International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

Choline-PET in prostate cancer management: The point of view of the radiation oncologist.

Among PET radiotracers, FDG seems to be quite accepted as an accurate oncology diagnostic tool, frequently helpful also in the evaluation of treatment response and in radiation therapy treatment planning for several cancer sites. To the contrary, the reliability of Choline as a tracer for prostate cancer (PC) still remains an object of debate for clinicians, including radiation oncologists. This review focuses on the available data about the potential impact of Choline-PET in the daily clinical practice of radiation oncologists managing PC patients. In summary, routine Choline-PET is not indicated for initial local T staging, but it seems better than conventional imaging for nodal staging and for all patients with suspected metastases. In these settings, Choline-PET showed the potential to change patient management. A critical limit remains spatial resolution, limiting the accuracy and reliability for small lesions. After a PSA rise, the problem of the trigger PSA value remains crucial. Indeed, the overall detection rate of Choline-PET is significantly increased when the trigger PSA, or the doubling time, increases, but higher PSA levels are often a sign of metastatic spread, a contraindication for potentially curable local treatments such as radiation therapy. Even if several published data seem to be promising, the current role of PET in treatment planning in PC patients to be irradiated still remains under investigation. Based on available literature data, all these issues are addressed and discussed in this review.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): a randomized, multicenter, phase II trial SAKK 41/07.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, phase II, multicenter study to evaluate the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAb panitumumab (P) in combination with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with standard-dose capecitabine as neoadjuvant treatment for wild-type KRAS locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with wild-type KRAS, T3-4 and/or N+ LARC were randomly assigned to receive CRT with or without P (6 mg/kg). The primary end-point was pathological near-complete or complete tumor response (pNC/CR), defined as grade 3 (pNCR) or 4 (pCR) histological regression by Dworak classification (DC). RESULTS: Forty of 68 patients were randomly assigned to P + CRT and 28 to CRT. pNC/CR was achieved in 21 patients (53%) treated with P + CRT [95% confidence interval (CI) 36%-69%] versus 9 patients (32%) treated with CRT alone (95% CI: 16%-52%). pCR was achieved in 4 (10%) and 5 (18%) patients, and pNCR in 17 (43%) and 4 (14%) patients. In immunohistochemical analysis, most DC 3 cells were not apoptotic. The most common grade ≥3 toxic effects in the P + CRT/CRT arm were diarrhea (10%/6%) and anastomotic leakage (15%/4%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab to neoadjuvant CRT in patients with KRAS wild-type LARC resulted in a high pNC/CR rate, mostly grade 3 DC. The results of both treatment arms exceeded prespecified thresholds. The addition of panitumumab increased toxicity.