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.

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.

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.

Defining the level of evidence for technology adoption in the localized prostate cancer pathway.

New technologies in prostate cancer are attempting to change the current prostate cancer pathway by aiming to reduce harms while maintaining the benefits associated with screening, diagnosis, and treatment. In this article, we discuss the optimal evaluation that new technologies should undergo to provide level 1 evidence typically required to change the practice. With this in mind, we focus on feasible and pragmatic trials that could be delivered in a timely fashion by many centers while retaining primary outcomes that focus on clinically meaningful outcomes.

American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested.

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.

HDR brachytherapy boost and external radiotherapy for unfavorable prostate cancer patients

Purpose/Objective: To evaluate the outcome of prostate cancer patients treated with a combination of HDR Brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT) and 3D conformal external pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) in a dose escalation study. Materials and Methods: 162 patients were followed between November 2004 and December 2010 . Two different dose escalation groups were done: group 1 (n= 92), 1 fraction HDR boost (9-10 Gy ) followed by EBRT (60 Gy in 6 weeks) - BED: 203-216 Gy and group 2 (n=70): 2 fraction HDR boost (18-19 Gy), 6 hours interval between fractions, followed by EBRT (46 Gy in 4.5 weeks) - BED: 233.3 -247 Gy; 116 pts (71.6%) received concomitant androgen deprivation. Patients were classified according to the MSKCC criteria into high (N=137) and intermediate (N=25) risk. Phoenix biochemical failure definition was used. Toxicity was scored by Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria (RTOG) Results: The mean follow-up was 41 (range 7-84) months. The 7- years cancer-specific and overall survival was 100% an 92%, respectively. The 7 years actuarial biochemical control rate was 89% and 100% for group 1 and 2, respectively. One patient from group 1 and two patients from group 2 never reached a low nadir. Two patients developed distant metastases 12 and 16 months after the treatment. In a multivariate Cox-regression analysis neither treatment nor risk group (intermediate vs. high risk) were associated with increased risk for biochemical failure. The RTOG grade 3 genitourinary early toxicity was 1.0% and 8.5% while gastrointestinal/genitourinary late toxicity was 7.6% and 1.4% for group 1 and 2, respectively Conclusions: HDR BT boost followed by EBRT appears to be a safe, feasible and effective treatment for patients with unfavorable localized prostate cancer. This study shows a beneficial effect on biochemical control in group 2 pts, however without statistical significance. Higher radiation doses (BED 233.3-247 Gy) do not seem to carry extra toxicity.

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.

Tumor-host interactions Part 1: Stromal signatures of breast and prostate cancer Part 2: GLG1 and the control of the secretory pathway in tumor cells

Tumor-host interaction is a key determinant during cancer progression, from primary tumor growth to metastatic dissemination. At each step, tumor cells have to adapt to and subvert different types of microenvironment, leading to major phenotypic and genotypic alterations that affect both tumor and surrounding stromal compartments. Understanding the molecular mechanisms that govern tumor-host interplay may be essential for better comprehension of tumorigenesis in an effort to improve current anti-cancer therapies. The present work is composed of two projects that address tumor-host interactions from two different perspectives, the first focusing on the characterization of tumor-associated stroma and the second on membrane trafficking in tumor cells. Part 1. To selectively address stromal gene expression changes during cancer progression, oligonucleotide-based Affymetrix microarray technology was used to analyze the transcriptomes of laser-microdissected stromal cells derived from invasive human breast and prostate carcinoma. Comparison showed that invasive breast and prostate cancer elicit distinct, tumor-specific stromal responses, with a limited panel of shared induced and/or repressed genes. Both breast and prostate tumor-specific deregulated stromal gene sets displayed statistically significant survival-predictive ability for their respective tumor type. By contrast, a stromal gene signature common to both tumor types did not display prognostic value, although expression of two individual genes within this common signature was found to be associated with patient survival. Part 2. GLG1 is known as an E-selectin ligand and an intracellular FGF receptor, depending on cell type and context. Immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence analyses showed that GLG1 is primarily localized in the Golgi of human tumor cells, a central location in the biosynthetic/secretory pathways. GLG1 has been shown to interact with and to recruit the ARF GEF BIGI to the Golgi membrane. Depletion of GLG1 or BIGI markedly reduced ARF3 membrane localization and activation, and altered the Golgi structure. Interestingly, these perturbations did not impair constitutive secretion in general, but rather seemed to impair secretion of a specific subset of proteins that includes MMP-9. Thus, GLG1 coordinates ARF3 activation by recruiting BIGI to the Golgi membrane, thereby affecting secretion of specific molecules. - Les interactions tumeur-hôte constituent un élément essentiel à la progression tumorale, de la croissance de la tumeur primaire à la dissémination des métastases. A chaque étape, les cellules tumorales doivent s'adapter à différents types de microenvironnement et les détourner à leur propre avantage, donnant lieu à des altérations phénotypiques et génotypiques majeures qui affectent aussi bien la tumeur elle-même que le compartiment stromal environnant. L'étude des mécanismes moléculaires qui régissent les interactions tumeur-hôte constitue une étape essentielle pour une meilleure compréhension du processus de tumorigenèse dans le but d'améliorer les thérapies anti cancer existantes. Le travail présenté ici est composé de deux projets qui abordent la problématique des interactions tumeur-hôte selon différentes perspectives, le premier se concentrant sur la caractérisation du stroma tumoral et le second sur le trafic intracellulaire des cellules tumorales. Partie 1. Pour examiner les changements d'expression des gènes dans le stroma en réponse à la progression du cancer, des puces à ADN Affymetrix ont été utilisées afin d'analyser les transcriptomes des cellules stromales issues de carcinomes invasifs du sein et de la prostate et collectées par microdissection au laser. L'analyse comparative a montré que les cancers invasifs du sein et de la prostate provoquent des réponses stromales spécifiques à chaque type de tumeur, et présentent peu de gènes induits ou réprimés de façon similaire. L'ensemble des gènes dérégulés dans le stroma associé au cancer du sein, ou à celui de la prostate, présente une valeur pronostique pour les patients atteints d'un cancer du sein, respectivement de la prostate. En revanche, la signature stromale commune aux deux types de cancer n'a aucune valeur prédictive, malgré le fait que l'expression de deux gènes présents dans cette liste soit liée à la survie des patients. Partie 2. GLG1 est connu comme un ligand des sélectines E ainsi que comme récepteur intracellulaire pour des facteurs de croissances FGFs selon le type de cellule dans lequel il est exprimé. Des analyses immunohistochimiques et d'immunofluorescence ont montré que dans les cellules tumorales, GLG1 est principalement localisé au niveau de l'appareil de Golgi, une place centrale dans la voie biosynthétique et sécrétoire. Nous avons montré que GLG1 interagit avec la protéine BIGI et participe à son recrutement à la membrane du Golgi. L'absence de GLG1 ou de BIGI réduit drastiquement le pool d'ARF3 associé aux membranes ainsi que la quantité d'ARF3 activés, et modifie la structure de l'appareil de Golgi. Il est particulièrement intéressant de constater que ces perturbations n'ont pas d'effet sur la sécrétion constitutive en général, mais semblent plutôt affecter la sécrétion spécifique d'un sous-groupe défini de protéines comprenant MMP-9. GLG1 coordonne donc l'activation de ARF3 en recrutant BIGI à la membrane du Golgi, agissant par ce moyen sur la sécrétion de molécules spécifiques.

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.

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).

Pharmacotherapeutic management of locally advanced prostate cancer: current status.

Locally advanced prostate cancer (LAPC) is a heterogeneous entity usually embracing T3-4 and/or pelvic lymph-node-positive disease in the absence of established metastases. Outcomes for LAPC with single therapies have traditionally been poor, leading to the investigation of adjuvant therapies. Prostate cancer is a hormonally sensitive tumour, which usually responds to pharmacological manipulation of the androgen receptor or its testosterone-related ligands. As such, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has become an important adjuvant strategy for the treatment of LAPC, particularly for patients managed primarily with radiotherapy. Such results have generally not been replicated in surgical patients. With increased use of ADT has come improved awareness of the numerous toxicities associated with long-term use of these agents, as well as the development of strategies for minimizing ADT exposure and actively managing adverse effects. Several trials are exploring agents to enhance radiation cell sensitivity as well as the application of adjuvant docetaxel, an agent with proven efficacy in the metastatic, castrate-resistant setting. The recent work showing activity of cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T and abiraterone for castrate-resistant disease in the post-docetaxel setting will see these agents investigated in conjunction with definitive surgery and radiotherapy.