Improving plan quality and consistency by standardization of dose constraints in prostate cancer patients treated with CyberKnife.

Treatment plans for prostate cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are often challenging due to the proximity of organs at risk. Today, there are no objective criteria to determine whether an optimal treatment plan has been achieved, and physicians rely on their personal experience to evaluate the plan's quality. In this study, we propose a method for determining rectal and bladder dose constraints achievable for a given patient's anatomy. We expect that this method will improve the overall plan quality and consistency, and facilitate comparison of clinical outcomes across different institutions. The 3D proximity of the organs at risk to the target is quantified by means of the expansion-intersection volume (EIV), which is defined as the intersection volume between the target and the organ at risk expanded by 5 mm. We determine a relationship between EIV and relevant dosimetric parameters, such as the volume of bladder and rectum receiving 75% of the prescription dose (V75%). This relationship can be used to establish institution-specific criteria to guide the treatment planning and evaluation process. A database of 25 prostate patients treated with CyberKnife SBRT is used to validate this approach. There is a linear correlation between EIV and V75% of bladder and rectum, confirming that the dose delivered to rectum and bladder increases with increasing extension and proximity of these organs to the target. This information can be used during the planning stage to facilitate the plan optimization process, and to standardize plan quality and consistency. We have developed a method for determining customized dose constraints for prostate patients treated with robotic SBRT. Although the results are technology specific and based on the experience of a single institution, we expect that the application of this method by other institutions will result in improved standardization of clinical practice

How Does Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Affect Quality of Life?:A Systematic Review

The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer

Erratum to 'Core Biopsies from Prostate Cancer Patients in Active Surveillance Protocols Harbor PTEN and MYC Alterations'[European Urology Oncology 2 (2019) 277-285].

n/

Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study

Background: Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) appears to provide excellent long-term PCa-specific and overall survival. The choice for AS as initial treatment is mainly based on avoiding side effects from invasive treatment; but AS entails regular check-ups and the possibility of still having to switch or deciding to switch to invasive treatment. Here, we assessed the long-term follow-up data from AS in real life clinical practices. Methods: Data from the first 500 men, enrolled in PRIAS before July 2008 by 30 centers across 8 countries, were analyzed to provide long-term follow-up results. Men were advised to be regularly examined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, digital rectal examinations, and prostate biopsies. Men were advised to switch to invasive treatment if they had disease reclassification [Gleason score (GS) >= 3+ 4 on biopsy, more than two positive biopsy cores, a stage higher than cT2] or a PSA-doubling time of 0-3 years. We assessed time on AS, outcomes and reasons for discontinuing AS, and rates of potential unnecessary biopsies and treatments. Results: The median follow-up time was 6.5 years. During this period, 325 (65%) men discontinued after a median of 2.3 years and 121 (24%) men had no recent (> 1 year) data-update after a median of 7.3 years. The remaining 54 (11%) men were confirmed to be still on AS. Most men discontinued based on protocol advice; 38% had other reasons. During follow-up, 838 biopsy sessions were performed of which 79% to 90% did not lead to reclassification, depending on the criteria. Of the 325 discontinued men, 112 subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 126 underwent radiotherapy, 57 switched to watchful waiting (WW) or died, and 30 had another or unknown treatment. RP results were available of 99 men: 34% to 68%, depending on definition, had favorable outcomes; 50% of unfavorable the outcomes occurred in the first 2 years. Of the 30 (6%) men who died, 1 man died due to PCa. Conclusions: These data, reflecting real life clinical practice, show that more than half of men switched to invasive treatment within 2.3 years, indicating limitations to the extent in which AS is able to reduce the adverse effects of overdiagnosis. Therefore, despite guidelines stating that PCa diagnosis must be uncoupled from treatment, it remains important to avoid overdiagnosing PCa as much as possible.Peer reviewe

A Multivariable Approach Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Avoid a Protocol-based Prostate Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-Data from the International Multicenter Prospective PRIAS Study

Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: There is ongoing discussion whether a multivariable approach including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can safely prevent unnecessary protocol-advised repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS). OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors for grade group (GG) reclassification in patients undergoing an MRI-informed prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) during AS and to evaluate whether a confirmatory biopsy can be omitted in patients diagnosed with upfront MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study is a multicenter prospective study of patients on AS (www.prias-project.org). We selected all patients undergoing MRI-Bx (targeted ± systematic biopsy) during AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of GG progression/reclassification in patients undergoing MRI-Bx. A sensitivity analysis and a multivariable logistic regression analysis were also performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1185 patients underwent 1488 MRI-Bx sessions. The time-dependent Cox regression analysis showed that age (per 10 yr, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71-0.99]), MRI outcome (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PIRADS] 3 vs negative HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.56-3.88], PIRADS 4 vs negative HR 3.39 [95% CI 2.28-5.05], and PIRADS 5 vs negative HR 4.95 [95% CI 3.25-7.56]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (per 0.1 ng/ml cm3, HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.12-1.30]), and percentage positive cores on the last systematic biopsy (per 10%, HR 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23]) were significant predictors of GG reclassification. Of the patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 (n = 315), 3% were reclassified to GG ≥2 and 0.6% to GG ≥3. At the confirmatory biopsy, reclassification to GG ≥2 and ≥3 was observed in 23% and 7% of the patients diagnosed without upfront MRI and in 19% and 6% of the patients diagnosed with upfront MRI, respectively. The multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in upgrading at the confirmatory biopsy between patients diagnosed with or without upfront MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Age, MRI outcome, PSA density, and percentage positive cores are significant predictors of reclassification at an MRI-informed biopsy. Patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 can safely omit a protocol-based prostate biopsy, whereas in other patients, a multivariable approach is advised. Being diagnosed with upfront MRI appears not to significantly affect reclassification risk; hence, a confirmatory MRI-Bx cannot totally be omitted yet. PATIENT SUMMARY: A protocol-based prostate biopsy while on active surveillance can be omitted in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific antigen density <0.15 ng/ml cm3. A confirmatory biopsy cannot simply be omitted in all patients diagnosed with upfront MRI.Peer reviewe

miR-21: an oncomir on strike in prostate cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aberrant expression of microRNAs, small non-coding RNA molecules that post-transcriptionally repress gene expression, seems to be causatively linked to the pathogenesis of cancer. In this context, miR-21 was found to be overexpressed in different human cancers (e.g. glioblastoma, breast cancer). In addition, it is thought to be endowed with oncogenic properties due to its ability to negatively modulate the expression of tumor-suppressor genes (e.g. <it>PTEN</it>) and to cause the reversion of malignant phenotype when knocked- down in several tumor models. On the basis of these findings, miR-21 has been proposed as a widely exploitable cancer-related target. However, scanty information is available concerning the relevance of miR-21 for prostate cancer. In the present study, we investigated the role of miR-21 and its potential as a therapeutic target in two prostate cancer cell lines, characterized by different miR-21 expression levels and <it>PTEN </it>gene status.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We provide evidence that miR-21 knockdown in prostate cancer cells is not sufficient <it>per se </it>i) to affect the proliferative and invasive potential or the chemo- and radiosensitivity profiles or ii) to modulate the expression of the tumor-suppressors PTEN and Pdcd4, which in other tumor types were found to be regulated by miR-21. We also show that miR-21 is not differently expressed in carcinomas and matched normal tissues obtained from 36 untreated prostate cancer patients subjected to radical prostatectomy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Overall, our data suggest that miR-21 is not a central player in the onset of prostate cancer and that its single hitting is not a valuable therapeutic strategy in the disease. This supports the notion that the oncogenic properties of miR-21 could be cell and tissue dependent and that the potential role of a given miRNA as a therapeutic target should be contextualized with respect to the disease.</p

Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS)

To evaluate the utility of percentage of free serum PSA (%fPSA) as a predictor of adverse rebiopsy findings, treatment change and radical prostatectomy (RP) findings in a prospective active surveillance (AS) trial. Patients enrolled in the global PRIAS study with baseline %fPSA available were included. Putative baseline predictors (e.g. PSA, %fPSA) of adverse rebiopsy findings were explored using logistic regression analysis. Association of variables with treatment change and RP findings over time were evaluated with Cox regression analysis. Active treatment-free survival was assessed with a Kaplan-Meier method. Of 3701 patients recruited to PRIAS, 939 had %fPSA measured at study entry. Four hundred and thirty-eight of them had %fPSA available after 1 year. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. First rebiopsy results were available for 595 patients and of those, 144 (24.2 %) had adverse findings. A total of 283 (30.1 %) patients discontinued surveillance, of those 181 (64.0 %) due to protocol-based reasons. Although median %fPSA values were significantly lower in patients who changed treatment, according to the multivariate regression analysis, initial %fPSA value was not predictive for treatment change or adverse rebiopsy findings. However, the probability of discontinuing AS was significantly lower in patients with "favourable" initial %fPSA characteristics and %fPSA during follow-up (initial %fPSA a parts per thousand yen15 and positive %fPSA velocity) compared to those with "adverse" %fPSA characteristics (initial %fPSA <15 and negative %fPSA velocity). Diagnostic %fPSA provides no additional prognostic value when compared to other predictors already in use in AS protocols. However, %fPSA velocity during surveillance may aid in predicting the probability for future treatment change.Peer reviewe

Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making

SPOP Deregulation Improves the Radiation Response of Prostate Cancer Models by Impairing DNA Damage Repair

Speckle-type POZ (pox virus and zinc finger protein) protein (SPOP) is the most commonly mutated gene in prostate cancer (PCa). Recent evidence reports a role of SPOP in DNA damage response (DDR), indicating a possible impact of SPOP deregulation on PCa radiosensitivity. This study aimed to define the role of SPOP deregulation (by gene mutation or knockdown) as a radiosensitizing factor in PCa preclinical models. To express WT or mutant (Y87N, K129E and F133V) SPOP, DU145 and PC-3 cells were transfected with pMCV6 vectors. Sensitivity profiles were assessed using clonogenic assay and immunofluorescent staining of γH2AX and RAD51 foci. SCID xenografts were treated with 5 Gy single dose irradiation using an image-guided small animal irradiator. siRNA and miRNA mimics were used to silence SPOP or express the SPOP negative regulator miR-145, respectively. SPOP deregulation, by either gene mutation or knockdown, consistently enhanced the radiation response of PCa models by impairing DDR, as indicated by transcriptome analysis and functionally confirmed by decreased RAD51 foci. SPOP silencing also resulted in a significant downregulation of RAD51 and CHK1 expression, consistent with the impairment of homologous recombination. Our results indicate that SPOP deregulation plays a radiosensitizing role in PCa by impairing DDR via downregulation of RAD51 and CHK1. View Full-Tex

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care : Prostate cancer

Background ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of essential care throughout the patient journey. Prostate cancer Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer and has a wide variation in outcomes in Europe. It has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges, and is a major healthcare burden. Care must only be a carried out in prostate/urology cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.Peer reviewe