Risk of Cancer-related Death for Men with Biopsy Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer and High-risk Features: A European Multi-institutional Study.

International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) is generally considered insignificant, with recent suggestions that it should even be considered as "noncancerous". We evaluated outcomes for patients with GG 1 PCa on biopsy (bGG 1) and high-risk features (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml and/or cT3-4 stage) to challenge the hypothesis that every case of bGG 1 PCa has a benign disease course. We used the multi-institutional EMPaCT database, which includes data for 9508 patients with high-risk PCa undergoing surgery. We included patients with bGG 1 PCa (n = 848) in our analysis and divided them into three groups according to PSA >20 ng/ml, cT3-4 stage, or both. The estimated 10-yr cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate was 96% in the overall population, 88% in the group with both PSA >20 ng/ml and cT3-4 stage, 97% in the group with PSA >20 ng/ml alone, and 98% in the group with cT3-4 stage alone. Similar CSS outcomes were found in subgroups with GG 1 PCa on pathology (n = 502) and with GG 1 on biopsy diagnosed after 2005 (n = 253). Study limitations include the lack of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging and MRI-targeted biopsies. In conclusion, patients with GG 1 and either PSA >20 ng/ml or cT3-4 stage have a low risk of dying from their cancer after surgery. However, patients with GG 1 PCa and both PSA >20 ng/ml and cT3-4 stage are at higher risk of cancer-specific mortality and active treatment should be discussed for this subgroup. Patient summary: We assessed outcomes for patients diagnosed with low-grade prostate cancer on biopsy who also had one or two factors associated with high risk disease. Men with both of those risk factors had a higher risk of dying from their prostate cancer. Active treatment should be discussed for this subgroup of patients.

Effect of Radical Prostatectomy on Survival for Men with High-risk Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Features Selected According to STAMPEDE Criteria: An EMPaCT Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of two randomized STAMPEDE platform trials revealed that 3 yr of abiraterone acetate in addition to androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy significantly improved metastasis-free and overall survival (OS) in high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and should be considered a new standard of care. The aim of our study was to assess long-term cancer-specific survival (CSS) and OS for surgically treated patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic node-negative PCa meeting the STAMPEDE criteria for high risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with European Association of Urology (EAU) high-risk PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. CSS was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate OS. We used a Fine and Gray model to evaluate the prognostic value of STAMPEDE high-risk factors (SHRFs) for CSS, and a Cox proportional-hazards model to assess the association of SHRFs with OS. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2994 patients with EAU high-risk PCa were divided into groups with 0, 1, 2, or 3 SHRFs. The 10-yr survival estimates for patients with 0-1 versus 2-3 SHRFs were 95% versus 82% for CSS and 81% versus 64% for OS (both p < 0.0001). In comparison to patients with 0 SHRFs, hazard ratios were 1.2 (p = 0.5), 3.9 (p < 0.0001), and 5.5 (p < 0.0001) for CSS, and 1.1 (p = 0.4), 2.2 (p < 0.0001), and 2.5 (p = 0.0004) for OS for patients with 1, 2, and 3 SHRFs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results confirm that the STAMPEDE high-risk criteria identify a subgroup of patients with highly aggressive PCa features and adverse long-term oncological outcomes. This population is likely to benefit most from aggressive multimodal treatment. Nevertheless, we have shown for the first time that surgery remains a viable treatment option for patients with STAMPEDE high-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer that meets the high-risk definitions from the STAMPEDE trial is an aggressive type of cancer. Our results for long-term cancer control outcomes indicate that surgery is a viable option for the subgroup of patients with this type of prostate cancer.

Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

Progression-directed Therapy in Oligoprogressive Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Final Results from the Prospective, Single-arm, Phase 2 MEDCARE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Next-line systemic treatment (NEST) is the standard of care for patients presenting with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Progression-directed therapy (PDT), defined as a lesion-directed approach in patients with a limited number of progressive and/or new lesions, could postpone the need for NEST in these patients with so-called oligoprogressive mCRPC. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of postponing NEST initiation in oligoprogressive mCRPC by using PDT. METHODS: MEDCARE was a prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had oligoprogressive mCRPC and were treated with PDT while their ongoing systemic therapy was continued. The primary endpoint was NEST-free survival (NEST-FS). Secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen response, clinical progression-free survival (cPFS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), overall survival (OS), and PDT-induced toxicity. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty patients underwent PDT for 38 oligoprogressive lesions. At median follow-up of 28 mo, median NEST-FS was 17 mo and the 2-yr NEST-FS rate was 35%. Median PCSS and median OS were not reached. The PCSS and OS rates at 2 yr were 80% and 70%, respectively. The 2-yr local control rate was 95%. No patient experienced early or late grade ≥3 toxicity. NEST-FS was longer for patients who received PDT to all lesions visible on 18F-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (30 vs 13 mo; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This single-center, single-arm, phase 2 trial demonstrated that PDT in oligoprogressive mCRPC resulted in median NEST-FS of 17 mo without any early or late grade ≥3 toxicity. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic prostate cancer no longer responding to hormone therapy, we investigated radiotherapy targeted at progressive cancer lesions while continuing their ongoing systemic treatment. The results show that this targeted therapy had very low toxicity and delayed the need to start a new line of systemic treatment by 17 months.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year.

Salvage vesiculectomy for local prostate cancer recurrence: surgical technique and early post-operative outcomes.

PURPOSE: Isolated recurrence in remnants of the seminal vesicles (SV) after treatment of primary prostate cancer (PCa) has become a more frequent entity with the widespread use of more sensitive next-generation imaging modalities. Salvage vesiculectomy is hypothesized to be a worthwhile management option in these patients. The primary goal of this study is to describe the surgical technique of this new treatment option. Secondary outcomes are peri- and post-operative complications and early oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study, including 108 patients with solitary recurrence in the SV treated between January 2009 and June 2022, was performed. Patients with local recurrences outside the SVs or with metastatic disease were excluded. Both SVs were resected using a robot-assisted or an open approach. In selected cases, a concomitant lymphadenectomy was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients (29%) reported complications, all but one grade 1 to 3 on the Clavien-Dindo Scale. A median PSA decrease of 2.07 ng/ml (IQR: 0.80-4.33, p < 0.001), translating into a median PSA reduction of 92% (IQR: 59-98%) was observed. At a median follow-up of 14 months, freedom from secondary treatment was 54%. Lymphadenectomy had a significant influence on PSA reduction (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Salvage vesiculectomy for PCa recurrence limited to the SV is a safe procedure with excellent PSA response and is a potential curative treatment in a subset of patients. A concomitant lymphadenectomy can best be performed in all patients that did not underwent one at primary treatment.

Impact of the Standardization of Penile Cancer Care on the Quality of Care, Outcomes, and Academic-driven Centralization in a Single eUROGEN Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer (PeCa) represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge given the low patient volume, which may result in inadequate physician expertise and poor guideline adherence. Since 2015, we have developed a specific care pathway for PeCa in our tertiary referral center. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a dedicated PeCa care pathway on patient management, the adequacy of pathological reporting, and oncological outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively queried our institutional registry (S-66482) to identify patients who were surgically treated for PeCa between January 1989 and April 2022. The patient numbers were evaluated within a broader national context. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We compared patient, surgery, tumor, and pathological data before and after 2015. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare local and regional recurrence rates and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 313 patients were included, of whom 204 (65.1%) were surgically treated after 2015. The median number of patients treated yearly was significantly higher after 2015 (26 vs 5; p < 0.01). Patients treated after 2015 more frequently had no palpable lymph nodes at diagnosis, despite similar primary tumor stage. After adoption of the PeCa care pathway, organ-sparing surgery (OSS) was more commonly performed (79.9% vs 57.8%; p < 0.01) despite local staging being similar and without observing a significant increase in positive margins. Surgical staging in patients with European Association of Urology intermediate- or high-risk tumors was conducted more frequently after 2015 (90% vs 41%; p < 0.01). Pathology reporting was standardized, and there was more frequent reporting of p16 staining status (81.4% vs 8.3%; p < 0.01), lymphovascular invasion (93.8% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01), and perineural invasion (92.4% vs 44.3%; p < 0.01) following implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized care pathway for PeCa resulted in higher rates of OSS and pathological nodal staging and more complete pathology reports. Considering that these changes were associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, academic-driven centralization may play a role in optimizing the management of these patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the impact of a care pathway for patients with penile cancer on patient management, the completeness of pathology reporting, and cancer control. We found that implementation of this pathway was associated with an increase in the number of patients treated, higher rates of organ-sparing surgery and lymph node staging, and more complete pathology reports. Centralization of care may play a role in optimizing the management of penile cancer.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

The Use of Soy Isoflavones in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Focus on the Cellular Effects.

A possible link between diet and cancer has long been considered, with growing interest in phytochemicals. Soy isoflavones have been associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer in Asian populations. Of the soy isoflavones, genistein and daidzein, in particular, have been studied, but recently, equol as a derivative has gained interest because it is more biologically potent. Different mechanisms of action have already been studied for the different isoflavones in multiple conditions, such as breast, gastrointestinal, and urogenital cancers. Many of these mechanisms of action could also be demonstrated in the prostate, both in vitro and in vivo. This review focuses on the known mechanisms of action at the cellular level and compares them between genistein, daidzein, and equol. These include androgen- and estrogen-mediated pathways, regulation of the cell cycle and cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and metastasis. In addition, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects and epigenetics are addressed.

Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact.

Pseudoprogression and Mixed Responses in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Nivolumab: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are part of the current standard of care for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC). ICI can elicit diverse tumor response, including atypical responses such as pseudoprogression (psPD), mixed responses (MR) and late responses. We aimed to analyze the occurrence and prognostic impact of atypical responses in m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab in first or subsequent therapy line between November 2012 and July 2022 was performed. All radiographic evaluations of eligible patients were analyzed using the iRECIST consensus guideline. RESULTS: We assessed 247 baseline target lesions in 94 eligible patients. MR occurred in 11 (11.7%) patients: in 7 at first CT (computed tomography) evaluation (CT1) and in 4 at second CT evaluation (CT2). In 8 patients (73%), MR evolved to confirmed PD. In 3 patients (27%), MR evolved towards a partial response (PR) and was thus a psPD. psPD occurred in 8 (8.5%) patients: with psPD features at CT1 in 3 patients, with psPD features at CT2 in 2 patients, and with MR features at CT1 in 3 patients. psPD patients had similar progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients displaying PR as best response without a phase of psPD. 76 patients were treated beyond immune unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) at any moment: 12 (16%) of them evolved towards PR or stable disease (SD). Treatment beyond immune confirmed PD (iCPD) in 20 patients did not lead to PR or SD. CONCLUSION: Atypical responses such as psPD and MR occurred in 8.5% and 11.7% of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab at CT1 and CT2. Patients with psPD had favorable outcomes, while MR most often evolved to progression. Treatment with nivolumab beyond iCPD did not lead to tumor stabilization or regression.

Predictors of Recurrence After Metastasis-directed Therapy in Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) is performed to delay systemic treatments for oligorecurrent disease after primary prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the predictors of therapeutic response of MDT for oligorecurrent PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: bicentric, retrospective study, including consecutive patients who underwent MDT for oligorecurrent PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP; 2006-2020) was conducted. MDT encompassed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), salvage lymph node dissection (sLND), whole-pelvis/retroperitoneal radiation therapy (WP[R]RT), or metastasectomy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: ndpoints were 5-yr radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), palliative androgen deprivation treatment (pADT)-free survival, and overall survival (OS) together with prognostic factors for MFS following primary MDT. Survival outcomes were studied by Kaplan-Meier survival and univariable Cox regression (UVA). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 211 MDT patients were included; 122 (58%) developed a secondary recurrence. Salvage lymph node dissection was performed in 119 (56%), SBRT in 48 (23%), and WP(R)RT in 31 (15%) of the cases. Two patients received sLND + SBRT and one received sLND + WPRT. Eleven (5%) patients received metastasectomies. The median follow-up since RP was 100 mo, while follow-up after MDT was 42 mo. The 5-yr rPFS, MFS, androgen deprivation treatment(-free survival, castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival, CSS, and OS after MDT were 23%, 68%, 58%, 82%, 93%, and 87% respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between cN1 (n = 114) and cM+ (n = 97) for 5-yr MFS (83% vs 51%, p < 0.001), pADT-free survival (70% vs 49%, p = 0.014), and CSS (100% vs 86%, p = 0.019). UVA was performed to assess the risk factors (RFs) for MFS in cN1 and cM+. Alpha was set at 10%. RFs for MFS in cN1 were lower initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of RP (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.15 [0.02-1.02], p = 0.053], pN stage at RP (2.91 [0.83-10.24], p = 0.096), nonpersisting PSA after RP (0.47 [0.19-1.12], p = 0.089), higher PSA at primary MDT (2.38 [1.07-5.24], p = 0.032), and number of positive nodes on imaging (1.65 [1.14-2.40], p < 0.01). RFs for MFS in cM+ were higher pathological Gleason score (1.86 [0.93-3.73], p = 0.078), number of lesions on imaging (0.77 [0.57-1.04], p = 0.083), and cM1b/cM1c (non-nodal metastatic recurrence; 2.62 [1.58-4.34], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Following MDT, 23% of patients were free of a second recurrence at 5-yr follow-up. Moreover, cM+ patients had significantly worse outcomes in terms of MFS, pADT-free survival, and CSS. The RFs for a metastatic recurrence can be used for counseling patients, to inform prognosis, and potentially select candidates for MDT. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, we looked at the outcomes of using localized, patient-tailored treatment for imaging-detected recurrent prostate cancer in lymph nodes, bone, or viscera (maximum five recurrences on imaging). Our results showed that targeted treatment of the metastatic lesions could delay the premature use of hormone therapy.

ESTRO-ACROP recommendations for evidence-based use of androgen deprivation therapy in combination with external-beam radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no consensus concerning the appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) during primary and postoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). Thus, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) guidelines seeks to present current recommendations for the clinical use of ADT in the various indications of EBRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE PubMed that evaluated EBRT and ADT in prostate cancer. The search focused on randomized, Phase II and III trials published in English from January 2000 to May 2022. In case topics were addressed in the absence of Phase II or III trials, recommendations were labelled accordingly based on the limited body of evidence. Localized PCa was classified according to D'Amico et al. classification in low-, intermediate and high risk PCa. The ACROP clinical committee identified 13 European experts who discussed and analyzed the body of evidence concerning the use of ADT with EBRT for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Key issues were identified and are discussed: It was concluded that no additional ADT is recommended for low-risk prostate cancer patients, whereas for intermediate- and high-risk patients four to six months and two to three years of ADT are recommended. Likewise, patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are recommended to receive ADT for two to three years and when ≥ 2 high-risk factors (cT3-4, ISUP grade ≥ 4 or PSA ≥ 40 ng/ml) or cN1 is present ADT for three years plus additional Abiraterone for two years is recommended. For postoperative patients no ADT is recommended for adjuvant EBRT in pN0 patients whereas for pN1 patients adjuvant EBRT with long-term ADT is performed for at least 24 to 36 months. In the setting of salvage EBRT ADT is performed in biochemically persistent PCa patients with no evidence of metastatic disease. Long-term ADT (24 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with high risk of further progression (PSA ≥ 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group ≥ 4) and a life expectancy of over ten years, whereas short-term ADT (6 months) is recommended in pN0 patients with lower risk profile (PSA < 0.7 ng/ml and ISUP grade group 4). Patients considered for ultra-hypofractionated EBRT as well as patients with image based local recurrence within the prostatic fossa or lymph node recurrence should participate in appropriate clinical trials evaluating the role of additional ADT. CONCLUSION: These ESTRO-ACROP recommendations are evidence-based and relevant to the use of ADT in combination with EBRT in PCa for the most common clinical settings.

Genomic Classifiers in Personalized Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Approaches: A Systematic Review and Future Perspectives Based on International Consensus.

Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk stratification after surgery, but less data exist for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. To guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (1) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (2) a survey of experts using the Delphi method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on these results, a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted Delphi method survey. Thirty-one and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥75% agreement were considered relevant and included in the qualitative synthesis. Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT setting is emerging. Experts used GCs in patients with PCa with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%), and in newly diagnosed PCa (23%). Forty-seven percent of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/deintensification in various disease stages. This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and systemic therapy. The expert consensus points out future directions for GC research in the management of PCa.

Defining the optimal template of salvage lymph node dissection for unilateral pelvic nodal recurrence of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Several retrospective studies have shown that salvage bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (sLND) is a valid treatment option in the setting of oligorecurrent nodal prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Little is known about the optimal template of such sLND in patients with strictly unilateral pelvic recurrence on PET-CT imaging. In this study, we investigated whether a unilateral pelvic sLND could be sufficient in such a setting. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of patients treated with sLND between 2010 and 2019 at the University Hospitals, Leuven. Patients were included if they developed recurrence following radical prostatectomy, characterized by ≤3 unilateral pelvic lymph node metastases on Choline or PSMA PET-CT and received a super-extended bilateral pelvic sLND as first metastasis-directed therapy. As a primary endpoint, we investigated in how many cases a unilateral sLND would have been sufficient. RESULTS: In total, 44 patients with strictly unilateral pelvic recurrence were treated with super-extended bilateral pelvic sLND. In 5 out of 44 (11%) patients, histological examination showed presence of prostate cancer in the contralateral hemi-pelvis. In the group with a single positive node on imaging prior to sLND, only 1 out of 27 (3%) patients had contralateral disease at final pathology. No one (0%) in this group subsequently developed recurrence in the contralateral hemi-pelvis following sLND. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study suggests that unilateral pelvic sLND could be sufficient in patients with a single unilateral pelvic lymph node recurrence on PET/CT imaging.

Evaluating the Impact of Prostate Only Versus Pelvic Radiotherapy for Pathological Node-positive Prostate Cancer: First Results from the Multicenter Phase 3 PROPER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for patients with pathological node-positive (pN1) prostate cancer (PCa) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) improves clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS) in comparison to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT) in pN1 PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROPER was a phase 3 trial randomizing patients to WPRT or PORT. All patients had pN1cM0 PCa with fewer than five lymph nodes involved. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent pelvic lymph node dissection followed by radical prostatectomy/primary radiotherapy + 2 yr of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Patients were randomized to PORT (arm A) or WPRT (arm B). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was cRFS. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and toxicity. The study was stopped because of poor accrual in June 2021 after the inclusion of 69 patients. We report on OS, bRFS, cRFS, and acute and late toxicity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 30 mo in arm A (n = 33) and 36 mo in arm B (n = 31). The 3-yr OS rate was 92% ± 5% in arm A and 93% ± 5% in arm B (p = 0.61). None of the patients died of PCa. The 3-yr bRFS was 79% ± 9% in arm A and 92% ± 5% in arm B (p = 0.08). The 3-yr cRFS rate was 88% ± 6% in arm A and 92% ± 5% in arm B (p = 0.31). No pelvic recurrence was observed in arm B. Acute grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity was higher with WPRT (15% in arm A vs 45% in arm B; p = 0.03). Limitations are the early closure because of poor accrual and the limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our trial are hypothesis-generating but add evidence supporting the recommendation to offer WPRT to patients with pN1 PCa. However, WPRT is associated with more acute gastrointestinal toxicity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of radiotherapy to the whole pelvis (WPRT) for patients with prostate cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes. Although the trial was closed early because of poor enrolment, we found that WPRT improves survival free from relapse, and no recurrences were observed in the pelvis. WPRT is associated with more acute side effects on the gastrointestinal system in comparison to radiotherapy to just the prostate.

ARNEO: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Degarelix with or Without Apalutamide Prior to Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients have a high risk of biochemical recurrence and metastatic progression following radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of neoadjuvant degarelix plus apalutamide before RP compared with degarelix with a matching placebo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ARNEO was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II neoadjuvant trial before RP performed between March 2019 and April 2021. Eligible patients had high-risk PCa and were amenable to RP. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to degarelix (240-80-80 mg) + apalutamide (240 mg/d) versus degarelix + matching placebo for 3 mo followed by RP. Prior to and following neoadjuvant treatment, pelvic 18F-PSMA-1007 positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the difference in proportions of patients with minimal residual disease (MRD; = residual cancer burden (RCB) ≤0.25 cm3 at final pathology). Secondary endpoints included differences in prostate-specific antigen responses, pathological staging, and change in TNM stage on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/MRI following hormonal treatment. Biomarkers (immunohistochemical staining on prostate biopsy [PTEN, ERG, Ki67, P53, GR, and PSMA] and PSMA PET/MRI-derived characteristics) associated with pathological response (MRD and RCB) were explored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients were randomized to neoadjuvant degarelix + apalutamide (n = 45) or degarelix + matching placebo (n = 44) for 12 wk and underwent RP. Patients in the degarelix + apalutamide arm achieved a significantly higher rate of MRD than those in the control arm (38% vs 9.1%; relative risk [95% confidence interval] = 4.2 [1.5-11], p = 0.002). Patients with PTEN loss in baseline prostate biopsy attained significantly less MRD (11% vs 43%, p = 0.002) and had a higher RCB at final pathology (1.6 vs 0.40 cm3, p < 0.0001) than patients without PTEN loss. Following neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, PSMA PET-estimated tumor volumes (1.2 vs 2.5 ml, p = 0.01) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax; 4.3 vs 5.7, p = 0.007) were lower in patients with MRD than in patients without MRD. PSMA PET-estimated volume and PSMA PET SUVmax following neoadjuvant treatment correlated significantly with RCB at final pathology (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk PCa patients, neoadjuvant degarelix plus apalutamide prior to RP results in a significantly improved pathological response (MRD and RCB) compared with degarelix alone. Our trial results provide a solid hypothesis-generating basis for neoadjuvant phase 3 trials, which are powered to detect differences in long-term oncological outcome following neoadjuvant androgen receptor signaling inhibitor therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we looked at the difference in pathological responses in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with degarelix plus apalutamide or degarelix plus matching placebo prior to radical prostatectomy. We demonstrated that patients treated with degarelix plus apalutamide achieved a significantly better tumor response than patients treated with degarelix plus matching placebo. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether improved pathological outcome translates into better oncological outcomes.