Experiencia inicial del uso de SelectMDx® en el diagnóstico de cáncer de próstata en un entorno de práctica clínica habitual «real-world evidence».

Introducción El uso de biomarcadores en la detección del cáncer de próstata (CP) puede disminuir el sobrediagnóstico y sobretratamiento de CP no significativos. Analizamos la utilidad y aplicabilidad del marcador SelectMDx® en un entorno de práctica clínica habitual. Material y métodos Estudio retrospectivo de 48 pacientes evaluados mediante el test SelectMDx® entre julio de 2017 y abril de 2019. Los pacientes se estratificaron en dos grupos según el riesgo estimado por el test de CP clínicamente significativo (CP-CS): 2%. Los resultados se expresaron en función de los antecedentes de biopsia prostática (BP) y resonancia magnética multiparamétrica (RMmp). Resultados En pacientes con BP negativa y RMmp normal/dudosa el riesgo fue 2% presentaron un CP-CS. De los 14 pacientes sin BP ni RMmp previas, 9 presentaron un riesgo 2%. En el resto de subgrupos el número de pacientes es pequeño como para poder extraer conclusiones. En todos los casos con tacto rectal patológico el test demostraba un riesgo de padecer CP > 2%. Conclusión SelectMDx® es un test prometedor para detectar pacientes con un riesgo muy bajo de CP-CS, especialmente en pacientes con sospecha de CP con o sin BP negativas, en los que la RMmp muestre un resultado normal/dudoso. La presencia de un tacto rectal patológico puede condicionar el resultado del test.pre-print203 K

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p &lt; 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs.CONCLUSIONS: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.PATIENT SUMMARY: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.</p

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p &lt; 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs.CONCLUSIONS: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.PATIENT SUMMARY: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.</p

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

Context The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. Objective To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. Evidence acquisition Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Evidence synthesis Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40–0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5–6 yr of 4.9–16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53–1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63–1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5–6 yr of 6.4–7% across the two RCTs. Conclusions EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. Patient summary We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear

Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review

Context The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. Objective To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. Evidence acquisition A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. Evidence synthesis We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. Conclusions Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. Patient summary We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact

New technologies and techniques for prostate cancer focal therapy.

The aim of this study was to review the oncological and functional outcomes of new and established primary focal treatments (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a systematic search of published studies on FT for localized PCa using electronic databases (Medline and Embase). These studies included reports on hemi-ablation, focal ablation and target-ablation. We excluded salvage focal therapy studies and limited the search to those with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. We selected 20 studies with a total of 2523 patients who were treated in the primary setting. The energy sources used were cryotherapy (8), high-intensity focused ultrasound (9), irreversible electroporation (1), photodynamic therapy (1) and focused laser ablation (1), with 65% hemiablation, 25% focal ablation and 10% target-ablation. The median follow-ups ranged from 6 to 44.4 months. Mean age was 60.4-70 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 4.4-&lt;10 ng/dL; 26-100% had a Gleason Score of 6, and 0-65% had a Gleason Score of 7. Patient selection was carried out by TRUS biopsy in 9 studies, while transperineal template mapping biopsy and mp-MRI were employed in six and 13 studies, respectively. The overall post-treatment positive biopsy rate was 1.2-51% with 1.6-32% patients having a residual disease in the treated area. The post-treatment continence rates were 90-100%, and the rates of erectile dysfunction ranged from 0-53.2%. Reliable evidence for the partial-gland treatment of PCa is increasing, and encouraging mid-term oncologic outcomes with the preservation of sexual and urinary functions have been reported. Accurate patient selection at the outset of treatment and careful follow-up seem key attributes to achieve excellent functional results and encouraging oncological outcomes

Conventional white light imaging-assisted transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) versus IMAGE1S-assisted TURBT in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients: trial protocol and 18 months results

Purpose: White light (WL) is the traditional imaging modality for transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). IMAGE1S is a likely addition. We compare 18-mo recurrence rates following TURBT using IMAGE1S versus WL guidance. Methods: Twelve international centers conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients with primary and recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TURBT guided by IMAGE1S or WL. Eighteen-month recurrence rates and subanalysis for primary/recurrent and risk groups were planned and compared by chi-square tests and survival analyses. Results: 689 patients were randomized for WL-assisted (n = 354) or IMAGE1S-assisted (n = 335) TURBT. Of these, 64.7% had a primary tumor, 35.3% a recurrent tumor, and 4.8%, 69.2% and 26.0% a low-, intermediate-, and high-risk tumor, respectively. Overall, 60 and 65 patients, respectively, completed 18-mo follow-up, with recurrence rates of 31.0% and 25.4%, respectively (p = 0.199). In patients with primary, low-/intermediate-risk tumors, recurrence rates at 18-mo were significantly higher in the WL group compared with the IMAGE1S group (31.9% and 22.3%, respectively: p 0.035). Frequency and severity of adverse events were comparable in both treatment groups. Immediate and adjuvant intravesical instillation therapy did not differ between the groups. Potential limitations included lack of uniformity of surgical resection, central pathology review, and missing data. Conclusion: There was not difference in the overall recurrence rates between IMAGE1S and WL assistance 18-mo after TURBT in patients with NMIBC. However, IMAGE1S-assisted TURBT considerably reduced the likelihood of disease recurrence in primary, low/intermediate risk patients. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02252549 (30-09-2014). © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature