[Approach to prostate cancer in men older than 75 years: active or passive?]

Based on the exponential aging of the population and the increasing life expectancy in industrialized western countries, prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is becoming a disease of increasing significance. Consensus exists that men over the age of 75 years should not be screened for PCa; however, higher age as a single parameter should not exclude men from being diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated accordingly. It is well-known that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are frequent in this age group. Competing mortality risks of men older than 75 years may supersede the risk of dying from PCa several fold. Both the treating physician and the patient himself should therefore balance the possible risks and benefits of diagnosing and treating prostate cancer concerning the impact on quality of life. This is of special importance when taking into account that the complication rates of curative treatment modalities are higher in older patients than in younger men and that hormonal treatment might have negative effects especially in older men.Age, existing comorbidities, cognitive and physical status in combination with specific tumor parameters are useful tools for an individualized treatment.Therapy should be considered for healthy, active men aged 75 years or older who present with high-risk PCa and/or with a PSA doubling time <12 months. Elderly men who are unfit or have low to intermediate risk PCa will most likely not benefit from treatment.

Impact of age and comorbidities on long-term survival of patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional competing-risks analysis

Survival after surgical treatment using competing-risk analysis has been previously examined in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). However, the combined effect of age and comorbidities has not been assessed in patients with high-risk PCa who might have heterogeneous rates of competing mortality despite the presence of aggressive disease.

Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy followed by adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with clinical high risk prostate cancer and pT3 surgical margin positive disease

Patients with high risk prostate cancer with pT3 tumor and positive surgical margins have a high risk of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Predictors of cancer related death in this patient group are necessary.

The role of adjuvant hormonal treatment after surgery for localized high-risk prostate cancer: results of a matched multiinstitutional analysis

Introduction. To assess the role of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in high-risk prostate cancer patients (PCa) after surgery. Materials and Methods. The analysis case matched 172 high-risk PCa patients with positive section margins or non-organ confined disease and negative lymph nodes to receive adjuvant ADT (group 1, n = 86) or no adjuvant ADT (group 2, n = 86). Results. Only 11.6% of the patients died, 2.3% PCa related. Estimated 5-10-year clinical progression-free survival was 96.9% (94.3%) for group 1 and 73.7% (67.0%) for group 2, respectively. Subgroup analysis identified men with T2/T3a tumors at low-risk and T3b margins positive disease at higher risk for progression. Conclusion. Patients with T2/T3a tumors are at low-risk for metastatic disease and cancer-related death and do not need adjuvant ADT. We identified men with T3b margin positive disease at highest risk for clinical progression. These patients benefit from immediate adjuvant ADT.

Radical prostatectomy in very high-risk localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes and outcome predictors

The objective of this study was to present the long-term outcomes and determine outcome predictors in very high-risk (cT3b-T4) prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

Debulking surgery in the setting of very high-risk prostate cancer scenarios

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Nowadays radical prostatectomy (RP) is considered an effective treatment in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and the indications for a surgical approach are expanding, even in cases of very high PSA or node-positive disease. We explored the outcomes of debulking surgery in the setting of these very high-risk PCa patients, in order to assess its feasibility. This review confirms the important role achieved by surgery in the complex setting of patients with very high-risk PCA. Excellent survival rates have been reported, even when PSA exceeds 100 ng/mL. The completion of RP with lymphadenectomy might give a survival benefit in patients who were found intraoperatively to be node-positive. Furthermore, salvage RP confirmed to be the most effective treatment option after RT failure. On the contrary, up-to-date surgery of isolated nodal recurrences has shown only little benefit. Finally, there is no evidence supporting the efficacy of debulking surgery in metastatic or in hormone-refractory tumours. An accurate selection of the patient is essential.

[How should hormone therapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer be continued?]

After an average of 18-36 months under androgen suppression therapy by surgical castration, LHRH, and steroidal or non-steroidal antiandrogens, almost all patients with metastatic prostate cancer show PSA progression as a sign of androgen-independent but still androgen-sensitive tumor growth. Our understanding and the treatment of such castration-resistant prostate cancer has changed markedly. The introduction of new drugs like abiraterone and MDV3100 has shown that prostate cancer progression even in the"hormone-refractory" stage is driven by androgen receptor signaling. Based on this information the question of whether androgen deprivation therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer should be continued or not is still of relevance. This review gives a critical overview of the literature and current guideline recommendations.

Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer

The current role of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk disease remains controversial.

Is Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Necessary in Patients with a Serum PSA<10ng/ml Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE: Controversy persists concerning the role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with preoperative PSA values <10ng/ml undergoing treatment for prostate cancer with a curative intent. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of lymph node metastasis in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and a serum PSA<10ng/ml, without neoadjuvant hormonal or radiotherapy, with negative staging examinations who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy with bilateral extended PLND and with >/=10 lymph nodes detected by the pathologist in the surgical specimen, were included in the study. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients with a median serum PSA of 6.7ng/ml (range 0.4-9.98) and a median age of 62 years (range 44-76) were evaluated. A median of 20 (range 10-72) nodes were removed per patient. Positive nodes were found in 26 of 231 patients (11%), the majority of which (81%) had a Gleason score >/=7 in the surgical specimen. Of the patients with a Gleason score >/=7 in the prostatectomy specimen 25% had positive nodes, whereas only 3% with a Gleason score prostate cancer, a serum PSA<10ng/ml and a Gleason score >/=7 in the prostatectomy specimen was 25% after extended PLND. It seems that in this patient group extended PLND, including removal of nodes along the internal iliac vessels, is warranted.

Immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for patients with prostate cancer not suitable for local treatment with curative intent: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 30891

PURPOSE: This study (EORTC 30891) attempted to demonstrate equivalent overall survival in patients with localized prostate cancer not suitable for local curative treatment treated with immediate or deferred androgen ablation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 985 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer T0-4 N0-2 M0 to receive androgen deprivation either immediately (n = 493) or on symptomatic disease progression or occurrence of serious complications (n = 492). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups. Median age was 73 years (range, 52 to 81). At a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 541 of 985 patients had died, mostly of prostate cancer (n = 193) or cardiovascular disease (n = 185). The overall survival hazard ratio was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.48; noninferiority P > .1) favoring immediate treatment, seemingly due to fewer deaths of nonprostatic cancer causes (P = .06). The time from randomization to progression of hormone refractory disease did not differ significantly, nor did prostate-cancer specific survival. The median time to the start of deferred treatment after study entry was 7 years. In this group 126 patients (25.6%) died without ever needing treatment (44% of the deaths in this arm). CONCLUSION: Immediate androgen deprivation resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in overall survival but no significant difference in prostate cancer mortality or symptom-free survival. This must be weighed on an individual basis against the adverse effects of life-long androgen deprivation, which may be avoided in a substantial number of patients with a deferred treatment policy.

[Radical prostatectomy in the treatment of organ confined prostate cancer]

Open radical prostatectomy represents one possible therapeutic option for treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer Patient selection and the surgical management have undergone important changes during the last years, resulting in lower morbidity and probably in a better tumor control due to a better standardisation of the surgical technique. Long-term functional outcome regarding continence and potency are of increasing importance and influence mainly the quality of life in these patients. Open radical retropubic prostatectomy remains the gold standard in patients with localized prostate cancer, due to its low morbidity and excellent oncological and functional results. The value of laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy is still discussed controversially. Due to the relative high morbidity during the so-called learning curve and the lack of long-term oncological and functional results, these techniques seem to show less favourable results.