Real-world evidence of 18F-fluciclovine Positron emission tomography/computed tomography performance for recurrent prostate cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health System.

BACKGROUND: There are no population-level studies assessing 18F-fluciclovine (fluciclovine) utilization of Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (PC). We assessed fluciclovine PET/CT in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System. METHODS: Of 1153 men with claims suggesting receipt of fluciclovine PET/CT, we randomly reviewed charts of 300 who indeed underwent fluciclovine PET/CT. The primary outcome was fluciclovine PET/CT result (positive or negative). Comparison among groups stratified by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (yes vs. no) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (≤1 vs. >1 ng/mL) at imaging were performed. Logistic regression tested associations between PSA, ADT receipt, and race with fluciclovine PET/CT positive imaging. RESULTS: Fluciclovine PET/CT positivity rate was 33% for patients with PSA 0-0.5 ng/mL, 21% for >0.5-1.0, 54% for >1.0-2.0, and 66% for >2.0 (p < 0.01). A 59% positivity rate ocurred in patients treated with concurrent ADT versus 37% in those not on ADT (p < 0.01). White were more likely to have a positive scan versus Black patients (55% vs. 38%; p = 0.02). Patients whose primary treatment was radical prostatectomy had a lower positivity rate (33%) versus those treated with radiotherapy (55%) (p < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, PSA > 1 ng/mL (all men odds ratio [OR]: 4.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-7.96; men on ADT only OR: 4.42, 95% CI: 1.73-11.26) and use of ADT (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.32-11.75), and White (all men OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.20-4.17) predicted positive fluciclovine PET/CT. CONCLUSION: This real-world study assessing 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT performance in an equal access health care system confirms higher detection rates than traditional imaging methods, but positivity is highly influenced by PSA at time of imaging. Additionally, patients currently receiving ADT have at least four times higher likelihood of a positive scan, showing that scan positivity isn't negatively affected by ADT status in this study. Finally, White men were more likely to have a positive scan, the reasons for which should be explored in future studies.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after neoadjuvant therapy and radical prostatectomy for high-risk localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe patterns of delivery of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage RT (sRT) in patients who underwent RP after receiving neoadjuvant androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) before radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC). METHODS: Two hundred eighteen patients treated on phase 2 neoadjuvant trials between 2006 and 2018 at two academic centers were evaluated. aRT and sRT were defined as receipt of RT with a PSA of ≤0.1 or >0.1 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as time from aRT/sRT to a PSA rising to >0.1 ng/mL, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after RT. RESULTS: Twenty-three (11%) and 55 (25%) patients received aRT and sRT respectively. Median PSA at start of aRT and sRT was 0.01 and 0.16 ng/mL, and median duration from RP to RT was 5 and 14 months, respectively. All aRT patients had NCCN high-risk disease, 30% were pN1 and 43% had positive surgical margins; 52% had prostate bed RT. Fifty-one percent of sRT patients had biopsy Gleason 9-10, 29% were pT2 and 9% had positive surgical margins; 63% had RT to the prostate bed/pelvis. At a median follow-up of 5.3 and 3.0 years after aRT and sRT, 3-year freedom from BCR was 55% and 47%, and 3-year MFS was 56% and 53%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: aRT was infrequently used in patients who received neoadjuvant ARPI before RP for HRLPC. Outcomes of aRT and sRT were similar but generally poor. Studies evaluating intensified systemic therapy approaches with postoperative RT in this high-risk population are needed.

Overall and metastasis-free survival of Afro-Caribbean patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Early salvage radiotherapy is indicated for patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. However, for various reasons, certain patients do not benefit from this treatment (OBS) or only at a late stage (LSR). There are few studies on this subject and none on a "high-risk" population, such as patients of African descent. Our objective was to estimate the metastasis-free (MFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients who did not receive salvage radiotherapy, and to identify risk factors of disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study that included 154 patients, 99 in the OBS group and 55 in the LSR group. All were treated by total prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer between January 2000 and December 2020 and none received early salvage radiotherapy after biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the time to biochemical recurrence. The median follow-up was 10.0 and 11.8 years for the OBS and LSR groups, respectively. The median time from surgery to LSR was 5.1 years. The two groups did not show a significant difference in MFS: 90.6% at 10 years for the OBS group and 93.3% for the LSR group. The median MFS was 19.8 and 19.6 years for the OBS and LSR groups respectively. OS for the OBS group was significantly higher than that for the LSR group (HR: 2.14 [1.07-4.29]; p = 0.03), with 10-year OS of 95.9% for the OBS group and 76.1% for the LSR group. Median OS was 16 and 15.6 years for the OBS and LSR groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed satisfactory metastasis-free and OS rates relative to those reported in the scientific literature. The challenge is not to question the benefit of early salvage radiotherapy, but to improve the identification of patients at risk of progression through the development of molecular and genomic tests for more highly personalized medicine.

Fewer systematic prostate core biopsies in clinical stage T1c prostate cancer leads to biochemical recurrence after brachytherapy as monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: After brachytherapy, fewer prostate biopsy cores at diagnosis can underestimate the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa) with lower concordance, resulting in improper treatment, particularly in patients with low-risk nonpalpable cT1c PCa. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the number of biopsy cores at diagnosis and long-term clinical outcomes after brachytherapy for cT1c PCa. METHODS: We reviewed 516 patients with localized cT1c PCa with Gleason scores of 3 + 3 = 6 or 3 + 4 = 7 who underwent brachytherapy as monotherapy without hormonal therapy between January 2005 and September 2014 at our institution. Clinical staging was based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer manual for staging. Thus, the cT1c category is based solely on digital rectal examination. The primary outcome was biochemical recurrence (BCR). Based on the optimized cutoff value for biopsy core number obtained from receiver operating characteristic analysis, patients were divided into the biopsy cores ≤8 (N = 123) and ≥9 (N = 393) groups. The BCR-free survival rate was compared between the groups. Prognostic factors for BCR were evaluated, including age, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, positive core rate, PSA density, prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings, and biopsy core number. RESULTS: The median patient age was 66.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 61.0-71.0 years), and the median follow-up time was 11.1 years (IQR: 9.5-13.3 years). The median number of core biopsies was 12 (IQR: 9-12). The area under the curve was 0.637 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.75), and the optimal biopsy core cutoff value for BCR prediction was 8.5 (sensitivity = 43.5%, specificity = 77.1%). Although fewer patients had Gleason scores of 3 + 4 = 7 (19/123 [15%] vs. 125/393 [32%], p < 0.02) in the biopsy cores ≤8 group, the 10-year BCR-free survival rate was significantly lower in the biopsy cores ≤8 group than in the biopsy cores ≥9 group (93.8% vs. 96.3%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that a lower biopsy core number (hazard ratio: 0.828, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, p < 0.03) and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 (hazard ratio: 3.26, 95% CI: 1.37-7.73, p < 0.01) significantly predicted BCR. CONCLUSIONS: A low number of prostate core biopsies results in worse BCR-free survival after brachytherapy as monotherapy in patients with cT1c PCa.

Significant Effect of Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy Combined With Androgen Deprivation on Biochemical Recurrence Rates in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Two-Center Controlled Trial Compare With X-Ray External Beam Radiation Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: The effects of initial prostate-specific antigen (iPSA), clinical Tumor (cT) stage, radiotherapy method, and other clinical factors on the prognosis of 577 patients with radiotherapy were analyzed. RESULTS: Cox regression analysis showed that CIRT (RR: 0.49, p = 0.0215), cT stage ≥ 3 (RR: 2.72, p = 0.0003), and iPSA ≥ 16 ng/mL (RR: 1.74, p = 0.0347) were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR). After propensity score matching (PSM), CIRT (RR: 0.42, p = 0.0147), cT stage ≥ 3 (RR: 2.55, p = 0.0092), and iPSA ≥ 16 ng/mL (RR: 2.12, p = 0.0366) were still the predictors of univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, CIRT (RR: 0.42, p = 0.015) and cT stage≥ 3 (RR:2.21, p = 0.0332) were independent predictors of BCR. Among them, we used iPSA and cT stages to establish a new radiotherapy selection model based on BCR risk. Patients who met more than one factor (score ≥ 1) and underwent CIRT had significantly better BCR progression-free survival (PFS) than those who received EBRT (p ≤ 0.01). This was also confirmed by Kaplan-Meier analysis after PSM. CONCLUSION: CIRT patients exhibited lower 5-year BCR rates compared to the EBRT group. Patients with a risk score of our model ≥ 1 undergoing CIRT were more likely to experience BCR benefits compared to those receiving EBRT.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2. METHODS: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL). RESULTS: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Do Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors Increase the Risk of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy?

PURPOSE: There have been conflicting studies on the association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) use and biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to determine whether PDE5i drug exposure after RP increases the risk of BCR in patients undergoing RP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional database of prostate cancer patients treated between January 2009 and December 2020 was reviewed. BCR was defined as 2 PSA measurements greater than 0.1 ng/mL. PDE5i exposure was defined using a 0 to 3 scale, with 0 representing never use, 1 sometimes use, 2 regularly use, and 3 routinely use. The risk of BCR with any PDE5i exposure, the quantity of exposure, and the duration of PDE5i exposure were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The sample size included 4630 patients to be analyzed, with 776 patients having BCR. The median follow-up for patients without BCR was 27 (IQR 12, 49) months. Eighty-nine percent reported taking a PDE5i at any time during the first 12 months after RP, and 60% reported doing so for 6 or more months during the year after RP. There was no evidence of an increase in the risk of BCR associated with any PDE5i use (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84, 1.31, P = .7) or duration of PDE5i use in the first year (HR 0.98 per 1 month duration, 95% CI 0.96, 1.00, P = .055). Baseline oncologic risk was lower in patients using PDE5i, but differences between groups were small, suggesting that residual confounding is unlikely to obscure any causal association with BCR. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of PDE5i to men after RP can be based exclusively on quality of life considerations. Patients receiving PDE5is can be reassured that their use does not increase the risk of BCR.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy vs Hormonal Therapy in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated by Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Benefits of docetaxel-based neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy (NCHT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) remain largely unknown. We explored whether docetaxel-based NCHT would bring pathological benefits and improve biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) over neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) in locally advanced prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized trial was designed recruiting 141 locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer patients who were randomly assigned at the ratio of 2:1 to the NCHT group (75 mg/m2 body surface area every 3 weeks plus androgen deprivation therapy for 6 cycles) and the NHT group (androgen deprivation therapy for 24 weeks). The primary end point was 3-year bPFS. Secondary end points were pathological response including pathological downstaging and minimal residual disease rates. RESULTS: The NCHT group showed significant benefits in 3-year bPFS compared to the NHT group (29% vs 9.5%, P = .002). At a median follow-up of 53 months, the NCHT group achieved a significantly longer median bPFS time than the NHT group (17 months vs 14 months). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in pathological downstaging and minimal residual disease rates. CONCLUSIONS: NCHT plus RP achieved significant bPFS benefits when compared with NHT plus RP in high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer. A larger cohort with longer follow-up duration is essential in further investigation.

Risk of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients With Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer With Extraprostatic Extension Treated With Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: We sought to examine the association of extraprostatic extension (EPE) with biochemical recurrence (BCR) separately in men with Grade Group (GG) 1 and GG2 prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for PCa between 2005 and 2022 and identified patients with GG1 and GG2 disease on final pathology. Fine-Gray competing risk models with an interaction between EPE (yes vs no) and GG (GG1 vs GG2) were used to examine the relationship between disease group and BCR-free survival. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 6309 men, of whom 169/2740 (6.2%) with GG1 disease had EPE while 1013/3569 (28.4%) with GG2 disease had EPE. Median follow-up was 4 years. BCR occurred in 400/6309 (6.3%) patients. For men with GG1, there was no statistically significant difference in BCR-free survival for men with vs without EPE (subdistribution HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.37-2.09). However, for GG2 patients BCR-free survival was significantly worse for those with vs without EPE (subdistribution HR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.54-2.52). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a subset of GG1 PCas capable of invading through the prostatic capsule, patients with GG1 PCa and EPE at prostatectomy experience similar biochemical recurrence and survival outcomes compared to GG1 patients without EPE. However, among men with GG2, EPE connotes a worse prognosis.

Prognostication in Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer with No PSA Persistence After Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to create a prognostic model to predict disease recurrence among patients with lymph node involvement but no prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence and to explore its clinical utility. METHODS: The study analyzed patients with lymph node involvement after pelvic lymph node dissection with radical prostatectomy in whom no PSA persistence was observed between 2006 and 2019 at 33 institutions. Prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 231 patients, 127 experienced disease recurrence. The factors prognostic for RFS were PSA level at diagnosis (≥ 20 vs. < 20 ng/mL: hazard ratio [HR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.52; P = 0.017), International Society of Urological Pathology grade group at radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen (group ≥ 4 vs. ≤ 3: HR, 1.63; 95% CI 1.12-2.37; P = 0.010), pathologic T-stage (pT3b/4 vs. pT2/3a: HR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.20-2.42; P = 0.0031), and surgical margin status (positive vs. negative: HR, 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.28; P = 0.0086). The prognostic model using four parameters were associated with RFS and metastasis-free survival. CONCLUSION: The prognostic model in combination with postoperative PSA value and number of lymph nodes is clinically useful for discussing treatment choice with patients.

Does the extent of extraprostatic extension at radical prostatectomy predict outcome?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer is usually reported as either focal (F-EPE) or established (E-EPE), but data on the implication for outcomes of this subdivision are conflicting and no systematic review (SR) evaluating this exists. This SR aims to address this gap in the literature, focusing on the impact of F-EPE and E-EPE on outcome in radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. Searches on Embase, Medline(R), and Pubmed databases were conducted. Studies were included if they investigated the extent of EPE in RP patients and correlated this with defined outcomes (biochemical recurrence [BCR], death, metastasis). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used for studies reporting hazard ratios (EPE extent and biochemical recurrence). 24 studies, including 49,187 men, were included. Six studies were of high quality. 20 studies reported how they measured EPE. 13 studies reported that the extent of EPE was associated significantly with BCR. Meta-analysis showed there was a significant correlation between BCR and both F-EPE and E-EPE when compared to organ-confined disease; no significant difference was found between F-EPE and E-EPE. This is the only SR to investigate the extent of EPE on outcomes after RP. EPE alone predicts outcome, but the value of subdivision by extent could not be demonstrated. Comparisons are limited due to variability in EPE assessment and in the methods used to report outcomes in the literature. Further work to standardize EPE reporting methods, in larger cohorts, may be helpful to resolve remaining questions.

Prognostic and immunological implications of heterogeneous cell death patterns in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men with a significant proportion of patients developing biochemical recurrence (BCR) after treatment. Programmed cell death (PCD) mechanisms are known to play critical roles in tumor progression and can potentially serve as prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers in PCa. This study aimed to develop a prognostic signature for BCR in PCa using PCD-related genes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 19 different modes of PCD to develop a comprehensive model. Bulk transcriptomic, single-cell transcriptomic, genomic, and clinical data were collected from multiple cohorts, including TCGA-PRAD, GSE58812, METABRIC, GSE21653, and GSE193337. We analyzed the expression and mutations of the 19 PCD modes and constructed, evaluated, and validated the model. RESULTS: Ten PCD modes were found to be associated with BCR in PCa, with specific PCD patterns exhibited by various cell components within the tumor microenvironment. Through Lasso Cox regression analysis, we established a Programmed Cell Death Index (PCDI) utilizing an 11-gene signature. High PCDI values were validated in five independent datasets and were found to be associated with an increased risk of BCR in PCa patients. Notably, older age and advanced T and N staging were associated with higher PCDI values. By combining PCDI with T staging, we constructed a nomogram with enhanced predictive performance. Additionally, high PCDI values were significantly correlated with decreased drug sensitivity, including drugs such as Docetaxel and Methotrexate. Patients with lower PCDI values demonstrated higher immunophenoscores (IPS), suggesting a potentially higher response rate to immune therapy. Furthermore, PCDI was associated with immune checkpoint genes and key components of the tumor microenvironment, including macrophages, T cells, and NK cells. Finally, clinical specimens validated the differential expression of PCDI-related PCDRGs at both the gene and protein levels. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we developed a novel PCD-based prognostic feature that successfully predicted BCR in PCa patients and provided insights into drug sensitivity and potential response to immune therapy. These findings have significant clinical implications for the treatment of PCa.

The prognostic role of next-generation imaging-driven upstaging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Phase III evidence showed that next-generation imaging (NGI), such as prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT), provides higher diagnostic accuracy than bone scan and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (conventional imaging, CI) in the primary staging of intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, due to the lack of outcome data, the introduction of NGI in routine clinical practice is still debated. Analysing the oncological outcome of patients upstaged by NGI (though managed according to CI) might shed light on this issue, supporting the design of randomised trials comparing the effects of treatments delivered based on NGI vs. CI. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a cohort of 100 biopsy-proven intermediate-to-high-risk PCa patients staged with CI and PSMA PET/CT (though managed according to the CI stage), to assess the frequency of the stage migration phenomenon. Stage migration was then assessed as biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) predictor. RESULTS: Three patients were lost at follow-up after imaging. PSMA PET/CT upstaged 26.8% of patients compared to CI, while it downstaged 6.1% of patients. Notably, 50% of patients excluded from surgery due to the presence of bone metastases at CI would have been treated with radical-intent approaches if PSMA PET/CT had guided the treatment choice. After a median follow-up of 6 months of surgically treated patients, 22/83 (26.5%) had biochemical recurrence (BCR). PSMA PET/CT-driven upstaging determined a significant risk increase for BCR (HR:3.41, 95%CI:1.21-9.56, p = 0.019). Including stage migration in a univariable and multivariable model identified PSMA PET/CT-upstaging as an independent predictor of bRFS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, implementing NGI for staging purposes improves the prediction of bRFS. Although phase III evidence is still needed, this advancement suggests that NGI may better identify patients who would benefit from local treatments than those who may achieve better oncological outcomes through systemic treatment.

Diagnostic accuracy of fully hybrid [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI and [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET/MRI in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-center phase II clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of PET/MRI with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [68Ga]Ga-M2 in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective single-center phase II clinical trial from June 2020 to October 2022. Forty-four/60 completed all study examinations and were available at follow-up (median: 22.8 months, range: 6-31.5 months). Two nuclear medicine physicians analyzed PET images and two radiologists interpreted MRI; images were then re-examined to produce an integrated PET/MRI report for both [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [68Ga]Ga-RM2 examinations. A composite reference standard including histological specimens, response to treatment, and conventional imaging gathered during follow-up was used to validate imaging findings. Detection rates, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value were assessed. McNemar's test was used to compare sensitivity and specificity on a per-patient base and detection rate on a per-region base. Prostate bed, locoregional lymph nodes, non-skeletal distant metastases, and bone metastases were considered. p-value significance was defined below the 0.05 level after correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 69.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 61.8-75.1) and median PSA level at time of imaging was 0.53 ng/mL (IQR: 0.33-2.04). During follow-up, evidence of recurrence was observed in 31/44 patients. Combining MRI with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET resulted in sensitivity = 100% and 93.5% and specificity of 69.2% and 69.2%, respectively. When considering the individual imaging modalities, [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET showed lower sensitivity compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET and MRI (61.3% vs 83.9% and 87.1%, p = 0.046 and 0.043, respectively), while specificity was comparable among the imaging modalities (100% vs 84.6% and 69.2%, p = 0.479 and 0.134, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study brings further evidence on the utility of fully hybrid PET/MRI for disease characterization in patients with biochemically recurrent PCa. Imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET showed high sensitivity, while the utility of [68Ga]Ga-RM2 PET in absence of a simultaneous whole-body/multiparametric MRI remains to be determined.

Whole-body tumour burden on [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: association with tumour biology and PSA kinetics.

PURPOSE: The objective was to assess the association between molecular imaging (mi) variables on [18F]DCFPyL-PET/CT with clinical and disease characteristics and prostate specific antigen (PSA) related variables in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (BRPC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed patients with BRPC after radical treatment. We obtained clinical and PSA variables: International Society of Urology Pathology (ISUP) grade group, European Association of Urology (EAU) risk classification, PSA (PSA≤1ng/ml, 12), PSA doubling time (PSAdt) and PSA velocity (PSAvel). All PET/CT scans were reviewed with the assistance of automated Prostate Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (aPROMISE) software and lesions' segmentation in positive scans was performed using this platform. Standardized uptake value (SUV) derived variables; tumour burden variables [whole-body tumour volume (wbTV), whole-body tumour lesion activity (wbTLA) and whole-body mi PSMA (wbPSMA)] and miTNM staging were obtained. Cut-off of PSA and kinetics able to predict PET/CT results were obtained. Associations between disease and mi variables were analysed using ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's correlation tests. Multivariate analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-five patients were studied. [18F]DCFPyL-PET/CT were positive in 165/275 patients. In multivariate analysis, moment of biochemical recurrence, ISUP group, PSA level and PSAvel showed significant association with the detection rate. miTNM showed significant association with PSA level (p<0.001) and kinetics (p<0.001), being higher in patients with metastatic disease. Both PSA and PSAvel showed moderate correlation with wbTV, wbTLA and wbPSMA (p<0.001). A weak correlation with SUVs was found. Mean wbTV, wbTLA and wbPSMA values were significantly higher in PSA > 2ng/ml, PSAdt ≤ 6 months and PSAvel ≥ 0.2ng/ml/month groups. Also, wbTV (p=0.039) and wbPSMA (p=0.020) were significantly higher in patients with ISUP grade group 5. PSA and PSAvel cut-offs (1.15 ng/ml and 0.065 ng/ml/month) were significantly associated with a positive PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Higher PSA values, unfavourable PSA kinetics and ISUP grade group 5 were robust predictive variables of larger tumour burden variables on [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT assessed by aPROMISE platform.

Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A consensus has not been reached on the value of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) as a predictor of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between PSAD and biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary treatment. METHODS: Two authors systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases (up to August September 10, 2023) to identify studies that assessed the value of pretreatment PSAD in predicting biochemical recurrence after primary treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) of prostate cancer. A random effect model was used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: Nine studies with 4963 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The reported prevalence of biochemical recurrence ranged from 4 to 55.1%. For patients with higher PSAD compared to those with low PSAD, the pooled HR of biochemical recurrence was 1.59 (95% CI 1.21-2.10). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR of biochemical recurrence was 1.80 (95% CI 1.34-2.42) for patients who received radical prostatectomy, and 0.98 (95% CI 0.66-1.45) for patients who received radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated pretreatment PSAD may be an independent predictor for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Determining PSAD could potentially improve the prediction of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer.

Identification of the cytoplasmic DNA-Sensing cGAS-STING pathway-mediated gene signatures and molecular subtypes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Considering the age relevance of prostate cancer (PCa) and the involvement of the cGAS-STING pathway in aging and cancer, we aim to classify PCa into distinct molecular subtypes and identify key genes from the novel perspective of the cGAS-STING pathway. It is of significance to guide personalized intervention of cancer-targeting therapy based on genetic evidence. METHODS: The 430 patients with PCa from the TCGA database were included. We integrated 29 key genes involved in cGAS-STING pathway and analyzed differentially expressed genes and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival-related genes. The assessments of tumor stemness and heterogeneity and tumor microenvironment (TME) were conducted to reveal potential mechanisms. RESULTS: PCa patients were classified into two distinct subtypes using AURKB, TREX1, and STAT6, and subtype 1 had a worse prognosis than subtype 2 (HR: 21.19, p < 0.001). The findings were validated in the MSKCC2010 cohort. Among subtype 1 and subtype 2, the top ten mutation genes were MUC5B, DNAH9, SLC5A10, ZNF462, USP31, SIPA1L3, PLEC, HRAS, MYOM1, and ITGB6. Gene set variation analysis revealed a high enrichment of the E2F target in subtype 1, and gene set enrichment analysis showed significant enrichment of base excision repair, cell cycle, and DNA replication in subtype 1. TME evaluation indicated that subtype 1 had a significantly higher level of T cells follicular helper and a lower level of plasma cells than subtype 2. CONCLUSIONS: The molecular subtypes mediated by the cGAS-STING pathway and the genetic risk score may aid in identifying potentially high-risk PCa patients who may benefit from pharmacologic therapies targeting the cGAS-STING pathway.