Managing postoperative biochemical relapse in prostate cancer, from the perspective of the Francophone group of Urological radiotherapy (GFRU).

Up to 50% of patients treated with radical surgery for localized prostate cancer may experience biochemical recurrence that requires appropriate management. Definitions of biochemical relapse may vary, but, in all cases, consist of an increase in a PSA without clinical or radiological signs of disease. Molecular imaging through to positron emission tomography has taken a preponderant place in relapse diagnosis, progressively replacing bone scan and CT-scan. Prostate bed radiotherapy is currently a key treatment, the action of which should be potentiated by androgen deprivation therapy. Nowadays perspectives consist in determining the best combination therapies, particularly thanks to next-generation hormone therapies, but not exclusively. Several trials are ongoing and should address these issues. We present here a literature review aiming to discuss the current management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer after radical surgery, in lights of recent findings, as well as future perspectives.

Prostate hypofractionated radiotherapy (62Gy at 3.1Gy per fraction) with injection of hyaluronic acid: final results of the RPAH1 study.

OBJECTIVES: The present multicenter Phase II study evaluated the rate of late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities at 3 years, after hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFR) of prostate cancer with injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) between the prostate and the rectum. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2013, 36 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated by HFR/IMRT-IGRT. 20 fractions of 3.1 Gy were delivered, 5 days per week for a total dose of 62 Gy. A transperineal injection of 10cc of HA was performed between the rectum and the prostate. Late toxicities were evaluated between 3 and 36 months after the end of treatment (CTCAE v4). RESULTS: Median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 8 ng ml-1. Among the 36 included patients, 2 were not evaluated because they withdrew the study in the first 3 months of follow-up, and 4 withdrew between 3 and 36 months, the per protocol population was therefore composed.Late grade ≥2 GI toxicities occurred in 4 (12%) patients with 3 (9%) Grade 2 rectal bleedings and one diarrhoea. Therefore, the inefficacy hypothesis following Fleming one-stage design cannot be rejected. None of the patients experienced late Grade 3-4 toxicities. Among the 30 patients completing the 36 months' visit, none still had a grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Late grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities occurred in 14 (41%) patients. The most frequent toxicities were dysuria and pollakiuria. Four patients still experienced a grade ≥2 GU toxicity at 36 months.The biochemical relapse rate (nadir +2 ng ml-1) was 6% (2 patients). Overall, HA was very well tolerated with no pain or discomfort. CONCLUSION: Despite the inefficacy of HA injection was not rejected, we observed the absence of Grade 3 or 4 rectal toxicity as well as a rate of Grade 2 rectal bleeding below 10% at 36 months of follow-up. Late urinary toxicities are the most frequent but the rate decreases largely at 3 years. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: With an injection of HA, hypofractionated irradiation in 4 weeks is well tolerated with no Grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity and a rate of Grade 2 rectal bleeding below 10% at 36 months of follow-up.

Prostate brachytherapy under hypnosedation: A prospective evaluation.

PURPOSE: Hypnosedation (HS) for brachytherapy has been proposed in patients with prostate cancer and has been evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 79 patients were treated with brachytherapy under HS. The Visual Analog Scale questionnaire was used to assess comfort and anxiety and the lowest, mean, and highest level of pain. Data for 79 patients who underwent general anesthesia (GA) and 37 patients who underwent spinal anesthesia (SA) treated at the same period were compared with HS group in terms of medication and treatment duration. RESULTS: 11 patients (13.9%) requested a GA, because they did not reach the hypnotic level. For the remaining 68 patients, the mean pain and comfort scores evaluated just after the intervention were 3.1 and 7.4, respectively. At 8 weeks, the scores were 2.8 and 7.5, respectively. 66 patients (97%) would choose this approach again and recommend it to other patients. The patients in the HS group received significant less medications than in the GA (remifentanil, propofol, kétamine, phenylephrine, ephedrine…) or SA (sufentanil, midazolam, morphine, bupivacaine…) groups with mean values of 3.1 vs. 7.9 vs. 5.6 (p < 0.0001), respectively. HS increased the mean time of surgery room occupation by 12 min vs. GA and by 20 min vs. SA. However, the recovery room occupation is avoided with HS (GA = 61 min and SA = 67 min) and a shorter duration of a need for a urinary catheter was noted. CONCLUSIONS: HS is a feasible and comfortable method of anesthesia and a good alternative to GA and SA for patients undergoing prostate brachytherapy, with reduced treatment duration and number of medications.