External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms and comparison of existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a direct comparison of several existing risk-stratification tools for localized prostate cancer in terms of their ability to predict for biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Two large databases were used and an external validation of two recently developed nomograms on an independent cohort was also performed in this analysis. METHODS: Patients who were treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer were selected from the multi-institutional Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification (ProCaRS) database (n=7974) and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) validation database (n=2266). The primary outcome was BFFS using the Phoenix definition. Concordance index (C-index) reported from Cox proportional hazards regression using 10-fold cross validation and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to predict BFFS. RESULTS: C-index identified Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and ProCaRS as superior to the historical GUROC and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk-stratification systems. CAPRA modeled as five and three categories were superior to GUROC and NCCN only for the CHUM database. C-indices for CAPRA score, ProCaRS, GUROC, and NCCN were 0.72, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.72, respectively, for the ProCaRS database, and 0.66, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.60, respectively, for the CHUM database. However, many of these comparisons did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful difference. DCA identified minimal differences across the different risk-stratification systems, with no system emerging with optimal net benefit. External validation of the ProCaRS nomograms yielded favourable calibrations of R2=0.778 (low-dose rate [LDR]-brachytherapy) and R2=0.868 (EBRT). CONCLUSIONS: This study externally validated two ProCaRS nomograms for BFFS that may help clinicians in treatment selection and outcome prediction. A direct comparison between existing risk-stratification tools demonstrated minimal clinically significant differences in discriminative ability between the systems, favouring the CAPRA and ProCaRS systems. The incorporation of novel prognostic variables, such as genomic markers, is needed.

Electrochemical red-ox therapy of prostate cancer in nude mice.

Minimally invasive therapies are increasingly in demand for organ-confined prostate tumors. Electrochemical therapy (EChT) is attractive, as it relies on locally-induced reduction-oxidation reactions to kill tumor cells. Its efficacy for prostate cancer was assessed in human PC-3 and LNCaP tumor xenografts growing subcutaneously in nude mice (n = 80) by applying 2 Stainless Steel vs. 4 Platinum-Iridium (Pt-Ir) electrodes to deliver current densities of 10 to 35 mA/cm(2) for 30 or 60 min. The procedure was uneventful in 90% of mice. No difference in tumor vs. body temperature was observed. Changes at electrode-tumor junctions were immediate, with dryness and acidity (pH2-3) at the anode and oedema and alkalinity (pH10-12) at the cathode. This was accompanied by cellular alterations, found more pronounced at the cathode. Such acidic and alkaline conditions were cytotoxic in vitro and dissolved cells at pH>10. In mice, tumor destruction was extensive by 24h with almost undetectable blood prostate specific antigen (LNCaP model) and covered the whole tumor surface by 4 days. EChT was most efficient at 25-30 mA/cm(2) for 60 min, yielding the longest recurrence-free survival and higher cure rates, especially with 4 Pt-Ir electrodes. EChT is a promising option to optimize for organ-confined prostate tumors.

Endoscopic vascular targeted photodynamic therapy with the photosensitizer WST11 for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the preclinical dog model.

PURPOSE: Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy with WST11 (TOOKAD® Soluble) is in phase III clinical trials of an interstitial transperineal approach for focal therapy of prostate cancer. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the endourethral route in the context of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the dog model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An optical laser fiber was positioned in the prostatic urethra of 34 dogs, including 4 controls. It was connected to a 753 nm diode laser at 200 mW/cm fluence, delivering 200 to 300 J. WST11 (5 to 15 mg/kg) was infused intravenously in 2 modes, including continuous, starting 5 to 15 minutes before and during illumination, or a bolus 5 to 10 minutes before illumination. Prostate ultrasound, cystourethrogram, urodynamics and histopathology were performed. Followup was 1 week to 1 year. RESULTS: Endourethral WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy was uneventful in all except 1 dog, which experienced urinary retention but reached the 1-week end point. All prostates except those in controls showed hemorrhagic lesions. They consisted of 2 levels of concentric alterations, including periurethral necrosis with endothelial layer destruction and adjacent inflammation/atrophy with normal blood vessels. Prostatic urethral width increased as early as 6 weeks after treatment, while prostatic volume decreased, reaching 25% by 18 to 26 weeks. A parallel decrease in urethral pressure at 6 weeks lasted up to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the vascular effect of endourethral WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy. To our knowledge we report for the first time that the resulting periurethral necrosis led to significant, sustained widening of the prostatic urethra, accompanied by long-term improvement in urodynamic parameters. These findings support future clinical applications of this minimally invasive approach to benign prostatic hyperplasia.