Tratamiento del cáncer de próstata con radioterapia externa : factores pronóstico /

Títol obtingut de la portada digitalitzadaConsultable des del TDXEl cáncer de próstata es el más frecuente en el varón y la tercera causa de muerte por cáncer en España. Su historia natural es incierta. La prostatectomía radical sigue siendo el tratamiento de elección en los estadios localizados. La radioterapia es un tratamiento curativo alternativo a la prostatectomía radical y el tratamiento de elección en los tumores localmente avanzados. El mejor conocimiento de los factores pronóstico permite individualizar y optimizar los tratamientos con radioterapia. Pacientes y Método: Se han revisado 981 paciente con cáncer de próstata localizado tratados con radioterapia externa con intención radical en el Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau entre 1979-1999. Edad media: 68.5 años. Estadio: 24% T1, 45% T2, 29% T3, 1% T4 y 1% N+. En 12% Gleason desconocido, 13% ≤ 4, 60% ≤ 7 y 15% > 7. Un 17% de los pacientes sin PSA inicial, 4% 10-20 ng/ml y 23% > 20 ng/ml. Grupo de riesgo: 20% bajo, 28% intermedio, 27% alto y 25% no clasificables. Un 58% realizó hormonoterapia. 30% de los pacientes se trataron con cobaltoterapia y 70% con fotones de 18 MV. Dosis media próstata: 70 Gy. En 673 pacientes se ha valorado el control bioquímico según la definición propuesta por ASTRO. Para la valoración de la toxicidad se han utilizado las escalas de la RTOG. Resultados: *Respuesta a la radioterapia: 18% no respondieron a la radioterapia. Existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre el valor medio del PSA nadir del grupo de pacientes que presentaron fallo bioquímico y el del grupo sin fallo bioquímico (1.12 vs 0.65 ng/ml; p 7. PSA values: 17% unknown, 4% 10-20 ng/ml and 23% > 20 ng/ml. Risk groups: 20% low risk, 28 % intermediate risk, 27% high risk and 25% were unclassifiable. Fifty-eight percent of patients received concomitant androgen suppression. Cobalt therapy was used in 30% of patients and 18 MV X-rays in 70%. The mean dose delivered was 70 Gy. Biochemical control was calculated according to the ASTRO definition in 673 patients. RTOG score was used to assess toxicity. Results: *Radiation response: 18% were non-responders. The mean nadir PSA (nPSA) was 1.12 ng/ml for biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) patients and 0.65 ng/ml for the group with BF (p< 0.001). A nPSA ≥ 1 ng/ml was related to greater probability of BF (p= 0.013), cancer progression (p=0.001) and prostate cancer death (p=0.001). Taking longer than 1 year to reach nPSA (TnPSA) was associated with less biochemical and/or clinical progression (24% vs 41%; p 0 0.001). *Biochemical failure: 27%; Prognostic factors: age (p=0.010), stage (p=0.001), Gleason (p=0.003), nadir PSA < 1 ng/ml (p=0.033). 39% of patients with BF showed clinical progression compared to 8% in the BFFS group (p< 0.001). *Local relapse: 10.4%; Prognostic factors: stage (p=0.005) and dose (p= 0.005). *Metastases: 11%; prognostic factors: age (p=0.046), Gleason (p=0.006), stage (p=< 0.001), dose (p=0.009), nPSA < 1 ng/ml (p< 0.001), BF (p<0.001) and local relapse (p=0.009). *Acute toxicity grade ≥ 2: 66%. The use of cobalt energy (p= 0.014) and pelvic irradiation (p=0.019) was significantly associated with acute complications. *Late toxicity: grade ≥ 2: 22.8%. Prognostic factors: acute toxicity (p<0.001), previous transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) (p=0.009) and pelvic irradiation (0.041). *Overall survival: 84%, 51% and 38% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. *Cause-specific survival: 93%, 68% and 57% at 5, 10 and 15 years respectively. Stage was the most powerful factor associated to prostate cancer death followed by the radiation dose and nadir PSA. *BFFS: 72.6% at both 5 and 10 years. *Progression free-survival: 58% and 30% at 5 and 10 years respectively. Prostate cancer represented 50% of all deaths (9% of patients). There was a significant association between stage and prostate cancer death (20% for stages T3-T4 and 3.8% for stages T1-T2). Conclusions: external beam radiation is a curative treatment for localized prostate cancer and toxicity is acceptable. Clinical stage and radiation dose are strong prognostic factors of cancer progression

Tratamiento del cáncer de próstata con radioterapia externa: factores pronóstico

El cáncer de próstata es el más frecuente en el varón y la tercera causa de muerte por cáncer en España. Su historia natural es incierta. La prostatectomía radical sigue siendo el tratamiento de elección en los estadios localizados. La radioterapia es un tratamiento curativo alternativo a la prostatectomía radical y el tratamiento de elección en los tumores localmente avanzados. El mejor conocimiento de los factores pronóstico permite individualizar y optimizar los tratamientos con radioterapia.Pacientes y Método: Se han revisado 981 paciente con cáncer de próstata localizado tratados con radioterapia externa con intención radical en el Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau entre 1979-1999. Edad media: 68.5 años. Estadio: 24% T1, 45% T2, 29% T3, 1% T4 y 1% N+. En 12% Gleason desconocido, 13% &#8804; 4, 60% &#8804; 7 y 15% > 7. Un 17% de los pacientes sin PSA inicial, 4% 10-20 ng/ml y 23% > 20 ng/ml. Grupo de riesgo: 20% bajo, 28% intermedio, 27% alto y 25% no clasificables. Un 58% realizó hormonoterapia. 30% de los pacientes se trataron con cobaltoterapia y 70% con fotones de 18 MV. Dosis media próstata: 70 Gy. En 673 pacientes se ha valorado el control bioquímico según la definición propuesta por ASTRO. Para la valoración de la toxicidad se han utilizado las escalas de la RTOG.Resultados: *Respuesta a la radioterapia: 18% no respondieron a la radioterapia. Existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre el valor medio del PSA nadir del grupo de pacientes que presentaron fallo bioquímico y el del grupo sin fallo bioquímico (1.12 vs 0.65 ng/ml; pConclusión: La radioterapia externa es un tratamiento curativo del cáncer de próstata localizado con una toxicidad aceptable. El estadio clínico y la dosis de radioterapia son factores pronóstico que se asocian fuertemente a la progresión de la enfermedad.Prostate cancer is the most common malignant disease and the third leading cause-related death in men in Spain. Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for early prostate cancer. Radiotherapy is a curative alternative for these patients and the appropriate treatment for locally advanced tumors. Prognostic factors play an important role in optimal management of this disease.Patients and Methods: Between 1979 and 1999, 981 men with prostate cancer received potential curative external beam radiotherapy at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau. All clinical records were reviewed. Mean age was 68.5 years (ranging 44-84). Stages were: 24% T1; 45% T2, 29% T3, 1% T4 and 1% N+. Gleason score: 12% unknown, 13% &#8804; 4, 60% 5-7 and 15% > 7. PSA values: 17% unknown, 4% 10-20 ng/ml and 23% > 20 ng/ml. Risk groups: 20% low risk, 28 % intermediate risk, 27% high risk and 25% were unclassifiable. Fifty-eight percent of patients received concomitant androgen suppression. Cobalt therapy was used in 30% of patients and 18 MV X-rays in 70%. The mean dose delivered was 70 Gy. Biochemical control was calculated according to the ASTRO definition in 673 patients. RTOG score was used to assess toxicity.Results: *Radiation response: 18% were non-responders. The mean nadir PSA (nPSA) was 1.12 ng/ml for biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) patients and 0.65 ng/ml for the group with BF (pConclusions: external beam radiation is a curative treatment for localized prostate cancer and toxicity is acceptable. Clinical stage and radiation dose are strong prognostic factors of cancer progression

Phase II Study of ENZAlutamide Combined With Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy (ENZART) for Localized Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

Altres ajuts: Astellas.Background: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is usually treated by a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and a short course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT is associated with multiple side effects, including weight gain, loss of libido, and hot flashes. In contrast, anti-androgen monotherapy is generally better tolerated in spite of higher rates of gynecomastia. Objective: This study assessed the effectiveness of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with hypofractionated EBRT (Hypo-EBRT) for treating intermediate risk prostate cancer. Method: This trial was a multicenter, open-label phase II study of 6 months of enzalutamide monotherapy combined with Hypo-EBRT for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Hypo-EBRT was initiated 8-12 weeks after initiating enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was PSA decline >80% measured at the 25th week of enzalutamide administration. Secondary end-points included assessment of toxicity, changes in anthropomorphic body measurements, sexual hormones, and metabolic changes. Results: Sixty-two patients were included in the study from January 2018 to February 2020. A PSA decline of >80% was observed in all evaluable patients at the end of enzalutamide treatment and 92% achieved PSA values under 0.1 ngr/ml. All patients remain in PSA response (<80% reduction of the initial values) 6 months after the end of enzalutamide treatment. The most frequent adverse events were hypertension, asthenia, and gynecomastia. There were no significant changes in bone density, body mass index (BMI), or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Conclusion: Enzalutamide monotherapy is very effective along with hEBRT in reducing PSA levels for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the potential use of this combination in future randomized trials

Multicentre International Study for the Prevention with iAluRil of Radio-induced Cystitis (MISTIC) : A Randomised Controlled Study

Radiation-induced cystitis is a common side effect of radiotherapy (RT) to the pelvic area. Hyaluronic acid (HA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) are components of the urothelial mucosa and positive results have been obtained for intravesical HA/CS instillations for the treatment of urinary tract infections and bladder pain syndrome. HA/CS may also have a protective effect against RT bladder toxicity. To investigate whether HA and CS protect the urothelium during RT, alleviate lower urinary tract symptoms, and improve quality of life. This multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted across seven centres in four countries. Male patients aged ≥18 yr scheduled to undergo primary intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomised to intravesical HA/CS plus an oral formulation of curcumin, quercetin, HA, and CS (group A) or no treatment (group B). The primary endpoint was absolute changes from baseline to follow-up in urinary domain scores for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS), and the EuroQol Group EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Data analysis for efficacy and safety outcomes was performed using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach; the ITT population was defined as all randomised patients. Of 57 patients screened, 49 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either active treatment (group A, n = 25) or the control (group B, n = 24). Three patients in the control group withdrew after randomisation. Changes from baseline to 12 mo were worse in the control group for subtotal scores for urinary symptoms and impact of symptoms on quality of life and for the total score (p = 0.05, p = 0.003, and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant time × group interaction in favour of active treatment for the incontinence symptom score (p = 0.011) and bother score (p = 0.017). The absence of a sham procedure and/or placebo is the main limitation. Our results suggest that intravesical HA/CS in combination with an oral formulation may reduce urinary symptoms and improve QoL at short-term (1 yr) follow-up. We investigated whether hyaluronic acid (HA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) have a protective effect against the bladder toxicity of radiotherapy for prostate cancer. HA/CS used for weekly bladder irrigation for 6 wk and given orally with curcumin and quercetin for 12 wk reduced urinary incontinence symptoms and bother measured at 1-year follow-up. This may hold promise as a preventive treatment if the results are confirmed in further trials. Our findings show a beneficial effect of intravesical hyaluronic acid (HA)/chondroitin sulfate (SC) plus the oral combination of curcumin, quercetin, HA, and CS for prevention of acute and late (1 yr) radiation-induced cystitis and improvement in quality of life. The current strategy may have a place among treatment options for the prevention of radiation-induced bladder complications, which until now have been limited to symptom-relieving and temporary modalities

Radiation-induced haemorrhagic cystitis after prostate cancer radiotherapy : factors associated to hospitalization and treatment strategies

Late onset of radiation-induced haemorrhagic cystitis (RHC) after radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) may present or evolve severely, requiring hospitalization with invasive interventions. In the present study, we have analysed the prevalence and risk factors associated with the onset of RHC. From January 2002 to May 2017, 1421 patients undertook RT for PCa as a primary, adjuvant, or salvage treatment option. RHC presented in 5.6% (n = 80) of the patients; the diagnosis was based on clinical and endoscopic characteristics. Variables in observation included patients, tumours, and RT-dosimetry characteristics. Patients with a previous history of bladder cancer were excluded. Univariate (Student t /Chi square) and uni-/multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed; the events and time-points were hospitalization and time-to-event, respectively. There were 80 patients with a mean age at RT of 70.1 years (SD 6.4), mean time lag to RHC of 43.9 months (SD 37.5). Median Emergency attendance was two and three times for patients without/with hospitalization, respectively. There were in total 64 admissions with invasive treatment required in 26/36 (72.2%) of the patients hospitalised, including transurethral fulguration in 22 and radical cystectomy in 5. Patients at higher risk of hospitalization were those undertaking antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatment (HR:3.30; CI 95%:1.53-3.30; p = 0.002) and those treated with salvage RT with higher bladder volume receiving >70 Gy (bladder V70) (HR:1.03; CI 95%:1.01-1.05; p = 0.027). At receiving operating characteristic analysis, the cutoff for bladder V70 was 29%. Nearly half of patients presenting RHC may require invasive treatment including cystectomy. Risk factors associated with hospitalization are patients undertaking antiplatelet/coagulant treatment and bladder V70 > 29% in salvage RT patients

Quality of life impact of primary treatments for localized prostate cancer patients without hormonal treatment

Purpose Earlier studies evaluating the effect on quality of life (QoL) of localized prostate cancer interventions included patients receiving adjuvant hormone therapy, which could have affected their outcomes. Our objective was to compare the QoL impact of the three most common primary treatments on patients who were not receiving adjuvant hormonal treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 435 patients treated with radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. QoL was assessed before and after treatment with the Short Form-36 and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Differences between groups were tested by analysis of variance. Distribution of outcome at 3 years was examined by stratifying according to baseline status. Generalized estimating equation models were constructed to assess the effect of treatment over time. RESULTS: Compared with the brachytherapy group, the prostatectomy group showed greater deterioration on urinary incontinence and sexual scores but better urinary irritative-obstructive results (-18.22, -13.19, and +6.38, respectively, at 3 years; P < .001). In patients with urinary irritative-obstructive symptoms at baseline, improvement was observed in 64% of those treated with nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Higher bowel worsening (-2.87, P = .04) was observed in the external radiotherapy group, with 20% of patients reporting bowel symptoms. CONCLUSION: Radical prostatectomy caused urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction but improved pre-existing urinary irritative-obstructive symptoms. External radiotherapy and brachytherapy caused urinary irritative-obstructive adverse effects and some sexual dysfunction. External radiotherapy also caused bowel adverse effects. Relevant differences between treatment groups persisted for up to 3 years of follow-up, although the difference in sexual adverse effects between brachytherapy and prostatectomy tended to decline over long-term follow-up. These results provide valuable information for clinical decision making

Mortality and biochemical recurrence after surgery, brachytherapy, or external radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a 10-year follow-up cohort study

To compare the effectiveness at ten years of follow-up of radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy and external radiotherapy, in terms of overall survival, prostate cancer-specific mortality and biochemical recurrence. Cohort of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (T1/T2 and low/intermediate risk) from ten Spanish hospitals, followed for 10 years. The treatment selection was decided jointly by patients and physicians. Of 704 participants, 192 were treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy, 317 with I-125 brachytherapy alone, and 195 with 3D external beam radiation. We evaluated overall survival, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier estimators were plotted, and Cox proportional-hazards regression models were constructed to estimate hazard ratios (HR), adjusted by propensity scores. Of the 704 participants, 542 patients were alive ten years after treatment, and a total of 13 patients have been lost during follow-up. After adjusting by propensity score and Gleason score, brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were not associated with decreased 10-year overall survival (aHR = 1.36, p = 0.292 and aHR = 1.44, p = 0.222), but presented higher biochemical recurrence (aHR = 1.93, p = 0.004 and aHR = 2.56, p < 0.001) than radical prostatectomy at ten years of follow-up. Higher prostate cancer-specific mortality was also observed in external radiotherapy (aHR = 9.37, p = 0.015). Novel long-term results are provided on the effectiveness of brachytherapy to control localized prostate cancer ten years after treatment, compared to radical prostatectomy and external radiotherapy, presenting high overall survival, similarly to radical prostatectomy, but higher risk of biochemical progression. These findings provide valuable information to facilitate shared clinical decision-making. Study identifier at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01492751

Single nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA repair genes as risk factors associated to prostate cancer progression

Background Besides serum levels of PSA, there is a lack of prostate cancer specific biomarkers. It is need to develop new biological markers associated with the tumor behavior which would be valuable to better individualize treatment. The aim of this study was to elucidate the relationship between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair and prostate cancer progression.Methods A total of 494 prostate cancer patients from a Spanish multicenter study were genotyped for 10 SNPs in XRCC1, ERCC2, ERCC1, LIG4, ATM and TP53 genes. The SNP genotyping was made in a Biotrove OpenArray® NT Cycler. Clinical tumor stage, diagnostic PSA serum levels, and Gleason score at diagnosis were obtained for all participants. Genotypic and allelic frequencies were determined using the web-based environment SNPator.Results SNPs rs11615 (ERCC1) and rs17503908 (ATM) appeared as risk factors for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Patients wild homozygous for these SNPs (AA and TT, respectively) were at higher risk for developing cT2b – cT4 (OR = 2.21 (confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.47 – 3.31), p < 0.001) and Gleason scores ≥ 7 (OR = 2.22 (CI 95% 1.38 – 3.57), p < 0.001), respectively. Moreover, those patients wild homozygous for both SNPs had the greatest risk of presenting D’Amico high-risk tumors (OR = 2.57 (CI 95% 1.28 – 5.16)).Conclusions Genetic variants at DNA repair genes are associated with prostate cancer progression, and would be taken into account when assessing the malignancy of prostate cancer.This work was subsidized by a grant from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad from Spain), ID: PI12/01867. Almudena Valenciano has a grant from the Instituto Canario de Investigación del Cáncer (ICIC)

Polymorphisms in DNA-repair genes in a cohort of prostate cancer patients from different areas in Spain: heterogeneity between populations as a confounding factor in association studies

Background: Differences in the distribution of genotypes between individuals of the same ethnicity are an important confounder factor commonly undervalued in typical association studies conducted in radiogenomics. Objective: To evaluate the genotypic distribution of SNPs in a wide set of Spanish prostate cancer patients for determine the homogeneity of the population and to disclose potential bias. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 601 prostate cancer patients from Andalusia, Basque Country, Canary and Catalonia were genotyped for 10 SNPs located in 6 different genes associated to DNA repair: XRCC1 (rs25487, rs25489, rs1799782), ERCC2 (rs13181), ERCC1 (rs11615), LIG4 (rs1805388, rs1805386), ATM (rs17503908, rs1800057) and P53 (rs1042522). The SNP genotyping was made in a Biotrove OpenArrayH NT Cycler. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Comparisons of genotypic and allelic frequencies among populations, as well as haplotype analyses were determined using the web-based environment SNPator. Principal component analysis was made using the SnpMatrix and XSnpMatrix classes and methods implemented as an R package. Non-supervised hierarchical cluster of SNP was made using MultiExperiment Viewer. Results and Limitations: We observed that genotype distribution of 4 out 10 SNPs was statistically different among the studied populations, showing the greatest differences between Andalusia and Catalonia. These observations were confirmed in cluster analysis, principal component analysis and in the differential distribution of haplotypes among the populations. Because tumor characteristics have not been taken into account, it is possible that some polymorphisms may influence tumor characteristics in the same way that it may pose a risk factor for other disease characteristics. Conclusion: Differences in distribution of genotypes within different populations of the same ethnicity could be an important confounding factor responsible for the lack of validation of SNPs associated with radiation-induced toxicity, especially when extensive meta-analysis with subjects from different countries are carried out

Genetic testing for the clinician in prostate cancer

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Although the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer has improved substantially in recent years, new molecular biomarkers are needed to further prolong survival and improve the quality of life in these patients. Areas covered: This review analyzes the current evidence for prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers that can be applied across different clinical scenarios, ranging from localized disease to metastatic castration-resistant PCa, with a particular emphasis on the biomarkers likely to become available in routine clinical practice in the near future. Expert opinion: There is a growing need for molecular testing to identify the most indolent types of prostate cancer to help optimize treatment strategies and spare treatment in these patients when possible. Current trends in the treatment of prostate cancer underscore the unmet clinical need for biomarkers to improve decision-making in a challenging clinical setting.Sin financiación5.225 JCR (2020) Q1, 17/77 Pathology1.482 SJR (2020) Q1, 80/340 GeneticsNo data IDR 2020UE