Very long-term survival patterns of young patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE In patients with a long life expectancy with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa), the chance to die from PCa is not negligible and may change significantly according to the time elapsed from surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term survival patterns in young patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for HRPCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS Within a multiinstitutional cohort, 600 young patients (≤59 years) treated with RP between 1987 and 2012 for HRPCa (defined as at least one of the following adverse characteristics: prostate specific antigen>20, cT3 or higher, biopsy Gleason sum 8-10) were identified. Smoothed cumulative incidence plot was performed to assess cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other cause mortality (OCM) rates at 10, 15, and 20 years after RP. The same analyses were performed to assess the 5-year probability of CSM and OCM in patients who survived 5, 10, and 15 years after RP. A multivariable competing risk regression model was fitted to identify predictors of CSM and OCM. RESULTS The 10-, 15- and 20-year CSM and OCM rates were 11.6% and 5.5% vs. 15.5% and 13.5% vs. 18.4% and 19.3%, respectively. The 5-year probability of CSM and OCM rates among patients who survived at 5, 10, and 15 years after RP, were 6.4% and 2.7% vs. 4.6% and 9.6% vs. 4.2% and 8.2%, respectively. Year of surgery, pathological stage and Gleason score, surgical margin status and lymph node invasion were the major determinants of CSM (all P≤0.03). Conversely, none of the covariates was significantly associated with OCM (all P≥ 0.09). CONCLUSIONS Very long-term cancer control in young high-risk patients after RP is highly satisfactory. The probability of dying from PCa in young patients is the leading cause of death during the first 10 years of survivorship after RP. Thereafter, mortality not related to PCa became the main cause of death. Consequently, surgery should be consider among young patients with high-risk disease and strict PCa follow-up should enforce during the first 10 years of survivorship after RP.

Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life After Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: First Results of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed. We performed a randomized phase III trial assessing dose intensification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BF but without evidence of macroscopic disease were randomly assigned to either 64 or 70 Gy. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy/rotational techniques were used. The primary end point was freedom from BF. Secondary end points were acute toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and PR25. RESULTS Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2011 and April 2014. Three patients withdrew informed consent, and three patients were not eligible, resulting in 344 patients age 48 to 75 years in the safety population. Thirty patients (8.7%) had grade 2 and two patients (0.6%) had grade 3 genitourinary (GU) baseline symptoms. Acute grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity was observed in 22 patients (13.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy and in 29 patients (16.6%) and three patients (1.7%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .2). Baseline grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in one patient (0.6%). Acute grade 2 and 3 GI toxicity was observed in 27 patients (16.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy, and in 27 patients (15.4%) and four patients (2.3%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .8). Changes in early QoL were minor. Patients receiving 70 Gy reported a more pronounced and clinically relevant worsening in urinary symptoms (mean difference in change score between arms, 3.6; P = .02). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified SRT was associated with low rates of acute grade 2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity. The impact of dose-intensified SRT on QoL was minor, except for a significantly greater worsening in urinary symptoms.

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.

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.

Positron emission mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Is maximum PEM uptake value a valuable threshold for malignant breast cancer detection?

AIM To evaluate the diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity) of positron emission mammography (PEM) in a single site non-interventional study using the maximum PEM uptake value (PUVmax). PATIENTS, METHODS In a singlesite, non-interventional study, 108 patients (107 women, 1 man) with a total of 151 suspected lesions were scanned with a PEM Flex Solo II (Naviscan) at 90 min p.i. with 3.5 MBq 18F-FDG per kg of body weight. In this ROI(region of interest)-based analysis, maximum PEM uptake value (PUV) was determined in lesions, tumours (PUVmaxtumour), benign lesions (PUVmaxnormal breast) and also in healthy tissues on the contralateral side (PUVmaxcontralateral breast). These values were compared and contrasted. In addition, the ratios of PUVmaxtumour / PUVmaxcontralateral breast and PUVmaxnormal breast / PUVmaxcontralateral breast were compared. The image data were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians and compared with histology in cases of suspected carcinoma. RESULTS Based on a criteria of PUV>1.9, 31 out of 151 lesions in the patient cohort were found to be malignant (21%). A mean PUVmaxtumour of 3.78 ± 2.47 was identified in malignant tumours, while a mean PUVmaxnormal breast of 1.17 ± 0.37 was reported in the glandular tissue of the healthy breast, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ratio between tumour and healthy glandular tissue in breast cancer patients (3.15 ± 1.58) was found to be significantly higher than the ratio for benign lesions (1.17 ± 0.41, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION PEM is capable of differentiating breast tumours from benign lesions with 100% sensitivity along with a high specificity of 96%, when a threshold of PUVmax >1.9 is applied.

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.

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.

The localization and identification of candidate tumor suppressor genes involved in prostate cancer

Frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at specific chromosomal regions are highly associated with the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) (Weinberg, 1991; Bishop, 1989). Chromosome 8p is the most frequently reported site of LOH (∼60%) in prostate cancer (PC), suggesting that there may be inactivated TSG(s) involved in PC on chromosome 8p. (Bergerheim et. al., 1991; Kagan et. al., 1995). In order to identify the smallest common regions of frequent LOH (SCLs) on chromosome 8, we screened 52 PC patient/tumor samples with 39 polymorphic markers in successive screenings. In the course of refining the SCLs, we identified 3 tumors with >6 Mb homozygous deletions (HZDs) at 8p22 and 8p21, suggesting the presence of candidate TSGs at both loci. These HZDs spanned the two SCLs at 8p22 (46%) and 8p21 (45%). The SCLs were narrowed to 3.2 cM at 8p22 and less than 3 cM at 8p21. ^ In order to identify candidate TSGs within the SCLs on 8p, two approaches were used. In the candidate gene approach, thirty genes that mapped to the SCLs were evaluated for expression in normal prostate and in PC cell lines. One of the candidate genes, Clusterin, showed decreased expression in 4/7 (57%) prostate cancer cell lines by Northern blot analysis. Clusterin will be further examined as a candidate TSG. ^ The second approach involved utilizing subtractive hybridization and hybrid affinity capture to generate pools of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) enriched for genes that are downregulated or deleted in PC and that map to specific regions of interest. We took advantage of a prostate cancer cell line (PC3) with a known HZD of a candidate TSG, CTNNA1 on 5q31, to develop and validate a model system. We then developed subtracted libraries enriched for 8p22 and 8p21 ESTs by this method, using two cell lines, MDAPCa-2b and PC3. The ESTs were cloned, and 40 were sequenced and evaluated for expression in normal prostate and PC cell lines. Three ESTs from the subtracted libraries, C2, C17 and F12, showed decreased expression in 29–57% of the prostate tumor cell lines studied, and will be further examined as candidate TSGs. ^

Expression cloning of a candidate prostate cancer oncogene

Genetic analysis, both karyotyping and comparative genomic hybridization, of prostate cancer cell lines and specimens have revealed multiple areas of concordant increases in DNA content. An increase of DNA in specific regions of the genome in cancer is often associated with the amplification of oncogenes. Based on these observations we have hypothesized that oncogenes are involved in the initiation or progression of prostate cancer. An expression cloning approach was utilized to identify candidate oncogenes in prostate cancer. ^ A full-length, unidirectional cDNA expression library was constructed from DU145 prostate cancer cells. The cDNA library was screened using CP12, a rat prostate epithelial cell line. In soft agarose assays, CP12 (parental or vector transfected) do not form colonies. However, upon the introduction of a number of known oncogenes CP12 becomes anchorage independent in soft agarose. Based on this in-vitro phenotypic shift, a DU145 cDNA library was stably transfected into CP12, and selected for anchorage independence. Two hundred fifty nine anchorage independent clones were isolated. Some colonies contained more than one insert, bringing the candidate oncogene pool to approximately 400. Seven inserts were sequenced at random. Using the sequences obtained, GenBank was screened, and matches were found with p53, PARG1, a mitochondrial ATPase, RNF6, and three unknown genes that mapped to Unigene clusters. As the pool of cDNA inserts appeared promising, overexpressed genes were further selected. From 259 clones, 17 clones were overexpressed more than 6-fold in DU145 compared to Normal Prostate. From the 17 clones, 12 cDNA inserts were strongly expressed in DU145 and were isolated for sequencing. ^ Two of the sequences, 1G6 and 3E9, were identical. Expression of 1G6/2G9/3E9 was tested by RT-PCR. 1G6/2G9/3E9 was not expressed in normal prostate, but was expressed in all prostate cancer cell lines tested as well as six prostate cancer samples. When retransfected into CP12, 1G6/2G9/3E9 induced the formation of foci and anchorage independent colonies. Thus, functional and expression data suggest that 1G6/2G9/3E9 may be a prostate cancer oncogene. ^