Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Alternative to ADT?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The standard treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is systemic treatment with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The spectrum-based model of metastatic disease includes the presence of an oligometastatic state, an intermediary between localized and widespread metastatic disease, in which radical local treatment might improve systemic control. Our purpose is to review the literature on metastasis-directed therapy in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Several prospective clinical trials have reported improvements in ADT-free survival and progression-free survival with metastasis-directed therapy of oligometastatic prostate cancer. Retrospective studies have found improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer undergoing metastasis-directed therapy, and several recent prospective clinical trials have confirmed these results. Advancements in imaging as well as an understanding of the genomics of oligometastatic prostate cancer may allow for better patient selection for metastasis-directed therapy and the potential for cure in selected patients.

Factors Associated With Palliative Intervention Utilization for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Several guidelines have adopted early integration of palliative intervention (PI) into oncologic care to improve quality of life among patients with advanced malignancies. However, PI utilization patterns and factors associated with its use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we abstracted patients diagnosed with Stage IV RCC from 2004 to 2014 and evaluated the utilization of PI within this cohort. Socioeconomic and clinical factors were compared for patients receiving and not receiving PI for metastatic RCC. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) models identified factors that were associated with receipt of PI within overall cohort and treatment-based cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 42,014 patients with Stage IV RCC, of which 7,912 patients received PI. From 2004 to 2014, the use of PI minimally increased from 17% to 20% for Stage IV RCC. MLR analysis demonstrated that increased comorbidities, insurance status, higher education status, facility location, care at a comprehensive cancer program or integrated network, sarcomatoid histology, and treatment type significantly increased the likelihood of PI use. Various socioeconomic, clinical, and geographical factors that are associated with use of PI-based on the treatment received for Stage IV RCC. CONCLUSIONS: While PI utilization has minimally increased for Stage IV RCC, there are several geographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors that predict its use among patients with Stage IV RCC in a treatment-specific manner. Taken together, this suggests the need for earlier initiation of PI in a more equitable and systematic fashion among patients with metastatic RCC.