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 phase II trial of apalutamide for intermediate-risk prostate cancer and molecular correlates.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether 6 months of preoperative apalutamide for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPCa) reduces the aggregate postoperative radiotherapy risk and to evaluate associations of molecular perturbations with clinical outcomes in this study cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and February 2020, eligible patients with IRPCa (Gleason 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 and clinical T2b-c or prostate-specific antigen level of 10-20 ng/mL) were treated with apalutamide 240 mg/day for 6 months followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) in this single-arm, phase II trial. The primary endpoint was presence of any adverse pathological feature at risk of pelvic radiation (pathological T stage after neoadjuvant therapy [yp]T3 or ypN1 or positive surgical margins). Translational studies, including germline and somatic DNA alterations and RNA and protein expression, were performed on post-apalutamide RP specimens, and assessed for associations with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent a RP, and only one patient discontinued apalutamide prior to 6 months. In all, 40% had adverse pathological features at time of RP, and the 3-year biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate was 15%, with 27.5% being not evaluable. Genomic alterations frequently seen in metastatic PCas, such as androgen receptor (AR), tumour protein p53 (TP53), phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN), or BReast CAncer associated gene (BRCA1/2) were underrepresented in this localised cohort. Adverse pathological features and BCR at 3-years were associated with increased expression of select cell cycle (e.g., E2F targets: adjusted P value [Padj] < 0.001, normalised enrichment score [NES] 2.47) and oxidative phosphorylation (Padj < 0.001, NES 1.62) pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative apalutamide did not reduce the aggregate postoperative radiation risk to the pre-specified threshold in unselected men with IRPCa. However, transcriptomic analysis identified key dysregulated pathways in tumours associated with adverse pathological outcomes and BCR, which warrant future study. Further investigation of preoperative therapy is underway for men with high-risk PCa.

Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

Diagnostic Performance and Safety of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 Positron Emission Tomography in Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer Recurrence: Results From a Phase 3, Prospective, Multicenter Study (SPOTLIGHT).

PURPOSE: SPOTLIGHT (NCT04186845) evaluated diagnostic performance and safety of radiohybrid 18F-rhPSMA-7.3, a novel high-affinity positron emission tomography radiopharmaceutical. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with prostate cancer recurrence underwent positron emission tomography/CT 50-70 minutes after intravenous administration of 296±20% MBq 18F-rhPSMA-7.3. To assess the coprimary end points (verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value), 3 blinded, independent central readers evaluated the scans. Verified detection rate is equivalent to the overall detection rate × positive predictive value. Standard of truth was established for each patient using histopathology or confirmatory imaging. Statistical thresholds (lower bounds of the confidence intervals) of 36.5% and 62.5% were prespecified for verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value, respectively. Additional end points included detection rate, verified detection rate, and combined region-level positive predictive value in patients with histopathology standard of truth, and safety. RESULTS: The overall 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 detection rate among all 389 patients with an evaluable scan was 83% (majority read). Among the 366 patients (median prostate-specific antigen 1.27 ng/mL) for whom a standard of truth (histopathology [n=69]/confirmatory imaging only [n=297]) was available, verified detection rate ranged from 51% (95% CI 46.1-56.6) to 54% (95% CI 48.8-59.3), exceeding the prespecified statistical threshold. Combined region-level positive predictive value ranged from 46% (95% CI 42.0-50.3) to 60% (95% CI 55.1-65.5) across the readers, not meeting the threshold. In the subset of patients with histopathology standard of truth, the verified detection rate and combined region-level positive predictive value were both above the prespecified thresholds (majority read, 81% [95% CI 69.9-89.6] and 72% [95% CI 62.5-80.7], respectively). No significant safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 offers a clinically meaningful verified detection rate for localization of recurrent prostate cancer. Despite missing the coprimary end point of combined region-level positive predictive value, the totality of the data support the potential clinical utility of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3.

Definitive local therapy for T4 prostate cancer associated with improved local control and survival.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients with clinical (c)T4 prostate cancer (PCa), which represent both a heterogenous and understudied population, who often present with locally advanced disease and obstructive symptoms causing significant morbidity and mortality. We analysed whether receiving definitive local therapy influenced symptomatic and oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 154 patients with cT4 PCa treated at a single institution in 1996-2020. Systemic therapy with or without local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy [RT], or both). Uni- and multivariate analyses of associations between clinicopathological features (including obstructive symptoms) and receipt of local therapy on overall survival (OS) and disease control were done with Cox regression. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.9 years. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (88%), Gleason score 9-10 (77%), and median baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 20 ng/mL; most (54%) had metastatic cT4N0-1M1 disease; 24% regionally advanced cT4N1M0, and 22% localised cT4N0M0. Local therapies were RT (n = 44), surgery (n = 28), or both (n = nine). Local therapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.3, P < 0.001), longer freedom from local recurrence (HR 0.39, P = 0.002), less local progression (HR 0.41, P = 0.02), fewer obstructive symptoms with progression (HR 0.31, P = 0.01), and less death from local disease (HR 0.25, P = 0.002). On multivariate, local therapy was associated with improved survival (HR 0.58, P = 0.02), and metastatic disease (HR 2.93, P < 0.001) or high-risk pathology (HR 2.05, P = 0.03) was associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION: Definitive local therapy for cT4 PCa was associated with improved symptomatic outcomes and survival even among men with metastatic disease. Pending prospective evaluation, these findings support definitive treatment with local therapy for cT4 disease in select cases.

Defining Diagnostic Criteria for Prostatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma at Multiparametric MRI.

Background Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is an aggressive histologic variant of prostate cancer that often warrants multimodal therapy and poses a significant diagnostic challenge clinically and at imaging. Purpose To develop multiparametric MRI criteria to define DAC and to assess their diagnostic performance in differentiating DAC from prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC). Materials and Methods Men with histologically proven DAC who had multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy were retrospectively identified from January 2011 through November 2018. MRI features were predefined using a subset of nine DACs and then compared for men with peripheral-zone DACs 1 cm or greater in size and men with matched biopsy-confirmed International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 4-5 PAC, by four independent radiologists blinded to the pathologic diagnosis. Diagnostic performance was determined by consensus read. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared by using the Fisher test, t-tests, and Mann-Whitney U test. Agreement (Cohen κ) and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results There were 59 men with DAC (median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 56, 67 years]) and 59 men with PAC (median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 59, 69 years]). Predefined MRI features, including intermediate T2 signal, well-defined margin, lobulation, and hypointense rim, were detected in a higher proportion of DACs than PACs (76% [45 of 59] vs 5% [three of 59]; P < .001). On consensus reading, the presence of three or more features demonstrated 76% sensitivity, 94% specificity, 94% positive predictive value [PPV], and 80% negative predictive value [NPV] for all DACs and 100% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 81% PPV, and 100% NPV for pure DACs. The DACs and PACs showed no difference in contrast enhancement (100% vs 100%; P >.99, median T2 signal intensity (254 vs 230; P = .99), or apparent diffusion coefficient (median, 677 10-6 mm2/sec vs 685 10-6 mm2/sec; P = .73). Conclusion The presence of intermediate T2 signal, well-defined margin, lobulation, and/or hypointense rim, together with restricted diffusion and contrast enhancement at multiparametric MRI of the prostate, suggests prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma rather than prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet and grade group progression in localized prostate cancer: An active surveillance cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Mediterranean diet (MD) may be beneficial for men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) because of its anti-inflammatory, antilipidemic, and chemopreventive properties. This study prospectively investigated adherence to the MD with Gleason score progression and explored associations by diabetes status, statin use, and other factors. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed PCa on an AS protocol (n = 410) completed a baseline food frequency questionnaire, and the MD score was calculated across 9 energy-adjusted food groups. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to evaluate multivariable-adjusted associations of the MD score with progression-free survival; progression was defined as an increase in the Gleason grade group (GG) score over a biennial monitoring regimen. RESULTS: In this cohort, 15% of the men were diabetic, 44% of the men used statins, and 76 men progressed (median follow-up, 36 months). After adjustments for clinical factors, higher adherence to the MD was associated with a lower risk of GG progression among all men (hazard ratio [HR] per 1-unit increase in MD score, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.01), non-White men (HR per 1-unit increase in MD score, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P for interaction = .07), and men without diabetes (HR per 1-unit increase in MD score, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96; P for interaction = .03). When joint effects of the MD score and statin use were examined, a similar risk reduction was observed among men with high MD scores who did not use statins in comparison with men with low/moderate MD scores with no statin use. CONCLUSIONS: The MD is associated with a lower risk of GG progression in men on AS, and this is consistent with prior reports about the MD and reduced cancer morbidity and mortality.

Oncologic outcomes among Black and White men with grade group 4 or 5 (Gleason score 8-10) prostate cancer treated primarily by radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe pathologic and short-term oncologic outcomes among Black and White men with grade group 4 or 5 prostate cancer managed primarily by radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, observational study (2005-2015) evaluating radical prostatectomy outcomes by self-identified race. Descriptive analysis was performed via nonparametric statistical testing to compare baseline clinicopathologic data. Univariable and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed to assess biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and overall survival between Black and White men. RESULTS: In total, 1662 men were identified with grade group 4 or 5 prostate cancer initially managed by radical prostatectomy. Black men represented 11.3% of the cohort (n = 188). Black men were younger, demonstrated a longer time from diagnosis to surgery, and were at a lower clinical stage (all P < .05). Black men had lower rates of pT3/4 disease (49.5% vs 63.5%; P < .05) but higher rates of positive surgical margins (31.6% vs 26.5%; P = .14) on pathologic evaluation. There was no difference in BCR, CSM, or overall survival over a median follow-up of 40.7 months. Black men had a lower 5-year cumulative incidence of metastasis-free survival (93.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5%-97.0%) in comparison with White men (85.8%; 95% CI, 83.1%-88.0%), which did not persist in an age-adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Black and White men with high-grade prostate cancer at diagnosis demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes when they were managed by primary radical prostatectomy. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in prostate cancer mortality are not related to differences in the efficacy of extirpative therapy.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with castration-resistant disease. Please refer to Part I for discussion of the management of patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Please refer to Part II for discussion of the management of castration-resistant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy combined with systematic biopsy (MRI-biopsy) to reduce negative biopsies and detect clinically significant prostate cancer compared to systematic biopsy (SB) alone in the confirmatory biopsy setting using matched cohorts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were identified from an active surveillance database who had a previously positive transrectal ultrasonography-guided SB followed by a confirmatory biopsy at a single institution between 2006 and 2019. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on confirmatory biopsy technique: SB alone or MRI-biopsy (which included MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). Cohorts were then matched on age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, number of positive cores on initial biopsy and initial biopsy Gleason grade group (GG). Logistic regression was performed to identify associations with confirmatory biopsy upgrading. RESULTS: After matching, 514 patients were identified (257 per cohort). PSA, prostate volume and PSA density prior to initial biopsy, in addition to total number of initial biopsy positive cores and GG, were similar between the matched cohorts. After confirmatory biopsy, 118/257 patients (45.9%) in the MRI-biopsy cohort were upgraded compared to 46/257 patients (17.9%) in the SB cohort (P < 0.001). The rate of negative confirmatory biopsy was 32/257 (12.5%) compared to 97/257 (37.7%) in the MRI-biopsy and SB cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001). Confirmatory MRI-biopsy was associated with greater odds of confirmatory biopsy upgrade from GG 1 to ≥GG 2 compared to SB alone (odds ratio 3.62, 95% confidence interval 1.97-6.63; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to SB in the confirmatory biopsy setting among men with previously detected prostate cancer resulted in fewer negative confirmatory biopsies and detection of more clinically significant prostate cancer compared to SB alone.

Patterns of metastases of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to investigate the patterns of metastases in men with metastatic prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) and recurrence patterns after therapy. METHODS: All patients with a new diagnosis of DAC with de novo metastases and those with localized disease who developed metastases after treatment and were treated at the study institution from January 2005 to November 2018 were included. All patient and tumor characteristics and outcome data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients (37.7%) had metastatic DAC, including 112 with de novo metastases and 52 who developed metastases after treatment. Men with de novo metastases were found to have a significantly higher median prostate-specific antigen level and International Society of Urological Pathology grade but a lower cT3 and/or T4 classification compared with those with metastases that developed after treatment (all P < .05). Approximately 87% of men with de novo metastases progressed despite multiple systemic therapies, 37.6% required intervention for the palliation of symptoms, and 10.1% responded to systemic therapy and underwent treatment of the primary tumor. Men with de novo metastatic DAC and those who developed metastases after treatment had multiple metastatic sites (including bone and viscera), with higher rates of lung metastases noted in the posttreatment group (23.2% vs 44.2%; P = .01). A total of 45 patients who were treated with curative intent developed metastases at a median of 22 months (range, 0.9-74.8 months) after treatment, at low prostate-specific antigen levels (median, 4.4 ng/mL [interquartile range, 1.7-11.1 ng/mL]). CONCLUSIONS: The current study described the metastatic patterns of DAC in both patients with de novo metastatic disease and those who later progress to metastases. Men receiving treatment for DAC with curative intent require stringent long-term follow-up with imaging modalities, including chest imaging given the predilection toward lung metastases noted among these patients.

Contemporary prostate cancer treatment choices in multidisciplinary clinics referenced to national trends.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment choices among men with prostate cancer who presented at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center multidisciplinary (MultiD) clinic compared with nationwide trends. METHODS: In total, 4451 men with prostate cancer who presented at the MultiD clinic from 2004 to 2016 were analyzed. To assess nationwide trends, the authors analyzed 392,710 men with prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The primary endpoint was treatment choice as a function of pretreatment demographics. RESULTS: Univariate analyses revealed similar treatment trends in the MultiD and SEER cohorts. The use of procedural forms of definitive therapy decreased with age, including brachytherapy and prostatectomy (all P < .05). Later year of diagnosis/clinic visit was associated with decreased use of definitive treatments, whereas higher risk grouping was associated with increased use (all P < .001). Patients with low-risk disease treated at the MultiD clinic were more likely to receive nondefinitive therapy than patients in SEER, whereas the opposite trend was observed for patients with high-risk disease, with a substantial portion of high-risk patients in SEER not receiving definitive therapy. In the MultiD clinic, African American men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease were more likely to receive definitive therapy than white men, but for SEER the opposite was true. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation at a MultiD clinic facilitates the appropriate disposition of patients with low-risk disease to nondefinitive strategies of patients with high-risk disease to definitive treatment, and it may obviate the influence of race.

Downgrading from Biopsy Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for High or Very High Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined rates of Grade Group 4 downgrading at radical prostatectomy among men diagnosed with high and very high risk prostate cancer at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pooled cohort of 1,776 patients from 3 tertiary referral centers who underwent radical prostatectomy for National Comprehensive Cancer Network® high risk (prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, or Grade Group 4-5, or clinical stage T3 or greater) or very high risk (primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than 4 biopsy cores with Grade Group 4-5, or 2 or more high risk features) disease from 2005 to 2015 were reviewed. Overall 893 patients with Grade Group 4 disease at biopsy were identified and 726 patients were available for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with downgrading to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall 333 (45%) cases were downgraded to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 198 (27%) had concordant Grade Group 4 biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology and 195 (27%) were upgraded at radical prostatectomy to Grade Group 5. Of high risk cases with biopsy Grade Group 4 disease 49% had any downgrading vs 29% of very high risk cases (p <0.0001). Downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in 16% (98 of 604) of high risk and 7% (8 of 122) of very high risk cases (p <0.01). Downgraded cases had a lower prostate specific antigen, fewer positive biopsy cores and lower clinical stage (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis fewer positive biopsy cores were significantly associated with downgrading at radical prostatectomy (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with high risk/very high risk prostate cancer, downgrading from biopsy Grade Group 4 at radical prostatectomy occurred less frequently than in other published reports. Any downgrading was significantly less common in very high risk compared to high risk patients, and downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in a minority of cases in high risk and very high risk patients.

The cytoreductive prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: what the individual trials are hoping to answer.

OBJECTIVE: To review the ongoing randomised trials of cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) in de novo hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (HSPC) in order to identify their goals and assess their strengths and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE and clinical trials websites searches were performed to identify currently ongoing trials of CRP in de novo HSPC. RESULTS: Nine randomised clinical trials in CRP were identified and included: Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 1802, Surgery in Metastatic Carcinoma of Prostate (SIMCAP), Adjuvant Treatments to the Local Tumour for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Assessment of Novel Treatment Algorithms (IP2-ATLANTA), Testing Radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer and oligoMetastases to the bone (TRoMbone), Impact of Radical Prostatectomy as Primary Treatment in Patients with Prostate Cancer with Limited Bone Metastases (g-RAMPP), Cytoreductive Prostatectomy vs Cytoreductive Prostate Irradiation as a Local Treatment Option for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: a Multicentric Feasibility Trial (LoMP II), Androgen-Deprivation Therapy or Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Plus Definitive Treatment (Radiation or Surgery) (FUSCC-OMPCa), and the Testing Radical Prostatectomy in Chinese Men with Prostate Cancer and oligoMetastases to the Bone study. Each study was different; assessing various primary outcome measures including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and feasibility to randomise between standard therapy and CRP or between radiation therapy and CRP in the metastatic setting. In the oligometastatic setting, the trials assess OS, feasibility to randomise and time to castration resistance. Similarly, a number of secondary endpoints ranging from cancer-specific outcomes to quality-of-life outcomes are being investigated. The inclusion criteria in these trials also varied in terms of volume of metastatic disease (oligometastatic to high-volume metastatic disease), diagnosis of metastases (imaging based vs biopsy confirmed), imaging modalities used (conventional to newer modalities), as well as outcomes and follow-up regimes. CONCLUSION: While there are differences in each protocol, each trial aims to address different aspects of CRP in de novo HSPC. Therefore, the specific goals of each study and the limitations have to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of these trials.

Imaging Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy: Where Are We Headed?

OBJECTIVE. In this article, we discuss the evolving roles of imaging modalities in patients presenting with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. CONCLUSION. Multiple imaging modalities are currently available to evaluate patients with prostate cancer presenting with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) focuses on the postsurgical bed as well as regional lymph nodes and bones. PET/CT studies using 18F-fluciclovine, 11C-choline, and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands are useful in detecting locoregional and distant metastasis. Multiparametric MRI is preferred for patients with low risk of metastasis for localizing recurrence in prostate bed as well as pelvic lymph node and bone recurrence. Moreover, mpMRI aids in guiding biopsy and additional salvage treatments. For patients with high risk of metastatic disease, both mpMRI and whole-body PET/CT may be performed. PET/MRI using 68Ga-PSMA has potential to enable a one-stop shop for local recurrence and metastatic disease evaluation, and clinical trials of PET/MRI are ongoing.

Outcomes of very high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: Validation study from 3 centers.

BACKGROUND: Among men with localized high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), patients who meet very high-risk (VHR) criteria have been shown to experience worse outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a previous study. Variations of VHR criteria have been suggested to be prognostic in other single-center cohorts, but multicenter outcomes validating VHR criteria have not been described. This study was designed to validate VHR criteria for identifying which PCa patients are at greatest risk for cancer progression. METHODS: Patients with high-risk PCa undergoing RP (2005-2015) at 3 tertiary centers were pooled. The outcomes of men with VHR PCa were compared with the outcomes of those who did not meet VHR criteria. The high-risk criteria were a clinical stage of T3 to T4, a prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/mL, or a biopsy Gleason grade sum of 8 to 10. The VHR criteria were multiple high-risk features, >4 biopsy cores with a Gleason grade sum of 8 to 10, or primary Gleason grade pattern 5. Biochemical recurrence, metastasis (METS), and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) were assessed with competing risks regressions. Overall mortality was assessed with Cox survival models. RESULTS: Among 1981 patients with high-risk PCa, men with VHR PCa (n = 602) had adverse pathologic outcomes: 37% versus 25% for positive margins and 37% versus 15% for positive lymph nodes (P < .001 for both comparisons). Patients with VHR PCa also had higher adjusted hazard ratios for METS (2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-3.72), CSM (6.77; 95% CI, 2.91-15.7), and overall mortality (2.44; 95% CI, 1.56-3.80; P < .001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In a validation study of patients who underwent treatment for high-risk PCa, VHR criteria were strongly associated with adverse pathologic and oncologic outcomes.

Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for high- and very high-risk prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic experience of patients eligible for either treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare radical prostatectomy (RP) vs radiotherapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in the setting of patients with high-risk and very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer who were deemed eligible for either therapy and made a treatment choice after consultation in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic (MDPCC), and to compare the MDPCC patients' outcomes to a matched Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected, retrospective study comparing patients who underwent RP (231 patients) vs RT+ADT (73) from 2004 to 2013. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), local recurrence, distant metastasis failure, and overall survival (OS) were calculated for each treatment group overall and according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk strata. A propensity score matched comparison with a SEER cohort was performed for OS. RESULTS: There was no difference in local recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.9; P = 0.06), distant metastasis failure (HR 2.5, 95% CI 0.8-7.8; P = 0.1) and OS (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.4-4.8; P = 0.6) between patients undergoing RP vs RT+ADT. Patients treated via the MDPCC survived on average 16.9 months (95% CI 13.1-20.8) longer than those in the matched SEER cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes appear similar amongst patients with high-risk and VHR prostate cancer deemed eligible for either RP or RT, and treated after consultation in a MDPCC. Outcomes of the MDPCC patients were superior to those of the matched SEER cohort.