Managing Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and castrate testosterone levels, with no radiological findings of metastatic disease on computed tomography and bone scan. Given recent drug approvals for nmCRPC, with many other therapeutics and imaging modalities being developed, management of nmCRPC is a rapidly evolving field that merits detailed investigation. OBJECTIVE: To review current nmCRPC management practices and identify opportunities for improving care of nmCRPC patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search up to July 2018 was conducted, including clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Society for Medical Oncology, European Association of Urology, Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group, Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence). Keywords included prostate cancer, nonmetastatic, castration resistance, rising PSA, and biochemical relapse. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Recommendations regarding indications for, and frequency of, imaging and PSA testing, as well as for initiating systemic therapy in nmCRPC are based on PSA rise kinetics and symptoms. Both enzalutamide and apalutamide have been shown to significantly increase metastasis-free survival in phase III placebo-controlled randomised trials in nmCRPC patients with PSA doubling time (DT) ≤10 mo. The expected impact of new imaging techniques in the assessment of nmCRPC is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: nmCRPC is a heterogeneous disease; while observation may be an option for some patients, enzalutamide and apalutamide may be appropriate to treat nmCRPC patients with PSA-DT ≤10 mo. The emergence of more accurate imaging modalities as well as circulating tumour biomarker assays will likely redefine the assessment of nmCRPC in the near future. PATIENT SUMMARY: Herein, we review key literature and clinical practice guidelines to summarise the optimal management of patients with prostate cancer and rising prostate-specific antigen despite castrate testosterone levels, but with no evidence of distant metastasis on traditional imaging. New drugs are being developed for this disease setting; novel imaging and tumour biomarker blood tests are likely to define this disease state more accurately.

Effect on Overall Survival of Locoregional Treatment in a Cohort of De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Retrospective Analysis From the Royal Marsden Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of the primary tumor in metastatic at diagnosis (M1) prostate cancer (PCa) patients is not yet established. We retrospectively evaluated the effect of locoregional treatment (LRT) on overall survival (OS) hypothesizing that this could improve outcome through better local disease control and the induction of an antitumor immune response (abscopal effect). PATIENTS AND METHODS: M1 at diagnosis PCa patients referred to the Prostate Targeted Therapy Group at the Royal Marsden between June 2003 and December 2013 were identified. LRT was defined as either surgery, radiotherapy (RT) or transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) administered to the primary tumor at any time point from diagnosis to death. Kaplan-Meier analyses generated OS data. The association between LRT and OS was evaluated in univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall 300 patients were identified; 192 patients (64%) experienced local symptoms at some point during their disease course; 72 patients received LRT (56.9% TURP, 52.7% RT). None of the patients were treated with prostatectomy. LRT was more frequently performed in patients with low volume disease (35.4% vs. 16.2%; P < .001), lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis (median PSA: 75 vs. 184 ng/mL; P = .005) and local symptoms (34.2% vs. 4.8%; P < .001). LRT was associated in UV and MV analysis with longer OS (62.1 vs. 55.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .044), which remained significant for RT (69.4 vs. 55.1 months; HR, 0.54; P = .002) but not for TURP. RT was associated with better OS independent of disease volume at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: These data support the conduct of randomized phase III trials to evaluate the benefit of local control in patients with M1 disease at diagnosis.