guidelines recommend against TRT in men with prostate carcinoma, recent investigations showed no association between TRT and disease progression and recurrence. Indeed, recent evidence suggested that low androgen levels could be related to high grade prostate carcinoma and increased risk of upgrading from low to high grade disease. Investigations on the application of TRT in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients also revealed contrasting results. While some studies suggested higher rates of prostate-related events in men who received TRT, others showed that TRT could alleviate urinary symptoms in hypogonadal men with BPH. Decreased testosterone level is commonly seen in bladder cancer patients. The treatment of perioperative androgen deficiency can reduce postoperative morbidities and lower the risk of recurrence in these patients. Low testosterone levels are observed in approximately half of the men who undergo artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement and can increase the risk of complications.

Conclusions

The role of testosterone treatment in patients with urologic diseases such as prostate carcinoma and BPH is controversial. Further investigations are needed to determine the impact of hypogonadism and TRT on the outcomes of urologic surgeries in patients with androgen deficiency.

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.

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 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.

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.

Long-term health-related quality of life after curative treatment for prostate cancer: a regional cross-sectional comparison of two standard treatment modalities

Effects on long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated in patients treated for localized prostate cancer by two standard modalities: radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy combined with a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDRBT-EBRT). The HRQoL data were compared with age-adjusted normative data. Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and treated with curative intent in Gothenburg, Sweden, 1988-1997 were included. HRQoL was measured in October 2000 using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaires, with a response rate of 82% (n=347). No differences in patient characteristics were found between the two treatment groups, except regarding tumor stage and PSA recurrence at the time of the questionnaires. In the RP group, 42% had T1 and 6% had T3-4 tumors; corresponding proportions in the HDRBT-EBRT group were 29% and 13% (p=0.01). PSA recurrence was detected in 44% of RP patients and 9% of HDRBT-EBRT patients. In most domains, mean HRQoL scores were high and similar to the scores for the age-adjusted normative sample. However, patients reported better role and physical function compared to the normal population. We also observed more sleeping disturbances but less pain among patients than in the normal population. The disease-specific questionnaires showed statistically significant higher levels of bowel and urinary problems in the irradiated group than in the RP group, and the absolute difference between the groups was small and had minor clinical significance. We conclude that overall the general quality of life was rated high by the patients irrespective of curative treatment modality and in agreement with age-adjusted normative data. Statistically significant differences in bowel and urinary symptoms were found between the two treatment groups in favor of the RP group, but the clinical significance was small.

The role of surgery in high-risk localised prostate cancer

• The optimal management of high-risk localised prostate cancer is a major challenge for urologists and oncologists. It is clear that multimodal therapy including radical local treatment is needed in these men to achieve the best outcomes. • External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an essential component of therapy either as a primary or adjuvant treatment. However, the role of radical prostatectomy (RP) is more controversial. Both methods are currently valid therapy options. • There have been many individual studies of EBRT and RP in high-risk disease, but no good quality large prospective randomized trials. • In EBRT, combination with neoadjuvant plus long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been conclusively shown to improve outcomes and is widely considered the standard of care. • However, the role of RP has achieved recent prominence with several important studies. Published data from prospective randomized trials in patients after RP have shown that in men with adverse pathological features at surgery, the addition of adjuvant RT improves biochemical-free and progression-free survival. • More recently, studies from large-volume centres comparing EBRT and RP have provided intriguing suggestions of better outcomes with RP as the primary treatment. • An important question therefore, is which of the two methods provides the best outcome in men with localised high-risk disease. Crucially, does the combination of RP and selective adjuvant EBRT provide clinically significant better outcomes compared with EBRT alone? • In this review we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP for high-risk localised prostate cancer and define the parameters and urgent need for a prospective trial to test the role of surgery for this group of patients.

Long-term follow-up of 3-month neoadjuvant hormone therapy before radical prostatectomy in a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To report our long-term follow-up of an institutional randomized prospective trial of radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without a 3-month course of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT), which results in pathological downstaging, but generally no reduction in biochemical recurrence (BCR) on early follow-up (at 3 years).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1992 to June 1996, 148 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized to RP only or 3 months of goserelin acetate and flutamide before RP. BCR was defined as a detectable serum prostate specific antigen level (>0.1 ng/mL) at least 6 weeks after surgery, with a confirmatory increase.

RESULTS

The median follow-up for BCR-free patients was 8 years. There was no significant difference in BCR-free probabilities between groups (P = 0.7). The BCR-free probability at 7 years was 78% for patients undergoing RP only and 80% for patients undergoing NHT and RP (difference of 2%; 95% confidence interval, CI, 12-16%). A Cox regression showed no significant relationship between NHT and BCR (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% CI, 0.56-2.39, P = 0.7). Overall, two patients had local recurrence and six developed metastases, and were evenly distributed among the RP only and NHT groups.

CONCLUSION

Although our study was not originally powered to detect differences in BCR, there was no overall benefit in BCR-free probability, local recurrence or metastasis with 3 months of NHT at 8 years of follow-up. Pending evidence of improvement in patient outcomes, NHT before RP appears to be unjustified outside of clinical trials.

Choices for Surgery

Surgical treatment of prostate cancer has seen many improvements in the past two decades, including laparoscopy, robotic surgery, and better assessment of quality of life and functional results. The limits of surgery for locally advanced disease and after failure of radiotherapy have been better defined, together with the roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. Patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer, reasonable life expectancy, and little or no co-morbidity are the best candidates for radical prostatectomy. This chapter reviews the different technical options for the treatment of prostate cancer, with their respective indications and functional and oncological results.

α-methylacyl-CoA racemase (P504S)/34βE12/p63 triple cocktail stain in prostatic adenocarcinoma after hormonal therapy

Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) has recently been shown to be a highly sensitive marker for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, there is limited information concerning its utility as a marker for prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy. Our current investigation was conducted to evaluate the expression of AMACR in patients with prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy and assess its diagnostic utility in combination with p63 and high molecular weight cytokeratin (34betaE12) staining. Prostate tissues from 49 patients who had been treated with hormonal therapy were immunohistochemically analyzed for AMACR, 34betaE12, and p63 expression by a triple antibody cocktail stain. The staining intensities and the percentages of positively staining tumor cells were recorded. The correlations between AMACR expression and metastatic status, associated hormonal therapy regimens, and the extent of hormone therapy effect were analyzed. All malignant acini were completely negative for both basal cell markers (34betaE12 and p63). Tumor cells failed to demonstrate expression of AMACR in 14 (29%) of 49 cases. In the remaining 35 cases (71%), positive immunostaining for AMACR was noted, but with variable intensities and percentages of cells stained. Positive staining for AMACR in benign glands was not seen in any case. In all cases, basal cells were strongly stained by p63 in benign acini with a mean positive percentage of 96%. Similarly, basal cells in benign acini displayed moderate staining intensities for 34betaE12 in 3 (7%) of 41 cases and strong immunostaining for this marker in the remaining 38 cases (93%); the mean percentage of positive cells was 92%. alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase expression may be substantially diminished or entirely lost in prostate carcinoma after hormonal therapy. This variation in AMACR expression does not correlate with the metastatic status, the modality of hormonal therapy, or the extent of therapy-related effect. It is important that pathologists be aware that some hormonally treated prostate carcinomas do not express AMACR, and that immunostaining in such cases must be interpreted with caution. A triple cocktail stain using AMACR, 34betaE12, and p63 can be helpful in evaluating prostate specimens for the presence of residual or recurrent carcinoma after hormonal therapy for cancer.

Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone therapy for early prostate cancer has demonstrated an improvement in clinical and pathological variables, but not always an improvement in overall survival. We performed a systematic review of both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant hormone therapy combined with surgery or radiotherapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to undertake a systematic review and, if possible, a meta-analysis of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy in localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, LILACS, and SIGLE for relevant randomised trials. Handsearching of appropriate publications was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, that is, stages T1-T4, any N, M0, comparing neo-adjuvant or adjuvant hormonal deprivation in combination with primary therapy (radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy) versus primary therapy alone were included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from eligible studies and assessed for quality, and included information on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Comparable data were pooled together for meta-analysis with intention-to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

Men with prostate cancer have different clinical outcomes based on their risk (T1-T2, T3-T4, PSA levels and Gleason score). However, the majority of studies included in this review did not report results by risk groups; therefore, it was not possible to perform sub-group analysis. Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve overall survival (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.85, P = 0.69). However, there was a significant reduction in the positive surgical margin rate (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.42, P < 0.00001) and a significant improvement in other pathological variables such as lymph node involvement, pathological staging and organ confined rates. There was a borderline significant reduction of disease recurrence rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.0, P = 0.05), in favour of treatment. The use of longer duration of neo-adjuvant hormones, that is either 6 or 8 months prior to prostatectomy, was associated with a significant reduction in positive surgical margins (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.002). In one study, neo-adjuvant hormones prior to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival for Gleason 2 to 6 patients; although, in two studies, there was no improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.32, P = 0.97). However, there was a significant improvement in both clinical disease-free survival (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.40, P < 0.00001) and biochemical disease-free survival (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.56, P < 0.00001). Adjuvant androgen deprivation following prostatectomy did not significantly improve overall survival at 5 years (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.85, P = 0.2); although one study reported a significant disease-specific survival advantage with adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001). In addition, there was a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (OR 3.73, 95%CI 2.30 to 6.03, P < 0.00001) and 10 years (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15, P = 0.0009). Adjuvant therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant overall survival gain apparent at 5 (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.83, P = 0.0009) and 10 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.84, P = 0.003); although there was significant heterogeneity (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07, respectively). There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.88, P = 0.00001) and disease-free survival (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.12, P < 0.00001) at 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy combined with either prostatectomy or radiotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefits in patients with local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Significant local control may be achieved when given prior to prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may improve patient's quality of life. When given adjuvant to these primary therapies, hormone therapy, not only provides a method for local control, but there is also evidence for a significant survival advantage. However, hormone therapy is associated with significant side effects, such as hot flushes and gynaecomastia, as well as cost implications. The decision to use hormone therapy should, therefore, be taken at a local level, between the patient, clinician and policy maker, taking into account the clinical benefits, toxicity and cost. More research is needed to guide the choice, the duration, and the schedule of hormonal deprivation therapy, and the impact of long-term hormone therapy with regard to toxicity and the patient's quality of life.

Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the treatment of prostate cancer: A review of their discovery, development, and place in therapy

BACKGROUND

Early identification of the biological activity of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) paved the way for the synthesis of analogues with enhanced potency and biological properties. Early testing in animal models and humans provided insight into the potential clinical uses of these substances, and, within 10 years, LHRH-agonist therapy had become available for use in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC). Over time, the role of LHRH-agonist therapy has expanded to include use as part of multimodal treatment regimens throughout the course of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews the discovery and development of LHRH agonists and summarizes the clinical evidence for their efficacy in PC.

METHODS

Relevant clinical studies were identified through searches of the English-language literature indexed on MEDLINE through May 2006. The main search terms were prostate cancer and LHRH agonist.

RESULTS

Results of the initial therapeutic trials of sustained-release depot formulations of LHRH agonists in patients with PC were reported in the mid-1980s, indicating that these agents were effective and well tolerated in improving clinical symptoms and producing medical castration. Longer-term studies and subsequent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced PC found no significant differences in overall survival when single-therapy androgen suppression was achieved through the use of LHRH-agonist therapy or orchiectomy. Randomized trials have reported significant improvements in disease-free and overall survival in patients with locally advanced or high-grade PC treated with LHRH agonists in addition to radiotherapy. Several prospective randomized trials have reported decreases in rates of positive surgical margins with short-term (6 weeks to 4 months) neoadjuvant LHRH-agonist therapy in patients with stage T1 to T3a PC undergoing prostatectomy. Definitive comparisons of immediate and delayed treatment in patients with biochemical relapse have not been reported. However, the results of several studies suggest that immediate LHRH-agonist therapy (or orchiectomy) may improve the course of disease progression and survival. The risks of long-term treatment (eg, osteoporosis; fracture; anabolic loss of muscle mass, with a tendency toward weight gain) must be considered carefully in patients who are likely to receive chronic LHRH-agonist therapy. Intermittent schedules have been developed to reduce the adverse effects associated with LHRH-agonist therapy; some reports support sparing effects on bone and muscle mass and relative improvements in toxicities during off-therapy periods, whereas others have documented continuing decreases in bone mineral density (BMD), with the rate of bone loss highest during the early cycles of therapy. Bisphosphonate therapy has been shown to increase BMD in patients with PC and may therefore be beneficial when overt symptoms of osteopenia or osteoporosis are present.

CONCLUSIONS

LHRH-agonist therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced PC for >20 years. Clinical evidence supports expanding use of these agents at an earlier stage of disease and as part of multimodal regimens that include radiotherapy. There is a need for further study of the efficacy of adjuvant LHRH-agonist therapy along with prostatectomy, in patients with biochemical failure, in intermittent regimens, and in conjunction with cytotoxic therapies in late-stage disease.

The Limited Significance of a Longer Duration of Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy prior to Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer in Japanese Men

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic significance of a longer duration of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) in Japanese men with high-risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included a total of 42 patients with high-risk prostate cancer who were treated with NHT for >or=8 months prior to RP. In this series high-risk prostate cancer was defined as clinical stage T2c or T3, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/ml and/or a biopsy Gleason score of 8-10. Biochemical recurrence was defined as a serum PSA level of >or=0.2 ng/ml. The data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed to clarify the relationships between treatment outcomes and various clinicopathological parameters.

RESULTS

The clinical stage was T2c in 13 patients and T3 in 29, the median value of pretreatment serum PSA was 43.3 ng/ml (range 9.7-322.2), and the biopsy Gleason score was 6 in 3 patients, 7 in 16 and >or=8 in 23. Following NHT (median 12 months, range 8-27), the median value of serum PSA decreased to 0.05 ng/ml (<0.01-18.3 ng/ml), and 15 patients (35.7%) were pathologically downstaged. During the median follow-up of 38 months (range 8-58), 11 patients (26.2%) developed biochemical recurrence, and the multivariate analysis identified pretreatment serum PSA, biopsy Gleason score and percentage of positive biopsy core as independent predictors of biochemical recurrence. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate of the 42 patients was 68.3%, which was not significantly different from that of 34 patients who underwent RP for high-risk prostate cancer without NHT during the same period.

CONCLUSION

A longer duration of NHT followed by RP for patients with high-risk prostate cancer resulted in a comparatively favorable outcome. However, despite the nonrandomized retrospective analysis, the present findings suggest no significant impact of long-term NHT on biochemical recurrence. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether this therapeutic strategy is beneficial for high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Endocrine approaches in the therapy of prostate carcinoma

At present, the management of non-organ confined prostate cancer, whether it is a recurrence or metastasis, continues to evolve based on prostate cancer detection using prostate-specific antigen and the development of medications as alternatives for the classical orchiectomy, which induced irreversible implications for quality of life. Diethylstilbestrol therapy was associated with cardiovascular side-effects; GnRH agonists were able to create a castration level, but again considerable side-effects were described. Combination therapies using antiandrogens and GnRH agonists do not improve survival and have additional toxicity. GnRH antagonists, which also suppress FSH, represent the latest class of agents introduced for hormonal treatment, but phase III studies with survival data are not yet available. In spite of all these achievements, hormonal manipulation has resulted in only modest improvements during recent decades and new targets are needed to improve the clinical outcome. Selectively modifying the androgen receptor is currently one of the most promising developments.

Patient, surgeon, and treatment characteristics associated with homologous blood transfusion requirement during radical retropubic prostatectomy: multivariate nomogram to assist patient counseling

OBJECTIVES

To identify the preoperative patient, treatment, and surgeon factors associated with the administration of homologous blood transfusion during or after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) to be able to better inform patients regarding the probability of transfusion. Homologous blood transfusion is sometimes required during or after RRP, but predictive models for estimating transfusion probability using patient and surgical characteristics are lacking.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected regarding patient characteristics, cancer severity, surgeon experience, anesthetic used, operative blood loss, and transfusion among 1123 consecutive RRP cases. Multivariate regression analysis identified baseline factors associated with a homologous transfusion requirement and generated a model for predicting the likelihood of perioperative homologous transfusion.

RESULTS

Homologous transfusion was administered in 3.8% of subjects; the mean estimated blood loss was 953 mL. Multivariable regression analysis identified prostate size (P <0.0001, odds ratio [OR] 1.74), use of general anesthesia (P = 0.01, OR 2.22), use of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (P = 0.006, OR 3.35), and surgeon expertise (P <0.0001, OR 8.63) as independent risk factors associated with a need for perioperative homologous transfusion. The most influential factor, surgical expertise, clustered among surgeons who performed more than 15 RRPs annually, because these surgeons had lower transfusion rates and lower estimated blood loss more consistently than did surgeons who performed fewer RRPs annually.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger prostate size, use of general anesthesia, use of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and annual surgeon case volume were independently associated with an increased probability that an individual patient would receive homologous transfusion during or after RRP. A nomogram indicating the probability of homologous transfusion based on these factors provides a benchmark of expected homologous transfusion rates according to individual patient and treatment parameters.

Neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer patients with clinical stage T3 disease, biopsy Gleason scores of 8 to 10, or serum prostate-specific antigen levels greater than 20 ng/mL are at high risk of recurrence despite local therapy. Although hormonal therapy has palliative benefit for the majority of patients with metastatic disease, randomized trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit for its administration prior to surgery for locally advanced disease. Historically, chemotherapy has been felt to have little activity in hormone-refractory prostate cancer, but new evidence may refute this belief. Ongoing clinical trials are now investigating the use of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. We review the recent literature regarding the use of neoadjuvant hormonal manipulation, chemotherapy, and promising new molecular targeted agents in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Early prostate cancer: clinical decision-making

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignant diseases for which health-care intervention is sought worldwide, and in many developed countries it is the most common. Some patients with early-stage prostate cancer, especially those who are elderly and have comorbidities, can be observed without treatment. Surgery (radical prostatectomy) and radiotherapy (external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or both) are the most widely accepted curative options for patients with early-stage disease who need intervention. All these local treatments have been refined, resulting in comparable cure rates; however, they all have different side-effect profiles. Adjuvant systemic treatments (hormones or chemotherapy), which are effective for advanced-stage disease, might have a greater role in early-stage disease. Selecting the best option for individuals from the available options is challenging--the decision on whether and how to treat is based on many disease and patient factors. Here, we review the major treatment options, discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages, and provide a general approach to management of patients with early-stage prostate cancer.

Pathologic effects of neoadjuvant cyproterone acetate on nonneoplastic prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma: a detailed analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens from a randomized trial

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT; androgen ablation) is used prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) in an attempt to pathologically "downstage" prostatic adenocarcinoma and ultimately to improve disease-free survival. This study describes the pathologic effects of NHT with the antiandrogen cyproterone acetate, 300 mg/day for 12 weeks, on the RP specimens from men with clinically localized (stage T1 or T2) prostatic adenocarcinoma. There were 101 men in the pretreatment group (CPA) and 91 men in a control group who were treated with surgery alone. The prevalence and extent of morphologic effects were recorded for the nonneoplastic prostate, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive adenocarcinoma. The commonest effects on the nonneoplastic prostate were atrophy and basal cell hyperplasia and prominence. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was more commonly identified in the surgery alone group than the CPA group (p <0.01). In the CPA group, flat and low tufted patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia predominated. Following NHT, the adenocarcinoma showed characteristic morphologic alterations, including reduction in cytoplasmic quantity, cytoplasmic vacuolation, nuclear pyknosis, reduced gland diameter, and mucinous breakdown. In many cases there was prominence of collagenous stroma, obscuring malignant glands. Compared with the surgery alone group, the CPA group RP specimens had a significantly lower mean specimen weight (40.3 g vs 46.5 g, p = 0.025) and less tumor extent by several measures. Organ-confined tumor (stage pT2, margin negative) was found in 41.6% of the CPA group compared with 19.8% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.0017). The overall rate of margin positivity was lower in the CPA group (27.7% vs 64.8%, p = 0.001). We consider that the difference in margin positivity is the result of tumor shrinkage with a decreased likelihood of sampling in routine sections. There was no significant difference in the rate of extraprostatic extension between the two groups. There was elevation of the Gleason score in the RP specimens versus baseline biopsy in 60% of the CPA group compared with 33% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.02). The higher rate of elevation in the CPA group largely resulted from an increase in primary or secondary Gleason score 5 tumor, a morphologic artifact introduced by NHT. Because of this, we recommend not giving a Gleason grade to RP specimens following NHT. Monotherapy with CPA has similar pathologic effects on benign and malignant prostate tissue as does dual agent androgen blockade. Prolonged follow-up of these patients is required to determine if NHT with CPA leads to improved disease-free survival.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIMS

To compare the pathological stage and surgical margin status in patients undergoing either immediate radical prostatectomy or 12 and 24 weeks of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (NHT) in a prospective, randomised study.

METHODS

Whole mount sections of 393 radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated: 128 patients had immediate surgery, 143 were treated for 12 weeks and 122 for 24 weeks with complete androgen blockade.

RESULTS

Histopathology revealed organ confined tumours in 40.4% of patients with clinical stage B disease in the immediate surgery group, whereas 12 and 24 weeks of NHT increased the number of organ confined tumours to 54.6% and 64.8%, respectively. Among patients with clinical stage C tumours, pathological staging found organ confined disease in 10.4%, 31.4%, and 61.2% in the immediate surgery, 12 weeks of NHT, and 24 weeks of NHT groups, respectively. Preoperative NHT caused a significant decrease in positive margins both in patients with clinical stage B and C disease. The extent of margin involvement was not influenced by preoperative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant androgenic suppression is effective in reducing both the pathological stage and the positive margin rate in patients with stage B and C prostatic cancer undergoing radical surgery. Some beneficial effects are evident in those patients treated for 24 weeks, and it is reasonable to assume that the optimal duration of NHT is longer than three months.

Neuroendocrine differentiation is not prognostic of failure after radical prostatectomy but correlates with tumor volume

OBJECTIVES

To study neuroendocrine (NE) tumor cell differentiation in prostate cancer in relation to failure after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Radical prostatectomy specimens from 103 of 111 patients randomized to 3-month neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone-analogue treatment (neoadjuvant group) or to surgery alone (control group) were available for analysis. Immunohistochemistry using antibodies to chromogranin A (CGA) enabled detection of tumor cells with NE differentiation. NE differentiation was scored as NE-negative (0 to 1+) or NE-positive (2 to 3+). The number of CGA-positive cells/cm(2) tumor area on the slides was assessed in a separate analysis. The patients were followed up for 39 months after surgery, and a prostate-specific antigen value of 0.5 ng/mL or greater in two consecutive blood samples was considered biochemical failure.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis stratified for neoadjuvant hormonal treatment showed the failure rate to be significantly greater among those with NE-positive tumors than among those with NE-negative tumors. However, the number of CGA-positive cells/cm(2) was not a variable of prognostic significance. Instead, both NE differentiation and the CGA-positive cell count correlated with the tumor area on the slides (P = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed the tumor area on the slide (P <0.0001) and positive surgical margins (P = 0.03) to be the only significant predictors of biochemical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The extension of NE differentiation in prostate cancer correlates with tumor volume and is not an independent prognostic factor of failure after radical prostatectomy.

Adjuvant chemo-/hormonal therapy trials for locally advanced prostate cancer

Patients with clinical or pathologic locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) are at risk for systemic and local disease progression or relapse. Pre- and post-therapy predictors of risk include prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, clinical and pathologic stage, Gleason's score (GS) of the biopsy and prostatectomy specimens, positive margins, and post-therapy PSA kinetics. Combined modality trials have been done predominantly in LAPC patients treated with radiation. The data indicate a local control and disease-free survival advantage to the use of androgen deprivation. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with radical prostatectomy (RP) has no proven role thus far; however, recent data on adjuvant hormonal therapy in patients with pathologic D1 disease treated with radical prostatectomy suggest a potential benefit. Chemotherapy trials are still in their infancy but present exciting opportunities for future research. The heterogeneity in the hormone responsiveness of prostate cancer, the availability of several active chemotherapy combinations, and the refinement in risk prediction have stimulated a series of adjuvant therapy trials which constitute the subject of this discussion. Emphasis on enrollment in clinical trials is thus imperative in LAPC.

Regressive changes and neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer after neoadjuvant hormonal treatment

BACKGROUND

We studied the extent of neuroendocrine (NE) tumor cell differentiation and its relation to regressive changes in prostate cancer after 3-month hormonal treatment.

METHODS

Radical prostatectomy specimens from 103 patients, randomized to 3-month neoadjuvant LH-RH-analogue treatment (neoadjuvant group) or to surgery alone (control group), were available for analysis. The effects of hormonal treatment in terms of positive surgical margins, the degree of histopathological changes, and tumor cell proliferation were evaluated in relation to NE-differentiation assessed with antibodies against chromogranin A (CGA).

RESULTS

Both the number of CGA-positive cells/cm(2) (P < 0.003) and the proportion of NE-positive tumors (P = 0.07) were greater in the neoadjuvant group than in the control group. No correlation existed between NE-differentiation and the effects of the neoadjuvant hormonal treatment; nor did NE-differentiation correlate to the decrease in serum PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer increases after 3 months of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment but does not correlate to the effects of hormonal treatment.

Tumor cell proliferation in prostate cancer after 3 months of neoadjuvant LHRH analogue treatment is a prognostic marker of recurrence after radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate tumor cell proliferation in relation to histopathologic regressive changes and failure after radical prostatectomy after a 3-month course of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue treatment.

METHODS

We evaluated slides from 103 radical prostatectomy specimens of the 111 patients participating in a randomized trial of a 3-month course of neoadjuvant LHRH analogue treatment before radical retropubic prostatectomy (n = 50) versus surgery alone (n = 53). The histopathologic regressive changes in the specimens were scored by two pathologists. Sections were stained with the anti-Ki-67 monoclonal antibody MIB-1. The proliferation index (PI) was defined as the proportion of Ki-67-positive cells in a random cell count. The patients were followed up until treatment failure or for a mean of 39 months among those without failure.

RESULTS

In the neoadjuvant group, increasing histopathologic regressive changes correlated with a decrease in capsular penetration, positive surgical margins, and tumor cell proliferation but did not correlate with Gleason score in biopsies. Treatment failure was not related to the histopathologic regressive changes. In the neoadjuvant treatment group, progression-free survival was longer in the subgroup of patients with tumors with a PI less than 1.2% compared with those with tumors with a PI greater than 1.2% (P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis of PI and histopathologic and clinical features showed the PI (P = 0.002) and the pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level (P = 0.003) to be significant prognostic markers of failure in the neoadjuvant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor cell proliferation after 3 months of neoadjuvant hormonal treatment is a prognostic marker of failure after radical prostatectomy without correlation to Gleason score or the histopathologic regressive changes resulting from hormonal treatment.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in carcinoma of the prostate

The rising incidence of and mortality from prostate cancer has generated great interest in improving the results of current methods of treatment. It is well-established that large tumour volumes and positive surgical margins are correlated with higher rates of local failure and distant metastasis. Significant decreases in both tumour volume and the rates of positive surgical margins are seen with NHT. Follow-up data from one randomized trial of hormonal therapy before RT have shown significantly improved disease-free survival, but so far there has been no benefit in overall survival. However, the addition of adjuvant hormonal therapy has been reported to improve survival. The results suggest that neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonal therapy may be a viable option in men with locally advanced prostate cancer in whom cure is probably impossible, but disease progression can potentially be slowed. What remains to be determined is whether hormonal therapy alone can produce the same results. For younger men with clinically localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy is increasingly the treatment of choice. Prospective randomized trials of NHT have produced impressive statistics for decreasing the incidence of positive surgical margins, but the potential to down-stage tumours remains controversial. Follow-up serum PSA measurements have thus far shown no benefit from neoadjuvant therapy. The possibility that patients who fail biochemically, whether they are from the pretreated or control group, may simply represent a subgroup with aggressive tumours that may not respond to androgen withdrawal, has yet to be proved. As more follow-up data are analysed within the next several years, there must be a clear survival advantage if NHT is to be offered as a treatment option. Despite the potential of neoadjuvant therapy, the use of androgen withdrawal before definitive surgical treatment should be limited to clinical trials until a clearer picture emerges. Some may argue that although there is no evidence of a true advantage for NHT, neither is there evidence of harm. However, it must be recognized that androgen withdrawal therapy has side-effects and adds significantly to the overall cost of treatment. Furthermore, NHT delays definitive treatment; clearly, this can be a source of anxiety for the patient and the impact on survival is unknown. Currently, the rates of pathologically organ-confined disease are high in some subsets of patients (e.g. low-stage, low-grade and low PSA) so that NHT is unlikely to have great additional benefit. Although the influence of hormones on prostate growth has been known for many decades, we are only now elucidating the biological mechanisms of hormonal therapy. Although androgen ablation therapy has been used in men with metastatic prostate cancer for more than 50 years, further research at the cellular and molecular level is essential if we are to refine treatment modalities for both localized and advanced disease. Furthermore, until we have more follow-up data from randomized clinical trials of NHT, it cannot be considered part of the standard treatment for carcinoma of the prostate. There are still too many unknown factors; only time will tell if the initial promise of NHT will be fulfilled.

Hormonal treatment before radical prostatectomy: a 3-year followup

PURPOSE

Hormonal treatment administered before radical prostatectomy has been shown to decrease the rate of positive surgical margins. We determine whether preoperative hormonal treatment has any impact on the subsequent failure rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 122 patients with stages T1bNxM0 to T3aNxM0, grades 1 to 3 prostate cancer, including 64 randomly assigned to immediate radical retropubic prostatectomy and 58 randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy preceded by 3 months of pretreatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. We performed intention to treat analysis on the data with failure defined as lymph node involvement, serum prostate specific antigen greater than 0.5 ng./ml., or the need for postoperative hormonal or radiation adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

The positive margin rate was 23.6 versus 45.5% in the pretreatment plus prostatectomy versus prostatectomy only groups (p = 0.016). There were 20 failures (34.5%) in the pretreatment plus prostatectomy subgroup and 26 (40.6%) in the prostatectomy only group (p = 0.48). A negative surgical margin was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression than a positive surgical margin (20.8 versus 50.0%, p = 0.0016), and progression was delayed by approximately 1 year after hormonal pretreatment. However, at a median followup of 38 months there was no difference in progression-free survival (p = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Although hormonal pretreatment significantly decreased the positive margin rate, it did not result in any difference in progression-free survival when followup exceeded 3 years. Thus, our current results do not support the routine administration of hormonal treatment before radical prostatectomy.