Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

What is the Need for Prostatic Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer Management?

Discriminating patients with a low risk of progression from those with lethal prostate cancer is one of the main challenges in prostate cancer management. Indeed, such discrimination is essential if we aim to avoid overtreatment in men with indolent disease and to improve survival in those men with lethal disease. We are reporting on the current literature on such prognostic tools that are now available, their clinical role and their limitations in individualizing care. There is an urgent need to incorporate such genomic tools into new platform-based clinical trial structures to further develop and validate prognostic and predictive biomarkers and provide prostate cancer patients with an effective and cost-efficient access to new drugs in the setting of personalized treatment.

Guidance of treatment decisions in risk-adapted primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is considered to be the most precise noninvasive staging modality for localized prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) dynamic sequences have recently been shown to further increase the accuracy of staging relative to morphological imaging alone. Correct radiological staging, particularly the detection of extraprostatic disease extension, is of paramount importance for target volume definition and dose prescription in highly-conformal curative radiotherapy (RT); in addition, it may affect the risk-adapted duration of additional antihormonal therapy. The purpose of our study was to analyze the impact of mpMRI-based tumor staging in patients undergoing primary RT for prostate cancer. METHODS A total of 122 patients admitted for primary RT for prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed regarding initial clinical and computed tomography-based staging in comparison with mpMRI staging. Both tumor stage shifts and overall risk group shifts, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and the Gleason score, were assessed. Potential risk factors for upstaging were tested in a multivariate analysis. Finally, the impact of mpMRI-based staging shift on prostate RT and antihormonal therapy was evaluated. RESULTS Overall, tumor stage shift occurred in 55.7% of patients after mpMRI. Upstaging was most prominent in patients showing high-risk serum PSA levels (73%), but was also substantial in patients presenting with low-risk PSA levels (50%) and low-risk Gleason scores (45.2%). Risk group changes occurred in 28.7% of the patients with consequent treatment adaptations regarding target volume delineation and duration of androgen deprivation therapy. High PSA levels were found to be a significant risk factor for tumor upstaging and newly diagnosed seminal vesicle infiltration assessed using mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that mpMRI of the prostate leads to substantial tumor upstaging, and can considerably affect treatment decisions in all patient groups undergoing risk-adapted curative RT for prostate cancer.

Consensus and differences in primary radiotherapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer in Switzerland: A survey on patterns of practice

INTRODUCTION External beam radiotherapy (EBRT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is an established treatment option for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Despite high-level evidence from several randomized trials, risk group stratification and treatment recommendations vary due to contradictory or inconclusive data, particularly with regard to EBRT dose prescription and ADT duration. Our aim was to investigate current patterns of practice in primary EBRT for prostate cancer in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatment recommendations on EBRT and ADT for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were collected from 23 Swiss radiation oncology centers. Written recommendations were converted into center-specific decision trees, and analyzed for consensus and differences using a dedicated software tool. Additionally, specific radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques from the participating centers were assessed. RESULTS The most commonly prescribed radiation dose was 78 Gy (range 70-80 Gy) across all risk groups. ADT was recommended for intermediate-risk patients for 6 months in over 80 % of the centers, and for high-risk patients for 2 or 3 years in over 90 % of centers. For recommendations on combined EBRT and ADT treatment, consensus levels did not exceed 39 % in any clinical scenario. Arc-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is implemented for routine prostate cancer radiotherapy by 96 % of the centers. CONCLUSION Among Swiss radiation oncology centers, considerable ranges of radiotherapy dose and ADT duration are routinely offered for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. In the vast majority of cases, doses and durations are within the range of those described in current evidence-based guidelines.

Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer

Herein we provide a detailed molecular analysis of the spatial heterogeneity of clinically localized, multifocal prostate cancer to delineate new oncogenes or tumor suppressors. We initially determined the copy number aberration (CNA) profiles of 74 patients with index tumors of Gleason score 7. Of these, 5 patients were subjected to whole-genome sequencing using DNA quantities achievable in diagnostic biopsies, with detailed spatial sampling of 23 distinct tumor regions to assess intraprostatic heterogeneity in focal genomics. Multifocal tumors are highly heterogeneous for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), CNAs and genomic rearrangements. We identified and validated a new recurrent amplification of MYCL, which is associated with TP53 deletion and unique profiles of DNA damage and transcriptional dysregulation. Moreover, we demonstrate divergent tumor evolution in multifocal cancer and, in some cases, tumors of independent clonal origin. These data represent the first systematic relation of intraprostatic genomic heterogeneity to predicted clinical outcome and inform the development of novel biomarkers that reflect individual prognosis.

Clinical Perspectives from Randomized Phase 3 Trials on Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database

AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.

A Specific Mapping Study Using Fluorescence Sentinel Lymph Node Detection in Patients with Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer Undergoing Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection.

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection techniques have the potential to change the standard of surgical care for patients with prostate cancer. We performed a lymphatic mapping study and determined the value of fluorescence SLN detection with indocyanine green (ICG) for the detection of lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. A total of 42 patients received systematic or specific ICG injections into the prostate base, the midportion, the apex, the left lobe, or the right lobe. We found (1) that external and internal iliac regions encompass the majority of SLNs, (2) that common iliac regions contain up to 22% of all SLNs, (3) that a prostatic lobe can drain into the contralateral group of pelvic lymph nodes, and (4) that the fossa of Marcille also receives significant drainage. Among the 12 patients who received systematic ICG injections, 5 (42%) had a total of 29 lymph node metastases. Of these, 16 nodes were ICG positive, yielding 55% sensitivity. The complex drainage pattern of the prostate and the low sensitivity of ICG for the detection of lymph node metastases reported in our study highlight the difficulties related to the implementation of SNL techniques in prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY There is controversy about how extensive lymph node dissection (LND) should be during prostatectomy. We investigated the lymphatic drainage of the prostate and whether sentinel node fluorescence techniques would be useful to detect node metastases. We found that the drainage pattern is complex and that the sentinel node technique is not able to replace extended pelvic LND.

New Clinical Indications for (18)F/(11)C-choline, New Tracers for Positron Emission Tomography and a Promising Hybrid Device for Prostate Cancer Staging: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT Radiolabelled choline positron emission tomography has changed the management of prostate cancer patients. However, new emerging radiopharmaceutical agents, like radiolabelled prostate specific membrane antigen, and new promising hybrid imaging will begin new challenges in the diagnostic field. OBJECTIVE The continuous evolution in nuclear medicine has led to the improvement in the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (PCa), particularly distant metastases. New horizons have been opened for radiolabelled choline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) as a guide for salvage therapy or for the assessment of systemic therapies. In addition, new tracers and imaging tools have been recently tested, providing important information for the management of PCa patients. Herein we discuss: (1) the available evidence in literature on radiolabelled choline PET and their recent indications, (2) the role of alternative radiopharmaceutical agents, and (3) the advantages of a recent hybrid imaging device (PET/magnetic resonance imaging) in PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Data from recently published (2010-2015), original articles concerning the role of choline PET/CT, new emerging radiotracers, and a new imaging device are analysed. This review is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In the restaging phase, the detection rate of choline PET varies between 4% and 97%, mainly depending on the site of recurrence and prostate-specific antigen levels. Both 68gallium (68Ga)-prostate specific membrane antigen and 18F-fluciclovine are shown to be more accurate in the detection of recurrent disease as compared with radiolabelled choline PET/CT. Particularly, Ga68-PSMA has a detection rate of 50% and 68%, respectively for prostate-specific antigen levels < 0.5ng/ml and 0.5-2ng/ml. Moreover, 68Ga- PSMA PET/magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a particularly higher accuracy in detecting PCa than PET/CT. New tracers, such as radiolabelled bombesin or urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor, are promising, but few data in clinical practice are available today. CONCLUSIONS Some limitations emerge from the published papers, both for radiolabelled choline PET/CT and also for new radiopharmaceutical agents. Efforts are still needed to enhance the impact of published data in the world of oncology, in particular when new radiopharmaceuticals are introduced into the clinical arena. PATIENT SUMMARY In the present review, the authors summarise the last evidences in clinical practice for the assessment of prostate cancer, by using nuclear medicine modalities, like positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging.

Biology of Bone Metastases in Prostate Cancer

Advanced-stage prostate cancer (PCa) patients are often diagnosed with bone metastases. Bone metastases remain incurable and therapies are palliative. PCa cells prevalently cause osteoblastic lesions, characterized by an excess of bone formation. The prevailing concept indicates that PCa cancer cell secrete an excess of paracrine factors stimulating osteoblasts directly or indirectly, thereby leading to an excess of bone formation. The exact mechanisms by which bone formation stimulates PCa cell growth are mostly elusive. In this review, the mechanisms of PCa cancer cell osteotropism, the cancer cell-induced response within the bone marrow/bone stroma, and therapeutic stromal targets will be summarized.

Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics.

Localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease, which presents with variability in patient outcomes within the same risk stratification (low, intermediate or high) and even within the same Gleason scores. Genomic tools have been developed with the purpose of stratifying patients affected by this disease to help physicians personalize therapies and follow-up schemes. This review focuses on these tissue-based tools. At present, four genomic tools are commercially available: Decipher™, Oncotype DX®, Prolaris® and ProMark®. Decipher™ is a tool based on 22 genes and evaluates the risk of adverse outcomes (metastasis) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Oncotype DX® is based on 17 genes and focuses on the ability to predict outcomes (adverse pathology) in very low-low and low-intermediate PCa patients, while Prolaris® is built on a panel of 46 genes and is validated to evaluate outcomes for patients at low risk as well as patients who are affected by high risk PCa and post-RP. Finally, ProMark® is based on a multiplexed proteomics assay and predicts PCa aggressiveness in patients found with similar features to Oncotype DX®. These biomarkers can be helpful for post-biopsy decision-making in low risk patients and post-radical prostatectomy in selected risk groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of these new technologies, the financial ramifications and how they should be utilized in clinics.

Non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a call for improved guidance on clinical management.

BACKGROUND Guidelines on the clinical management of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) generally focus on the need to continue androgen deprivation therapy and enrol patients into clinical trials of investigational agents. This guidance reflects the lack of clinical trial data with established agents in the nmCRPC patient population and the need for trials of new agents. AIM To review the evidence base and consider ways of improving the management of nmCRPC. CONCLUSION Upon the development of castrate resistance, it is essential to rule out the presence of metastases or micrometastases by optimising the use of bone scans and possibly newer procedures and techniques. When nmCRPC is established, management decisions should be individualised according to risk, but risk stratification in this diverse population is poorly defined. Currently, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSA doubling time remain the best method of assessing the risk of progression and response to treatment in nmCRPC. However, optimising imaging protocols can also help assess the changing metastatic burden in patients with CRPC. Clinical trials of novel agents in nmCRPC are limited and have problems with enrolment, and therefore, improved risk stratification and imaging may be crucial to the improved management. The statements presented in this paper, reflecting the views of the authors, provide a discussion of the most recent evidence in nmCRPC and provide some advice on how to ensure these patients receive the best management available. However, there is an urgent need for more data on the management of nmCRPC.

Older patients with low Charlson score and high-risk prostate cancer benefit from radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION The aim of the study was to identify the appropriate level of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in older patients (>70 years) with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) to achieve survival benefit following radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 1008 older patients (>70 years) who underwent RP with pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer (preoperative prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL or clinical stage ≥T2c or Gleason ≥8) from 14 tertiary institutions between 1988 and 2014. The study population was further grouped into CCI < 2 and ≥2 for analysis. Survival rate for each group was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method and competitive risk Fine-Gray regression to estimate the best explanatory multivariable model. Area under the curve (AUC) and Akaike information criterion were used to identify ideal 'Cut off' for CCI. RESULTS The clinical and cancer characteristics were similar between the two groups. Comparison of the survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier curve between two groups for non-cancer death and survival estimations for 5 and 10 years shows significant worst outcomes for patients with CCI ≥ 2. In multivariate model to decide the appropriate CCI cut-off point, we found CCI 2 has better AUC and p value in log rank test. CONCLUSION Older patients with fewer comorbidities harboring high-risk PCa appears to benefit from RP. Sicker patients are more likely to die due to non-prostate cancer-related causes and are less likely to benefit from RP.