The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.
To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the ...different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.
Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists ISUP grade 4–5 Gleason score {GS} 8–10 or prostate-specific antigen PSA >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3–4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.
Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.
Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.
We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.
High-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients are likely to undergo multimodality treatment. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options and the likelihood of a multimodal approach, including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.
For high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa, both radical prostatectomy as part as multimodal therapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) + long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can be recommended as primary treatment.
For high-risk localized PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite a less favorable toxicity profile. In selected high-risk PCa patients, a shorter duration of ADT might be considered.
Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate.
Prostate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this ...benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site.
To evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT.
This exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups.
Patients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT.
The primary outcomes were OS and FFS.
A total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median interquartile range age, 68 63-73 years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio HR, 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P = .003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P = .002).
In this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.
Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) is a randomized controlled trial that follows a novel multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) design. We ...describe methodological and practical issues arising with (1) stopping recruitment to research arms following a pre-planned intermediate analysis and (2) adding a new research arm during the trial.
STAMPEDE recruits men who have locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who are starting standard long-term hormone therapy. Originally there were five research and one control arms, each undergoing a pilot stage (focus: safety, feasibility), three intermediate 'activity' stages (focus: failure-free survival), and a final 'efficacy' stage (focus: overall survival). Lack-of-sufficient-activity guidelines support the pairwise interim comparisons of each research arm against the control arm; these pre-defined activity cut-off becomes increasingly stringent over the stages. Accrual of further patients continues to the control arm and to those research arms showing activity and an acceptable safety profile. The design facilitates adding new research arms should sufficiently interesting agents emerge. These new arms are compared only to contemporaneously recruited control arm patients using the same intermediate guidelines in a time-delayed manner. The addition of new research arms is subject to adequate recruitment rates to support the overall trial aims.
(1) Stopping Existing Therapy: After the second intermediate activity analysis, recruitment was discontinued to two research arms for lack-of-sufficient activity. Detailed preparations meant that changes were implemented swiftly at 100 international centers and recruitment continued seamlessly into Activity Stage III with 3 remaining research arms and the control arm. Further regulatory and ethical approvals were not required because this was already included in the initial trial design.(2) Adding New Therapy: An application to add a new research arm was approved by the funder, (who also organized peer review), industrial partner and regulatory and ethical bodies. This was all done in advance of any decision to stop current therapies.
The STAMPEDE experience shows that recruitment to a MAMS trial and mid-flow changes its design are achievable with good planning. This benefits patients and the scientific community as research treatments are evaluated in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
ISRCTN78818544, NCT00268476. First patient into trial: 17 October 2005. First patient into abiraterone comparison: 15 November 2011.
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long‐term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. ...This long‐term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard‐of‐care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC‐alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly‐diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow‐up, 329 SOC‐alone deaths (118 low‐risk, 178 high‐risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low‐risk, 145 high‐risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50‐0.71; P = 0.31 × 10−9) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5‐years survival improved from 41% SOC‐alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low‐risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41‐0.76) and high‐risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43‐0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.
What's new?
Initial results from the STAMPEDE trial for advanced prostate cancer showed that adding abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to androgen deprivation therapy improved progression‐free survival. Here, the authors present long‐term results of metastatic patients in the STAMPEDE trial. Median follow‐up increased from 52 to 73 months. They found that AAP improved overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients, whether their disease was high‐risk or low‐risk.
New imaging techniques are more sensitive in prostate cancer and reveal sites of disease that may never have been seen with conventional imaging, resulting in stage migration and potentially a change ...in the clinical management. Until long-term data provide a better understanding of the natural history of the disease defined by more sensitive imaging, patients and clinicians should recognise the considerable uncertainty about whether these improve outcomes. It is hoped that the next iteration of the TNM classification will recognise the problem in some way.
Tumor-associated stromal myofibroblasts are essential for the progression and metastatic spread of solid tumors. Corresponding myeloid cell infiltration into primary tumors is a negative prognostic ...factor in some malignancies. The aim of this study was to define the exact role of stromal myofibroblasts and stromal factors in early prostate carcinoma (PCa) regulating monocyte infiltration and differentiation into dendritic cells (DCs). Epithelial and stromal primary cultures were generated from PCa biopsies and their purity confirmed. Stromal cells produced significantly more of the (C‒C) motif chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) than epithelial cells. Monocyte chemoattraction was predominantly due to stromal-derived factors, mainly CCL2. DCs generated in the presence of stromal (but not epithelial) factors upregulated CD209, but failed to downregulate the monocyte marker CD14 in a signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3)-dependent manner. Monocytes exposed to stromal factors did not produce detectable amounts of IL-10, however, upon lipopolysaccharide stimulation, stromal factor generated dendritic cells (sDC) produced significantly more IL-10 and less IL-12 than their conventional DC counterparts. sDC failed to cross-present tumor-antigen to CD8
+
T cells and suppressed T-cell proliferation. Most importantly, sDC expressed significantly elevated levels of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) in a primarily STAT3 and IL-6-dependent manner. In parallel with our findings in vitro, tumor-infiltrating CD14
+
cells in situ were found to express both PD-L1 and CD209, and a higher percentage of tumor-associated CD3
+
T cells expressed programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) molecules compared to T cells in blood. These results demonstrate a hitherto undescribed, fundamental contribution of tumor-associated stromal myofibroblasts to the development of an immunosuppressive microenvironment in early PCa.
PTPRM has been shown to exhibit homophilic binding and confer cell-cell adhesion in cells including epithelial and cancer cells. The present study investigated the expression of PTPRM in breast ...cancer and the biological impact of PTPRM on breast cancer cells.
Expression of PTPRM protein and gene transcript was examined in a cohort of breast cancer patients. Knockdown of PTPRM in breast cancer cells was performed using a specific anti-PTPRM transgene. The impact of PTPRM knockdown on breast cancer was evaluated using in vitro cell models.
A significant decrease of PTPRM transcripts was seen in poorly differentiated and moderately differentiated tumours compared with well differentiated tumours. Patients with lower expression of PTPRM had shorter survival compared with those which had a higher level of PTPRM expression. Knockdown of PTPRM increased proliferation, adhesion, invasion and migration of breast cancer cells. Furthermore, knockdown of PTPRM in MDA-MB-231 cells resulted in increased cell migration and invasion via regulation of the tyrosine phosphorylation of ERK and JNK.
Decreased expression of PTPRM in breast cancer is correlated with poor prognosis and inversely correlated with disease free survival. PTPRM coordinated cell migration and invasion through the regulation of tyrosine phosphorylation of ERK and JNK.
Based on a comprehensive systematic review, we formulated new recommendations regarding active surveillance for localised prostate cancer for intermediate-risk disease up to International Society of ...Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2, schedule of per-protocol confirmatory and surveillance repeat biopsies, and specified thresholds for increase in biopsy extent.
There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).
To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy.
A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed.
Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.
For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified.
We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).
Treatment of malignant disease is of paramount importance in modern medicine. In 2012, it was estimated that 162,000 people died from cancer in the UK which illustrates a fundamental problem. ...Traditional treatments for cancer have various drawbacks, and this creates a considerable need for specific, molecular targets to overcome cancer spread. Epithelial protein lost in neoplasm (EPLIN) is an actin-associated molecule which has been implicated in the development and progression of various cancers including breast, prostate, oesophageal and lung where EPLIN expression is frequently lost as the cancer progresses. EPLIN is important in the regulation of actin dynamics and has multiple associations at epithelial cells junctions. Thus, EPLIN loss in cancer may have significant effects on cancer cell migration and invasion, increasing metastatic potential. Overexpression of EPLIN has proved to be an effective tool for manipulating cancerous traits such as reducing cell growth and cell motility and rendering cells less invasive illustrating the therapeutic potential of EPLIN. Here, we review the current state of knowledge of EPLIN, highlighting EPLIN involvement in regulating cytoskeletal dynamics, signalling pathways and implications in cancer and metastasis.
PDF
