Whole-body 3D T1-weighted MR imaging in patients with prostate cancer: feasibility and evaluation in screening for metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: To develop and assess the diagnostic performance of a three-dimensional (3D) whole-body T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging pulse sequence at 3.0 T for bone and node staging in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective study was approved by the institutional ethics committee; informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty patients with prostate cancer at high risk for metastases underwent whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging in addition to the routine MR imaging protocol for node and/or bone metastasis screening, which included coronal two-dimensional (2D) whole-body T1-weighted MR imaging, sagittal proton-density fat-saturated (PDFS) imaging of the spine, and whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Two observers read the 2D and 3D images separately in a blinded manner for bone and node screening. Images were read in random order. The consensus review of MR images and the findings at prospective clinical and MR imaging follow-up at 6 months were used as the standard of reference. The interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance of each sequence were assessed on per-patient and per-lesion bases. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were significantly higher with whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging than with whole-body 2D T1-weighted imaging regardless of the reference region (bone or fat) and lesion location (bone or node) (P < .003 for all). For node metastasis, diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was higher for whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging (per-patient analysis; observer 1: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging; observer 2: P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging), as was sensitivity (per-lesion analysis; observer 1: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging; observer 2: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging). CONCLUSION: Whole-body MR imaging is feasible with a 3D T1-weighted sequence and provides better SNR and CNR compared with 2D sequences, with a diagnostic performance that is as good or better for the detection of bone metastases and better for the detection of lymph node metastases.

Quels nouveaux médicaments a l'horizon pour te traitement du cancer avancé de la prostate [New drugs at the horizon for men with prostate cancer]

Despite major progress in the understanding of biological mechanisms underlying metastatic prostate cancer, the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer remains challenging. Several randomized controlled trials with promising or positive results are underway or just released. Here we discuss new treatments which might be used in clinic in the near future: hormonal treatments (Abiraterone and MDV3100), a new chemotherapy (Cabazitaxel), a cellular vaccine (Sipuleucel-T), anti-angiogenic drugs (Bevacizumab, Aflibercept), a new radioactive treatment (Alpharadin) and a new bone-protective agent (Deno-sumab).

External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study.

BACKGROUND: We did a randomised phase 3 trial assessing the benefit of addition of long-term androgen suppression with a luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist to external irradiation in patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk. In this report, we present the 10-year results. METHODS: For this open-label randomised trial, eligible patients were younger than 80 years and had newly diagnosed histologically proven T1-2 prostatic adenocarcinoma with WHO histological grade 3 or T3-4 prostatic adenocarcinoma of any histological grade, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Treatment allocation was open label and used a minimisation algorithm with institution, clinical stage of the disease, results of pelvic-lymph-node dissection, and irradiation fields extension as minimisation factors. Patients were irradiated externally, once a day, 5 days a week, for 7 weeks to a total dose of 50 Gy to the whole pelvis, with an additional 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The LHRH agonist, goserelin acetate (3·6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks), was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (50 mg orally three times a day) was given for 1 month starting a week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849082. FINDINGS: Between May 22, 1987, and Oct 31, 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in the analysis (208 radiotherapy alone, 207 combined treatment). Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·1-12·6). 10-year clinical disease-free survival was 22·7% (95% CI 16·3-29·7) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 47·7% (39·0-56·0) in the combined treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33-0·55, p<0·0001). 10-year overall survival was 39·8% (95% CI 31·9-47·5) in patients receiving radiotherapy alone and 58·1% (49·2-66·0) in those allocated combined treatment (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·45-0·80, p=0·0004), and 10-year prostate-cancer mortality was 30·4% (95% CI 23·2-37·5) and 10·3% (5·1-15·4), respectively (HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·24-0·60, p<0·0001). No significant difference in cardiovascular mortality was noted between treatment groups both in patients who had cardiovascular problems at study entry (eight of 53 patients in the combined treatment group had a cardiovascular-related cause of death vs 11 of 63 in the radiotherapy group; p=0·60) and in those who did not (14 of 154 vs six of 145; p=0·25). Two fractures were reported in patients allocated combined treatment. INTERPRETATION: In patients with prostate cancer with high metastatic risk, immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH agonist given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves 10-year disease-free and overall survival without increasing late cardiovascular toxicity.

Cetuximab In Combination With Docetaxel In Patients (Pts) With Metastatic Castration Resistant (Mcrpc) And Docetaxel-Refractory Prostate Cancer: Final Analysis Of The Multicenter Phase Ii Trial Sakk 08/07

There is no registered treatment (ttr) for pts with mCRPC who have progressive disease during or shortly after docetaxel (doc). EGFR overexpression increases in prostate cancer during the course of the disease. We investigated efficacy and safety of the combination of the monoclonal EGFR antibody cetuximab (cet) and doc in pts with mCRPC who are doc-refractory. Methods: Pts with mCRPC progressing during or < 90 days after at least 12 weeks of doc were included. Ttr consisted of the same doc regimen as prior to progression (35mg/m2 d1,8,15 q4w or 75mg/m2 q3w) in combination with cet (400mg/m2 d1, then 250mg/m2 weekly). Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks defined as absence of PSA progression or progression of metastases (mets). Secondary endpoints included toxicity, PFS at 24 weeks, PSA response, response of measureable disease and overall survival. 35 pts were needed in a Simon's two stage optimal design with a power of 90% and a significance level of 5% in order to test PFS rate at 12 weeks of £10% vs ?30%. Results: 35 evaluable pts were enrolled at 15 Swiss centers between 7/08 and 9/09. Median follow up was 14.8 months. Confirmed PFS at 12 weeks was 34% (95%CI 19-52%), PFS at 24 weeks was 20% and overall survival was 12.0 months (95%CI 7.1 -15.6). 20% (7/35) had a confirmed decline in PSA ? 50% and 31% (11/35) had a confirmed PSA decline ? 30%. Of pts with measurable disease (n=24) PR, SD and PD at week 12 was 4%, 54% and 25%, respectively (17% not evaluable). 3/9 (33%) pts with PDduring last doc ttr before inclusion reached the primary endpoint compared to 7/18 (39%) with PR or SD to last doc. 54% of evaluable pts experienced grade 3 and 6% grade 4 toxicity. Discussion: The result of the primary endpoint was promising in this first trial to test cet in combination with doc in pts with docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. Because this goal was achieved in such a highly pretreated pts population it appears that inhibition of the EGFR pathway may play a more important and persistent role in the treatment of prostate cancer than perceived so far. Further research is therefore warranted. Disclosure: R. Cathomas: - Membership on advisory board for sanofi aventis (suisse) and Merck. S. Gillessen: - Membership in advisory board for Sanofi Aventis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Transcription Factor NFATc2 Controls the Emergence of Colon Cancer Associated with IL-6-Dependent Colitis.

NFAT transcription factors control T-cell activation and function. Specifically, the transcription factor NFATc2 affects the regulation of cell differentiation and growth and plays a critical role in the development of colonic inflammation. Here, we used an experimental model of colitis-associated colorectal carcinoma to investigate the contribution of NFATc2 to the promotion of colonic tumors. Compared with wild-type animals that readily presented with multiple colon tumors, NFATc2-deficient mice were protected from tumor development. This observed decrease in colonic tumor progression was associated with reduced endoscopic inflammation, increased apoptosis of lamina propria T lymphocytes, and significantly reduced levels of the critical proinflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-21 and IL-6. Administration of hyper IL-6 abrogated protection from tumor progression in NFATc2-knockout mice and restored tumor incidence to control levels. Taken together, our findings highlight a pivotal role for NFATc2 in the establishment of inflammation-associated colorectal tumors mediated by control of IL-6 expression. Cancer Res; 72(17); 4340-50. ©2012 AACR.

Centre de la prostate: une approche multidisciplinaire pour une prise en charge globale du patient [Prostate cancer center: a multidisciplinary approach to accurately manage patients with prostate cancer]

The prostate cancer is a complex pathology involving oncological, functional and psychosocial items. The prostate's center of CHUV harmonize the know-how of urologists, oncologist, radiotherapists and clinical nurses to offer a global management to patients attempts by prostate cancer, from diagnosis to therapy and follow-up.

Predictors of the Indefinite Duration Anticoagulation Treatment Strategy In Patients with Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Background: In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), current consensus guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for an indefinite duration or until the cancer is resolved.Methods and results: Among 1'247 patients with acute VTE enrolled in the Swiss Venous Thromboembolism Registry (SWIVTER) from 18 hospitals, 315 (25%) had cancer of whom 179 (57%) had metastatic disease, 159 (50%) ongoing or recent chemotherapy, and 83 (26%) tumor surgery within 6 months. Patients with cancer were older (66±14 vs. 60±19 years, p<0.001), more often hospitalized at the time of VTE diagnosis (46% vs. 36%, p=0.001), immobile for >3 days (25% vs. 16%, p<0.001), and more often had thrombocytopenia (6% vs. 1%, p<0.001) than patients without cancer. The 30-day rate of VTE-related death or recurrent VTE was 9% in cancer patients vs. 4% in patients without cancer (p<0.001), and the rates of bleeding requiring medical attention were 5% in both groups (p=0.57). Cancer patients received indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment more often than patients without cancer (47% vs. 19%, p<0.001), and LMWH mono-therapy during the initial 3 months was prescribed to 45% vs. 8%, p<0.001, respectively. Among patients with cancer, prior VTE (OR 4.0, 95%CI 2.0-8.0), metastatic disease (OR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7-5.2), outpatient status at the time of VTE diagnosis (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.9-7.6), and inpatient treatment (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.1-9.2) were independently associated with the prescription of indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment.Conclusions: Less than half of the cancer patients with acute VTE received a prescription for indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Recurrent VTE, metastatic cancer, outpatient VTE diagnosis, and VTE requiring hospitalization were associated with an increased use of this strategy.

The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: The incidence of localised prostate cancer is increasing worldwide. In light of recent evidence, current, radical, whole-gland treatments for organ-confined disease have being questioned with respect to their side effects, cancer control, and cost. Focal therapy may be an effective alternative strategy. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the existing literature on baseline characteristics of the target population; preoperative evaluation to localise disease; and perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes following focal therapy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Review databases were searched from inception to 31 October 2012. In addition, registered but not yet published trials were retrieved. Studies evaluating tissue-preserving therapies in men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer in the primary or salvage setting were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 2350 cases were treated to date across 30 studies. Most studies were retrospective with variable standards of reporting, although there was an increasing number of prospective registered trials. Focal therapy was mainly delivered to men with low and intermediate disease, although some high-risk cases were treated that had known, unilateral, significant cancer. In most of the cases, biopsy findings were correlated to specific preoperative imaging, such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging or Doppler ultrasound to determine eligibility. Follow-up varied between 0 and 11.1 yr. In treatment-naïve prostates, pad-free continence ranged from 95% to 100%, erectile function ranged from 54% to 100%, and absence of clinically significant cancer ranged from 83% to 100%. In focal salvage cases for radiotherapy failure, the same outcomes were achieved in 87.2-100%, 29-40%, and 92% of cases, respectively. Biochemical disease-free survival was reported using a number of definitions that were not validated in the focal-therapy setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review highlights that, when focal therapy is delivered with intention to treat, the perioperative, functional, and disease control outcomes are encouraging within a short- to medium-term follow-up. Focal therapy is a strategy by which the overtreatment burden of the current prostate cancer pathway could be reduced, but robust comparative effectiveness studies are now required.

Health technology assessment in evolution - focal therapy in localised prostate cancer.

Focal therapy in prostate cancer aims to treat only the part of the gland harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the tissue. This approach may substantially reduce treatment-related toxicity without compromising disease control outcomes. Short- to medium-term functional and oncological results in prospective interventional studies are promising, but comparative effectiveness research against standard of care is required to incorporate focal therapy among standard options. In this review, we discuss the actual stage of assessment and results of sources of energy commonly used to deliver focal therapy. We also provide our viewpoint on how the field will evolve in the near future.

Combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer in the contemporary era.

Currently, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has a well-defined role when administered together with radiotherapy (RT): neo-adjuvant and concurrent combination for intermediate risk-disease and adjuvant therapy for high risk disease. Evidence of this association was generated by randomized trials designed and led approximately 30 years ago; thus the question which arises is how relevant and portable are these data in our current clinical practice? In the present review, we examine the pitfalls of these published randomized controlled trials, their relevance to present daily clinics, where high-dose external beam RT or brachytherapy is applied, as well as the adoption of ADT in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disorders.

First imaging results of an intraindividual comparison of (11)C-acetate and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer at early biochemical first or second relapse after prostatectomy or radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: (18)F-Fluorocholine (FCH) and (11)C-acetate (ACE) PET are widely used for detection of recurrent prostate cancer (PC). We present the first results of a comparative, prospective PET/CT study of both tracers evaluated in the same patients presenting with recurrence and low PSA to compare the diagnostic information provided by the two tracers. METHODS: The study group comprised 23 patients studied for a rising PSA level after radical prostatectomy (RP, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 3 ng/ml), curative radiotherapy (RT, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml) or RP and salvage RT (9 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml). Both FCH and ACE PET/CT scans were performed in a random sequence a median of 4 days (range 0 to 11 days) apart. FCH PET/CT was started at injection (307 ± 16 MBq) with a 10-min dynamic acquisition of the prostate bed, followed by a whole-body PET scan and late (45 min) imaging of the pelvis. ACE PET/CT was performed as a double whole-body PET scan starting 5 and 22 min after injection (994 ± 72 MBq), and a late view (45 min) of the prostate bed. PET/CT scans were blindly reviewed by two independent pairs of two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, discordant subgroup results being discussed to reach a consensus for positive, negative end equivocal results. RESULTS: PET results were concordant in 88 out of 92 local, regional and distant findings (Cohen's kappa 0.929). In particular, results were concordant in all patients concerning local status, bone metastases and distant findings. Lymph-node results were concordant in 19 patients and different in 4 patients. On a per-patient basis results were concordant in 22 of 23 patients (14 positive, 5 negative and 3 equivocal). In only one patient was ACE PET/CT positive for nodal metastases while FCH PET/CT was overall negative; interestingly, the ACE-positive and FCH-negative lymph nodes became positive in a second FCH PET/CT scan performed a few months later. CONCLUSION: Overall, ACE and FCH PET/CT showed excellent concordance, on both a per-lesion and a per-patient basis, suggesting that both tracers perform equally for recurrent prostate cancer staging.

Targeting Cancer Stem-like Cells as an Approach to Defeating Cellular Heterogeneity in Ewing Sarcoma.

Plasticity in cancer stem-like cells (CSC) may provide a key basis for cancer heterogeneity and therapeutic response. In this study, we assessed the effect of combining a drug that abrogates CSC properties with standard-of-care therapy in a Ewing sarcoma family tumor (ESFT). Emergence of CSC in this setting has been shown to arise from a defect in TARBP2-dependent microRNA maturation, which can be corrected by exposure to the fluoroquinolone enoxacin. In the present work, primary ESFT from four patients containing CD133(+) CSC subpopulations ranging from 3% to 17% of total tumor cells were subjected to treatment with enoxacin, doxorubicin, or both drugs. Primary ESFT CSC and bulk tumor cells displayed divergent responses to standard-of-care chemotherapy and enoxacin. Doxorubicin, which targets the tumor bulk, displayed toxicity toward primary adherent ESFT cells in culture but not to CSC-enriched ESFT spheres. Conversely, enoxacin, which enhances miRNA maturation by stimulating TARBP2 function, induced apoptosis but only in ESFT spheres. In combination, the two drugs markedly depleted CSCs and strongly reduced primary ESFTs in xenograft assays. Our results identify a potentially attractive therapeutic strategy for ESFT that combines mechanism-based targeting of CSC using a low-toxicity antibiotic with a standard-of-care cytotoxic drug, offering immediate applications for clinical evaluation.

The reasons for discrepancies in target volume delineation: a SASRO study on head-and-neck and prostate cancer

But : comprendre les raisons des divergences observées dans le tracé des volumes cibles entre radio-oncologues. Matériel et méthodes : 18 centres suisses de radio-oncologie ont été invités à tracer les volumes pour un cas de cancer de la prostate et pour un cas de cancer de la sphère ORL. Nous avons également envoyé un questionnaire pour évaluer d'une part les différences dans la définition- des volumes (GTV [ gross tumor volume= volume tumoral macroscopique ], CTV [clinical tumor volume= volume de la tumeur clinique, macroscopique et microscopique], PTV [planning target volume= volume cible pour la planification], et d'autre part des variations dans les marges appliquées et les ganglions considérés à risque. Pour chaque centre, on a calculé la corrélation entre les marges qui ont été dessinées et celles qui ont été annoncées. Nous avons inclus dans le questionnaire une série de questions non spécifiques pour évaluer les méthodes de planification utilisées dans les différents centres. Résultats : Dans les 2 situations cliniques, on a mis en évidence de relativement grandes différences tant au niveau des volumes dessinés par les différents centres que dans leur définition des volumes. La corrélation entre les marges dessinées et définies était assez correcte dans le cas de la prostate mais médiocre dans le cas ORL. Le questionnaire a révélé d'importantes différences dans les méthodes de planification utilisées par les centres. Conclusion : Ces grandes différences peuvent être expliquées par, (1) une connaissance/interprétation variable des définitions ICRU, (2) des appréciations différentes de l'extension tumorale microscopique potentielle, (3) des difficultés dans l'identification du GTV, (4) des différences de concept, et (5) des différences entre la théorie (par ex. la description des marges) et la pratiqué (par ex. les marges dessinées).