Therapeutic strategies for localized prostate cancer I: surgery, ultrasound, adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy

Over the past decade, because of the introduction and widespread availability of prostate-specific antigen determinations, carcinoma of the prostate that is localized and potentially curable has been diagnosed in an increasing number of men. Advances in surgical management with preservation of the neurovascular bundles, in addition to hormone therapy, have added to the success and improved quality of life of patients undergoing treatment. New forms of treatment (including laparoscopic prostatectomy and high-intensity focused ultrasound) are advances that are continuing to be developed and that may have a significant role in the management of this disease. With further investigation and technologic advancement, it is anticipated that more and more men with localized disease will be identified and cured, with preservation of sexual and urinary function.     

Treatment of localized prostate cancer

This article provides an overview of treatment of localized prostate cancer, which was discussed in detail in the second scientific session of the 16th International Prostate Cancer Update. The role of radical prostatectomy in localized disease was presented by Bob Djavan, MD. Benefits and risks of radical prostatectomy were addressed by Gerald Chodak, MD. Robert E. Donohue, MD, presented the role of radical prostatectomy in Gleason grade 8, 9, and 10 tumors. Impact of positive margins on outcomes after radical prostatectomy was presented by James A. Eastham, MD. E. David Crawford, MD, provided an overview of the role of targeted therapy. Indications and results of brachytherapy were presented by Mack Roach, III, MD. Finally, Michael J. Manyak, MD, described the evolution of radioimmunoscintigraphy and clinical outcomes data.     

Management of clinically localized prostate cancer

Critics of screening have stated that early detection of prostate cancer does not necessarily reflect a diminishing death rate from the disease. However, several recent reports have demonstrated that the death rate from prostate cancer is decreasing, representing the most compelling validation for aggressive screening. Prostate cancer can be halted only if there is no evidence of systemic or regional metastases and the disease is confined to the surgical field or the radiation template. Surgeons and radiation oncologists must make a concerted effort to exclude men with regional and systemic metastases who are unlikely to benefit from treatment. With the widespread acceptance of prostate-specific antigen screening, a greater proportion of men are being diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Both radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are able to halt disease spread in this significant subset of men, but survival outcomes indicate that radical prostatectomy is a more reliable treatment than radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Overall, the immediate treatment-related morbidity of radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy in the modern era is quite low. Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy appear to have a similar impact on continence and erectile function. There is a need for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies that can be utilized in those cases where radical prostatectomy and radiation are less likely to completely eradicate or destroy the cancer.     

New techniques and management options for localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in younger men who want treatment that does not compromise their quality of life, take time away from work, or cause worrisome side effects. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and third-generation cryotherapy are modifications of previously used techniques in the treatment of prostate cancer and are presented in this article. Although some or all of the outcomes might be expected to change in the future, the urologic surgeon is left to select an approach, presumably on the basis of the experience, level of training, and care pathways at his or her institution.     

Optimizing prostate biopsy strategies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

The importance of prostate biopsy in urologic practice has been magnified by the routine use of serum prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer screening. Given the potential impact of the procedure on both patient care and health care costs, an optimal strategy for accurate and judicious detection of early prostate cancer is imperative. Maintaining maximal sensitivity and negative predictive value are equally important to the patient. In this article, we review recent modifications in prostate biopsy indications and techniques that may allow for a systematic biopsy approach to the patient in whom prostate cancer is suspected.     

Tomotherapy-based moderate hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer: a mono-institutional analysis

BackgroundTo date, few studies have been published on image-guided helical tomotherapy (HT) in a moderate hypofractionation of localized PCa. We report outcome and toxicity of localized PCa patients treated with HT-based moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy.Materials and methods76 patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total dose of 60 Gy (20 × 3 Gy) or 67.5 Gy (25 × 2.7 Gy) was prescribed. The χ² test was used to analyze associations between toxicity and dosimetric and clinical parameters. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for multivariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis.Resultsmedian follow-up was 42.26 months [interquartile (IQR), 23–76). At 4-year, overall survival (OS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were 91% and 89%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, smoking habitude was associated with MFS [hazard ratio (HR) 7.32, 95% CI: 1.57–34.16, p = 0.011]. Acute and late grade ≥ 2 gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity was observed in 6.5% and 2.6% of patients, respectively. Acute and late grade ≥ 2 genito-urinary (GU) toxicity were 31.5% and 3.9%. Four-year late GI and GU grade ≥ 2 toxicity were 3% and 7%, respectively. Acute GI toxicity was associated with statins medication (p = 0.04) and androgen deprivation therapy (p = 0.013). Acute GU toxicity was associated with the use of anticoagulants (p = 0.029) and antiaggregants (p = 0.013).ConclusionsHT-based moderate hypofractionation shows very low rates of toxicity. Smoking habitude is associated with the risk of developing metastases after radical treatment for localized PCa.     

Positive prostate biopsy following radiotherapy can predict metastasis-free survival in localized prostate cancer

Background/aim(s)To determine the impact of post-treatment biopsy results on 10-year metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS) and cause-specific survival (CSS) in localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with high-dose radiotherapy (RT).Materials/MethodsRetrospective analysis of 232 patients with T1c-T3bN0M0 PCa who underwent a prostate biopsy 24–36 months after high-dose RT. Biopsies were categorized as positive biopsy (PB) if H&E staining showed evidence of residual malignancy and negative biopsy (NB) if no malignant cells were present. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 10-year MFS, OS and CSS rates were calculated for each group and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratios. The median follow-up was 124 months (range 26–267).ResultsSixty-two of 232 (26.7%) patients had post-treatment positive biopsies (PB). A positive post-treatment biopsy was significantly associated with a lower 10-year MFS (78.4% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001, HR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8–8.3). Although patients with PB had worse outcomes that those with NB, we could not show a statistically significant difference in OS (81.0% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.282, HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.7–2.3) or CSS (96.2% vs. 99.4% (p = 0.201, HR. 2.4, 95% CI: 0.6–9.7). After multivariate analysis, the strongest predictor of MFS was the post-treatment biopsy status (p < 0.001, HR: 5.4, 95% CI 2.26–12.85) followed by Gleason score (p = 0.002, HR: 2.24, 95% CI 1.33–3.79).ConclusionA positive biopsy following RT can predict MFS in localized prostate cancer. These data highlight the relevance of achieving a local control and support the use of aggressive local therapeutic interventions for PCa.     

Selecting treatment for high-risk, localized prostate cancer: the case for radical prostatectomy

The most common treatment options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. The choice between these options is often controversial, and selecting the optimal treatment poses a great challenge for patients and physicians. Factors important to the decision include age and life expectancy of the patient, the natural history of the prostate cancer, how curable the disease is, and the morbidity of treatment. Use of these criteria to select treatment for a healthy, 70-year-old man presenting with a nonpalpable tumor, stage T1c disease, serum prostate-specific antigen of 12 ng/mL, and an adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 8 that is present in 2 of 12 biopsy cores would lead to the choice of radical prostatectomy over radiation therapy. Data show that such a patient has a life expectancy of more than 12.3 years if the prostate cancer can be cured and a high probability of dying from the disease if it is not cured. Data further show that radical prostatectomy in such a patient would confer a survival advantage over radiation therapy without resulting in greater complications or reduction in quality of life.     

Therapeutic strategies targeting AMPK-dependent autophagy in cancer cells

Macroautophagy is a health-modifying process of engulfing misfolded or aggregated proteins or damaged organelles, coating these proteins or organelles into vesicles, fusion of vesicles with lysosomes to form autophagic lysosomes, and degradation of the encapsulated contents. It is also a self-rescue strategy in response to harsh environments and plays an essential role in cancer cells. AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is the central pathway that regulates autophagy initiation and autophagosome formation by phosphorylating targets such as mTORC1 and unc-51 like activating kinase 1 (ULK1). AMPK is an evolutionarily conserved serine/threonine protein kinase that acts as an energy sensor in cells and regulates various metabolic processes, including those involved in cancer. The regulatory network of AMPK is complicated and can be regulated by multiple upstream factors, such as LKB1, AKT, PPAR, SIRT1, or noncoding RNAs. Currently, AMPK is being investigated as a novel target for anticancer therapies based on its role in macroautophagy regulation. Herein, we review the effects of AMPK-dependent autophagy on tumor cell survival and treatment strategies targeting AMPK.     

Role of screening in detection of clinically localized prostate cancer

The aim of this study was to confirm the role of screening by determining the percentage of clinically localized prostate cancer (stage A and B) in patients with prostate cancer detected on screening and in those presenting to urologic clinic for the symptoms of urination impairment or ostalgia. During the study, 1,000 men aged > or = 50 from the community of Cepin and village of Josipovac near Osijek were examined. The subjects with elevated concentration of total prostate specific antigen and/or digital rectal examination suspect of carcinoma underwent transperineal biopsy of the prostate. Clinical staging was performed in patients with prostate cancer detected on screening, and data on clinical staging for prostate cancer patients treated during the 1996-1997 period were retrieved from patient files of the Department of Urology, University Hospital "Osijek". On screening, 28 (80%) patients with localized prostate cancer and seven (20%) patients with metastases were detected. In the group of patients examined on an outpatient basis for the signs and symptoms of prostatism, there were 30 (83.4%) patients with metastases and only six (16.6%) patients with localized prostate cancer. Study results indicated that an early diagnosis of prostate cancer could be made by use of noninvasive and inexpensive methods that cause no major discomfort to the patient. Accordingly, these results appear to strongly support such screening in men, if not in all those aged over 50, then at least in the otherwise healthy, 50-70 age group.     

Selecting treatment for high-risk, localized prostate cancer: the case for radiation therapy

Prostate cancers that clinically appear to be localized may nonetheless respond poorly to curative treatment. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, biopsy Gleason score, and percentage of positive biopsies are all at least as important as clinical stage in predicting treatment outcome. A patient with a nonpalpable tumor, stage T1c disease, serum PSA of 12 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 in 2 of 12 biopsy cores has a relatively poor prognosis. In a high-risk patient such as this one, the recommended treatment strategy involves a combination of brachytherapy and conformal external beam radiotherapy. In studies comparing treatments in patients stratified according to a variety of risk measures, this combination has shown biochemical disease-free survival rates superior to those seen following radical prostatectomy. The role of androgen suppression remains unclear.     

Toxicity outcome in patients treated with modulated arc radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Aim

This study evaluates the acute toxicity outcome in patients treated with RapidArc for localized prostate cancer.

Background

Modern technologies allow the delivery of high doses to the prostate while lowering the dose to the neighbouring organs at risk. Whether this dosimetric advantage translates into clinical benefit is not well known.

Materials and methods

Between December 2009 and May 2012, 45 patients with primary prostate adenocarcinoma were treated using RapidArc. All patients received 1.8 Gy per fraction, the median dose to the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, pelvic lymph nodes and surgical bed was 80 Gy (range, 77.4–81 Gy), 50.4 Gy, 50.4 Gy and 77.4 Gy (range, 75.6–79.2 Gy), respectively.

Results

The time between the last session and the last treatment follow up was a median of 10 months (range, 3–24 months). The incidence of grade 3 acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 2.2% and 15.5%, respectively. Grade 2 acute GI and GU toxicity occurred in 30% and 27% of patients, respectively. No grade 4 acute GI and GU toxicity were observed. Older patients (>median) or patients with V60 higher than 35% had significantly higher rates of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity compared with the younger ones.

Conclusions

RapidArc in the treatment of localized prostate cancer is tolerated well with no Grade >3 GI and GU toxicities. Older patients or patients with higher V60 had significantly higher rates of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity. Further research is necessary to assess definitive late toxicity and tumour control outcome.     

Androgen deprivation therapy in combination with radiotherapy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has remained the main therapeutic option for patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) for about 70 years. Several reports and our findings revealed that aggressive PCa can occur under a low dihydrotestosterone (DHT) level environment where the PCa of a low malignancy with high DHT dependency cannot easily occur. Low DHT levels in the prostate with aggressive PCa are probably sufficient to propagate the growth of the tumor, and the prostate with aggressive PCa can produce androgens from the adrenal precursors more autonomously than that with non-aggressive PCa does under the low testosterone environment with testicular suppression. In patients treated with ADT the pituitary-adrenal axis mediated by adrenocorticotropic hormone has a central role in the regulation of androgen synthesis. Several experimental studies have confirmed the potential benefits from the combination of ADT with radiotherapy (RT). A combination of external RT with short-term ADT is recommended based on the results of phase III randomized trials. In contrast, the combination of RT plus 6 months of ADT provides inferior survival as compared with RT plus 3 years of ADT in the treatment of locally advanced PCa. Notably, randomized trials included patients with diverse risk groups treated with older RT modalities, a variety of ADT scheduling and duration and, importantly, suboptimal RT doses. The use of ADT with higher doses of RT or newer RT modalities has to be properly assessed.     

Effects of lycopene supplementation in patients with localized prostate cancer

Epidemiological studies have shown an inverse association between dietary intake of lycopene and prostate cancer risk. We conducted a clinical trial to investigate the biological and clinical effects of lycopene supplementation in patients with localized prostate cancer. Twenty-six men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive a tomato oleoresin extract containing 30 mg of lycopene (n = 15) or no supplementation (n = 11) for 3 weeks before radical prostatectomy. Biomarkers of cell proliferation and apoptosis were assessed by Western blot analysis in benign and cancerous prostate tissues. Oxidative stress was assessed by measuring the peripheral blood lymphocyte DNA oxidation product 5-hydroxymethyl-deoxyuridine (5-OH-mdU). Usual dietary intake of nutrients was assessed by a food frequency questionnaire at baseline. Prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for pathologic stage, Gleason score, volume of cancer, and extent of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Plasma levels of lycopene, insulin-like growth factor-1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, and prostate-specific antigen were measured at baseline and after 3 weeks of supplementation or observation. After intervention, subjects in the intervention group had smaller tumors (80% vs 45%, less than 4 ml), less involvement of surgical margins and/or extra-prostatic tissues with cancer (73% vs 18%, organ-confined disease), and less diffuse involvement of the prostate by high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (33% vs 0%, focal involvement) compared with subjects in the control group. Mean plasma prostate-specific antigen levels were lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. This pilot study suggests that lycopene may have beneficial effects in prostate cancer. Larger clinical trials are warranted to investigate the potential preventive and/or therapeutic role of lycopene in prostate cancer.