Intermittent vs continuous docetaxel therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer - a phase III study (PRINCE).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate non-inferiority of intermittent docetaxel compared to continuous docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENT AND METHODS: The investigator initiated randomised phase III study included 187 chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC who were allocated to two treatment arms: intermittent docetaxel and continuous docetaxel. Docetaxel was applied in both arms as weekly (35 mg/m2 ) or 3-weekly (75 mg/m2 ). The primary endpoint was 1-year survival, which was tested for non-inferiority (margin δ = 0.125). The secondary endpoints were: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), median time to treatment failure (TTF), and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 156 eligible patients, 78 were allocated to each arm. The intermittent treatment met the non-inferiority criteria for 1-year survival (two-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.12, 18, P = 0.022), but not for OS, according to the result of a post hoc analysis. The differences between the study arms in PFS and TTF were not significant. The median (range) treatment holiday in the intermittent arm was 110 (13-486) days, or 38% of the overall treatment duration. Safety profiles of both study arms were comparable. The main limitation of this study was that the planned number of patients could not be recruited. CONCLUSION: Intermittent docetaxel chemotherapy was non-inferior to continuous therapy for 1-year survival; non-inferiority in regard to OS was not reached.

Perioperative Changes and Progress in Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate with GreenLight XPS 180 W System: A Single Center Experience.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate progression of GreenLight-XPS 180 W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (GL-XPS) with respect to effectiveness, efficacy, and safety over time at a tertiary referral high volume center. METHODS: The retrospective study included 375 men who underwent GL-XPS for symptomatic benign prostate obstruction (BPO) between June 2010 and February 2015. Primary outcome measurements were operation time (OT; min) and effective laser time (LT; min of OT) analyzed with regard to prostatic volume (PV; mL) (group 1 <40 mL up to 4 >80 mL in 20 mL steps) and the year of surgery (2010-2015). RESULTS: The median age was 72 years (range 64-79), the median PV was 58 mL (range 33-98) and the median PV increased from 42 mL in 2012 to 80 mL in 2015. The OT and LT clearly correlated with the PV, being doubled for glands of median 95 mL compared to median 30 mL while the applied laser energy per LT likewise steadily increased. Overall, both OT and LT could be significantly reduced each year by 37% (OT; p < 0.05) and 36% (LT; p < 0.05) within 5 years. The hospital stay (days) and catheterization time (days) remained constant, without any changes over time. The overall complication rate (Clavien-Dindo >2) ranged from 36 to 15% between 2010 and 2015. The pre (median 22 + 4) and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score-Quality of Life (median 5 + 1) showed a sufficient reduction in symptomatic BPO. CONCLUSION: GL-XPS is a safe and effective surgical method for symptomatic BPO. Our single center experience showed a significant improvement of both OT and effective LT within 5 years whilst maintaining stable low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

Interdisciplinary decision making in prostate cancer therapy - 5-years' time trends at the Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Center (IPC) of the Charité Berlin.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer face the difficult decision between a wide range of therapeutic options. These men require elaborate information about their individual risk profile and the therapeutic strategies´ risks and benefits to choose the best possible option. In order to detect time trends and quality improvements between an early patient population (2003/2004) and a later reference group (2007/2008) data was analysed with regards to epidemiologic parameters, differences in diagnostics and the type and ranking of the recommended therapies taking into account changes to Gleason Grading System and implementation of new therapeutic strategies, particularly Active surveillance, in 2005. METHODS: Data from all 496 consecutive patients who received consultation in 2003/2004 (n = 280) and 2007/2008 (n = 216) was retrospectively evaluated. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Dependent variables were analysed using the unpaired Students´ t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The cohorts were comparable concerning clinical stage, initial PSA, prostate volume, comorbidities and organ confined disease. Patients in Cohort I were younger (66.44 vs. 69.31y; p < .001) and had a longer life expectancy (17.22 vs. 14.75y; p < .001). 50.9%, 28.2% and 20.9% in Cohort I and 37.2%, 39.6% and 23.2% in Cohort II showed low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease (D´Amico) with a trend towards an increased risk profile in Cohort II (p = .066). The risk-adapted therapy recommended as first option was radical prostatectomy for 91.5% in Cohort I and 69.7% in Cohort II, radiation therapy for 83.7% in Cohort I and 50.7% in Cohort II, and other therapies (brachytherapy, Active surveillance, Watchful waiting, high-intensity focused ultrasound) for 6.5% in Cohort I and 6.9% in Cohort II (p < .001). Radiation therapy was predominant in both cohorts as second treatment option (p < .001). Time trends showing quality improvement involved an increase in biopsy cores (9.95 ± 2.38 vs. 8.43 ± 2.29; p < .001) and an increased recommendation for bilateral nerve sparing (p < .001). CONCLUSION: In the earlier years, younger patients with a more favourable risk profile presented for interdisciplinary consultation. A unilateral recommendation for radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy was predominant. In the later years, the patient population was considerably older. However, this group may have benefitted from optimised diagnostic possibilities and a wider range of treatment options.

Sunitinib treatment for patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma after progression on sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib and sunitinib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors with largely overlapping specificities, approved for the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). It was unclear whether the similarities of the two drugs would lead to complete cross-resistance, or whether sequential application would be efficacious. METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC and progression on sorafenib treatment were treated with repeated cycles of sunitinib, 50 mg for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week break. Response (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, RECIST) was assessed every second cycle. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients with progression on sorafenib were accrued. Initially, sorafenib treatment was efficacious in all patients, with 7 showing partial response (PR) and 15 stable disease (SD), and subsequent disease progression. With 4 PRs (18%) and 12 SD (55%) a disease control rate of 73% was achieved. The median progression-free survival (PFS) on sunitinib was 21.5 weeks; median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Estimated 1-year PFS and OS were 31 and 60%, respectively. There was no apparent relationship between response to sorafenib and outcome on sunitinib. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients with RCC and progression after initial efficacy of sorafenib, the efficacy data of second-line sunitinib were close to published results of first-line treatment, suggesting limited clinically relevant cross-resistance.

Outcome of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate with the GreenLight-XPS 180 Watt System Compared to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.

The aim of this paper was to compare the perioperative and postoperative results of photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the GreenLight-XPS 180 Watt System (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). This retrospective study included 140 men who underwent PVP and 114 men who underwent TURP for symptomatic benign prostate enlargement (BPE) between June 2010 and February 2015. The primary outcome measures were the patient reported outcome, operative results, International Prostate Symptom Score-Quality of Life (IPSS-QoL), complication rates, catheterization time, and length of hospital stay. The median follow-up times were 27 months (range 14-44) for the PVP group and 36 months (range 25-47) for the TURP group. The patient characteristics were well balanced in both groups with a median age of 71 years (PVP group) vs. 70 years (TURP group) and a comparable prostate volume (median 50 mL in the PVP group vs. 45 mL in the TURP group). The IPSS-QoL was significantly higher in the PVP group than in the TURP group (median 22 + 4; range 16-27 + 3-5 vs. median 19 + 3; range 15-23 + 3-4; p = 0.02). Men undergoing PVP were more likely to be on anticoagulants (PVP group n = 23; 16% vs. TURP group n = 2; 2%, p < 0.001). The median operation time (OT; min) for both procedures was comparable with 68 min (PVP group; range 53-91) vs. 67 min (TURP group; range 46-85). The rate of severe intraoperative bleeding was significantly lower in the PVP group than in the TURP group (n = 7; 5% vs. n = 16; 14%; p = 0.01). The postoperative catheterization time and length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the PVP group (median 1-2 days; range 1-4) vs. the TURP group (median 2-4 days; range 2-5; both p < 0.001). Complication rates (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥III) based on the follow-up data showed no statistically significant difference between the PVP group and the TURP group (n = 6; 4% vs. n = 6; 5%; p = 0.28). The IPSS on follow-up showed an equivalent reduction in symptoms for both treatment modalities (IPSS-QoL of 5 + 1; range 2-11 + 0-2 for both). There were no differences concerning urge (PVP group n = 3; 2% vs. TURP group n = 3; 3%; p = 0.90) and men were similarly satisfied with the postoperative outcome (PVP group 92% vs. TURP group 87%; p = 0.43). The PVP group was associated with a shorter hospitalization time and showed a reduced risk of bleeding, despite patients remaining on anticoagulants, without increasing the overall operative time. There was no difference in the patient reported outcome for both procedures.

Prostate-specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy as a predictive factor of clinical relapse-free survival and overall survival: 10-year data of the ARO 96-02 trial.

OBJECTIVE: The ARO 96-02 trial primarily compared wait-and-see (WS, arm A) with adjuvant radiation therapy (ART, arm B) in prostate cancer patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Here, we report the outcome with up to 12 years of follow-up of patients who retained a post-RP detectable PSA and received salvage radiation therapy (SRT, arm C). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For the study, 388 patients with pT3-4pN0 prostate cancer with positive or negative surgical margins were recruited. After RP, 307 men achieved an undetectable PSA (arms A + B). In 78 patients the PSA remained above thresholds (median 0.6, range 0.05-5.6 ng/mL). Of the latter, 74 consented to receive 66 Gy to the prostate bed, and SRT was applied at a median of 86 days after RP. Clinical relapse-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Patients with persisting PSA after RP had higher preoperative PSA values, higher tumor stages, higher Gleason scores, and more positive surgical margins than did patients in arms A + B. For the 74 patients, the 10-year clinical relapse-free survival rate was 63%. Forty-three men had hormone therapy; 12 experienced distant metastases; 23 patients died. Compared with men who did achieve an undetectable PSA, the arm-C patients fared significantly worse, with a 10-year metastasis-free survival of 67% versus 83% and overall survival of 68% versus 84%, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, Gleason score ≥8 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.8), pT ≥ 3c (HR 2.4), and extraprostatic extension ≥2 mm (HR 3.6) were unfavorable risk factors of progression. CONCLUSIONS: A persisting PSA after prostatectomy seems to be an important prognosticator of clinical progression for pT3 tumors. It correlates with a higher rate of distant metastases and with worse overall survival. A larger prospective study is required to determine which patient subgroups will benefit most from which treatment option.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait-and-see after radical prostatectomy: 10-year follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 trial.

BACKGROUND: Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Three prospectively randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) compared with a wait-and-see (WS) policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficiency of ART after a 10-yr follow-up in the ARO 96-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After RP, 388 patients with pT3 pN0 prostate cancer (PCa) were randomized to WS or three-dimensional conformal ART with 60 Gy. The present analysis focuses on intent-to-treat patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen after RP (ITT2 population)--that is, 159 WS plus 148 ART men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS) (events: biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, or death). Outcomes were compared by log-rank test. Cox regression analysis served to identify variables influencing the course of disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 111 mo for ART and 113 mo for WS. At 10 yr, PFS was 56% for ART and 35% for WS (p<0.0001). In pT3b and R1 patients, the rates for WS even dropped to 28% and 27%, respectively. Of all 307 ITT2 patients, 15 died from PCa, and 28 died for other or unknown reasons. Neither metastasis-free survival nor overall survival was significantly improved by ART. However, the study was underpowered for these end points. The worst late sequelae in the ART cohort were one grade 3 and three grade 2 cases of bladder toxicity and two grade 2 cases of rectum toxicity. No grade 4 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with WS, ART reduced the risk of (biochemical) progression with a hazard ratio of 0.51 in pT3 PCa. With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe. PATIENT SUMMARY: Precautionary radiotherapy counteracts relapse after surgery for prostate cancer with specific risk factors.

Cabazitaxel plus prednisone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel: results from the German compassionate-use programme.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel (Cbz) is an approved second-line treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following docetaxel therapy with a significant survival benefit compared with mitoxantrone. However, grade 3/4 toxicities were reported in 82% of patients. OBJECTIVE: To report on the safety results of mCRPC patients treated within a compassionate-use programme in Germany. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 111 patients with a mean age of 67.9 yr (range: 49-81 yr) and progressive mCRPC were included. Patients had received a mean number of 12.7 ± 10.8 cycles (range: 6-69 cycles) of docetaxel with a mean cumulative dose of 970.9 mg/m(2); mean time from last docetaxel application to progression was 6.95 mo (range: 2-54 mo). Of the patients, 31.5% progressed by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increase only; the remainder had a combination of PSA increase and clinical progression. INTERVENTION: Cbz at a dosage of 25mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 wk combined with 5mg of oral prednisone twice a day. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Treatment-associated toxicity was the primary study end point; progression-free and overall survival were secondary end points. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients received a mean number of 6.5 ± 2.2 cycles of Cbz and a mean cumulative dose of 160.3 ± 51.5mg/m(2). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 34 patients (30.6%) and 18 patients (16.2%), respectively. Grade 3/4 anaemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were reported in 4.5%, 7.2%, and 0.9% of the patients, respectively. Neutropenic fever was reported in 1.8% of the patients. Grade 3/4 gastrointestinal toxicity was identified in 4.5% of the patients. Three patients died because of Cbz-related toxicity. Granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factors were used in 17.1% of patients. The limitations are due to the nonrandomised nature of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with Cbz is tolerable and is associated with a low incidence of serious adverse events in a real-world patient population with CRPC. The outcome of serious adverse events can be minimised with proactive treatment management and conscientious monitoring.

Novel low-cost prostate resection trainer-description and preliminary evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a challenging operation for residents with limited endoscopic experience. A number of virtual TURP simulators have been validated in the past. This study is the first description and preliminary evaluation of a non-virtual, low-cost TURP trainer as a teaching tool for residents in urology. METHODS: Dr K. Forke's prostatic resection trainer (PRT; LS 10-2/S, Samed GmbH, Dresden, Germany) was tested during the surgical training of a resident. Under the supervision of an experienced senior surgeon, three aspects were examined: the resection trainer's approximation to reality, the ease of instruction, and the potential capability to improve surgeons' psychomotor abilities with regard to the three-dimensional (3D) guidance of the instrument. The improvement in resection speed (RS) of residents with no PRT training (control group) was also compared to the results of the PRT-trained resident. RESULTS: During the PRT training, the resident displayed clear improvement in resection quality (RQ) and a 27% increase in RS (p = 0.03). In the post-training stage, the PRT-trained resident showed a more constant progress rate, to a maximum RS of 0.37 g/min (35% increase; p = 0.01), whereas the control group displayed varied RS learning curves. Composed of a synthetic material, which can be resected by standard instruments, the trainer offers a haptical experience that is particularly realistic and may provide an increased learning rate. CONCLUSION: From the findings, we conclude that this novel PRT is suitable for daily use and offers an effective and more affordable alternative to virtual simulators. Further validation studies will follow and new fields of application will be tested.

Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95.

PURPOSE: Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Two randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared with a wait-and-see policy. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare RP followed by immediate RT with RP alone for patients with pT3 prostate cancer and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after RP. METHODS: After RP, 192 men were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy, and 193 men were assigned to immediate postoperative RT. Eligible patients had pT3 pN0 tumors. Patients who did not achieve an undetectable PSA after RP were excluded from treatment according to random assignment (n = 78; 20%). Of the remaining 307 patients, 34 patients on the RT arm did not receive RT and five patients on the wait-and-see arm received RT. Therefore, 114 patients underwent RT and 154 patients were treated with a wait-and-see policy. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival. RESULTS: Biochemical progression-free survival after 5 years in patients with undetectable PSA after RP was significantly improved in the RT group (72%; 95% CI, 65% to 81%; v 54%, 95% CI, 45% to 63%; hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = .0015). On univariate analysis, Gleason score more than 6 and less than 7, PSA before RP, tumor stage, and positive surgical margins were predictors of outcome. The rate of grade 3 to 4 late adverse effects was 0.3%. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant RT for pT3 prostate cancer with postoperatively undetectable PSA significantly reduces the risk of biochemical progression. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on metastases-free and overall survival.

The value of PSA measurements at 30 Gy, 50 Gy and 60 Gy for dose limitation in patients with radiotherapy for PSA increase after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is a treatment option for patients with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy without histological evidence of local relapse and no signs of distant metastases. Prior to radiotherapy there is no certainty whether a patient is going to respond to the treatment or not. When total doses of more than 60 Gy are given there is an exponential rise in treatment-related late toxicity. Therefore those patients in whom radiotherapy later appears to be ineffective may benefit from a dose restriction to 50-60 Gy. The aim of this study was to examine the prognostic value of PSA levels evaluated during radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 41 patients with rising PSA level following prostatectomy received radiotherapy to the prostatic bed and were treated up to a median dose of 66.6 Gy. We evaluated serum PSA levels during radiotherapy at 30 Gy, 50 Gy, and 60 Gy and compared them to the pre-radiotherapy PSA level and the outcome of radiotherapy. RESULTS: After radiotherapy, 31 patients (76%) had either undetectable (n = 15), or decreasing but still detectable PSA levels (n = 16) and ten patients (24%) had rising PSA levels and did not respond. PSA evaluation at 30 Gy showed that 26% (8/31) of those patients who would respond to radiotherapy still had a rising PSA when compared to pretreatment PSA. At 50 Gy and 60 Gy 93% (27/29) of these patients had decreasing PSA levels. In contrast, 75% (6/8) and 88% (7/8) of those patients in whom radiotherapy was not effective had rising PSA levels at 50 Gy and 60 Gy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PSA measurements at 30 Gy, 50 Gy and 60 Gy for radiotherapy of PSA increase following radical prostatectomy without histologically proven local recurrence gives valuable information about the later tumor response. Therefore it possibly gives the opportunity to finish radiotherapy between 50 and 60 Gy, as almost all patients with continued PSA increase at 60 Gy do not stand to profit from radiotherapy. In these patients dose limitation would significantly decrease the risk of late side effects, especially for the bladder and the rectum. PSA evaluations at 30 Gy and 50 Gy or 60 Gy are recommendable.