Radical Prostatectomy In High-risk Patients Research Articles

Randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant abiraterone plus or minus cabazitaxel in high-risk prostate cancer: ACDC-RP.

224 Background: High-risk prostate cancer has a significant risk of recurrence when treated with unimodal therapy. The utility of neoadjuvant therapy prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) has yet to be defined. The ACDC-RP study investigated the use of abiraterone acetate (AA) + prednisone (P) + leuprolide (LHRH) with or without cabazitaxel prior to RP in high-risk patients. Methods: This phase II trial randomized patients to Arm A (AA/P + LHRH + cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 with peg-filgrastim 6 cycles) or Arm B (AA/P + LHRH) for 6 months prior to RP. The primary objective was to compare the rate of pathological complete response (CR) or minimal residual disease (MRD) between treatment arms. MRD was defined as ≤5% of prostate volume involved by tumor. We present RP pathological outcomes, safety signals, and early biochemical response data. Results: Out of 78 randomized participants, 70 completed the full course of study treatment and underwent RP. Across both treatment arms, 31 (44%) men achieved either CR or MRD; 5 men had CR (2 in Arm A) and an additional 26 men exhibited MRD (15 in Arm A), p = 1 between Arm A and B. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in biochemical-free survival (BFS) rate between the two treatment groups. Patients who achieved a CR/MRD experienced significantly longer BFS. Conclusions: Study findings indicate significant tumor response with 44% of patients exhibiting CR/MRD, with no significant difference observed between the two treatment arms. Patients who exhibit CR/MRD experienced better BFS rates. Genomic efforts are underway to determine predictors of response. Clinical trial information: NCT02543255. [Table: see text]

Adjuvant versus early salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients: Time to move on

In the management of prostate cancer , few treatments have caused as much controversy as adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy in high-risk patients In the present article, we assess the exclusion and inclusion criteria of the 6 randomised trials and 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival and overall survival rates in order to identify the patient subgroups most likely to benefit from ART. We also evaluate treatment-related toxicity and the indications for androgen deprivation therapy . The main aim of this analysis was to determine whether the available evidence, which previously appeared to support ART, now favours early salvage radiotherapy. If so, perhaps we can finally resolve the controversy surrounding the optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy

Predictive factors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.

To identify risk factors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in high-risk patients. A total of 191 high-risk prostate cancer patients according to the D'Amico classification treated with radical prostatectomy at a single institution between April 2000 and December 2013 were enrolled. The pathological evaluation including intraductal carcinoma of prostate was reassessed, and the clinical and pathological risk factors of biochemical recurrence were analyzed. The median follow up after radical prostatectomy was 49 months. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate after radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients was 41.6%. Initial prostate-specific antigen, pathological Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion, extraprostatic extension and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate were significantly associated with biochemical recurrence-free survival. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates in patients with zero, one, two and three of these risk factors were 92.9%, 70.7%, 38.3% and 28.8%, respectively. In patients with four or more factors, the biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 6.1% after 18 months. In D'Amico high-risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy, risk factors for biochemical recurrence can be identified. Patients with fewer risk factors have longer biochemical recurrence-free survival, even among these high-risk cases.

Shared responsibility for treatment-related morbidity for prostate cancer

Treatment of locally advanced or locally recurrent prostate cancer often involves both radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy; a multidisciplinary management approach is encouraged. Various researchers have published on disease eradication or control, progression-free survival and overall survival. In the adjuvant setting, there is Level 1 evidence now from three randomized trials, and supportive evidence from a multitude of non-randomized case series. The evidence shows therapeutic benefit to radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy in high-risk patients.1–3 In the salvage setting, there is also retrospective evidence, albeit lower-level, from individual centres, as well as pooled data showing good results in appropriate patients.4

Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: treatment outcomes and failure patterns

Objectives. To define the optimal role for radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to characterize specific patterns of PSA failure in this setting. Methods. The records of 105 patients who underwent RT after RP (69 received therapeutic RT because of an elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level, 36 received immediate adjuvant RT) were reviewed. The median follow-up was 35 months after RT and 57 months after RP. Radiation success was defined as achievement and maintenance of a PSA less than 0.2 ng/mL. Preoperative, pathologic, and postoperative characteristics were examined for their ability to predict success after RT. Patterns of PSA recurrence after RT were also examined by determining the PSA nadir, PSA velocity, and timing of androgen-deprivation therapy. Results. Of 105 patients, 47 experienced biochemical failure. Actuarial 3 and 5-year progression-free survival estimates for all patients were 55% and 43%, respectively. Significant favorable predictors of response to RT by multivariate analysis were preoperative PSA less than 20 ng/mL and the use of adjuvant RT. However, patients who received therapeutic RT with a pre-RT PSA less than 1.0 ng/mL demonstrated progression-free outcome equivalent to those who received adjuvant RT. Two distinct patterns of PSA failure were observed on the basis of PSA nadir after RT. Patients whose PSA failed to reach a nadir less than 0.2 ng/mL after RT had progression with a high PSA velocity (1.5 ng/mL/yr). Patients whose PSA reached a nadir less than 0.2 ng/mL but who subsequently had treatment failure progressed later with a lower PSA velocity (0.36 ng/mL/yr). Conclusions. RT is effective in select patients after RP. Given the low PSA velocity consistent with persistent local disease in nearly 50% of patients in whom RT failed, more effective local therapy is needed after RP in high-risk patients.