Survival outcomes of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer according to pathological response at radical cystectomy with or without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy: a case-control matching study

Objectives To assess survival of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who underwent radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) according to the pathological response at RC. Methods 965 patients with MIBC (cT2-4aN0M0) who underwent RC with or without NAC were analyzed. Among the collected data were comorbidity, clinical and pathological tumor stage, tumor grade, nodal status (y)pN, and OS. Case–control matching of 412 patients was performed to compare oncological outcomes. Kaplan–Meier curves were created to estimate OS for patients who underwent RC with or without NAC, and for those with complete response (pCR), partial response (pPR), or residual or progressive disease (PD). Results Patients with a pCR or pPR at RC, with or without NAC, had better OS than patients who had PD (both p val- ues < 0.001). Moreover, the incidence of pCR was significantly higher in patients receiving NAC prior to RC than in patients undergoing RC only (31% versus 15%, respectively; p < 0.001). Case–control matching displayed better OS of patients who underwent RC with NAC, median survival not reached, than of those who underwent RC only, median 4.5 years (p = 0.023). Conclusions This study showed that patients with MIBC who underwent NAC with RC had a significant better OS than those who underwent RC only. The proportion of patients with a pCR was higher in those who received NAC and RC than in those who were treated by RC only. The favorable OS rate in the NAC and RC cohort was probably attributed to the higher observed pCR rate

Cancer Detection and Cancer Characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) - Section Rotterdam. A Comparison of Two Rounds of Screening

Objectives: To evaluate the features, rates, and characteristics of prostate cancer detected during two subsequent screening rounds. Methods: Data were retrieved from the database of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), section Rotterdam. Men, ages 55-74 yr were screened with a 4-yr interval. Different biopsy indications were used in the first and second screens in the PSA range <4.0 ng/ml. Clinical features and a total of 1548 sextant biopsies were recorded for Gleason score and tumour extent, and 550 radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for Gleason score, pathologic T category, and tumour volume. Results: Clinical stage, Gleason score, involvement of biopsy by tumour, and PSA levels were more favourable in patients of the second round compared with those of the first round. The number of men chosen for watchful waiting increased from 98 (10%) to 123 (22%) in the second round (p < 0.0001). In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, median tumour volume in the first and second screening round was 0.65 and 0.45 ml (p = 0.001). Minimal cancer (cancer <0.5 ml, organ-confined, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5) was found in 122 (31.6%) in the first and 60 (42.6%) in the second screening round (p = 0.03). The 5-yr PSA progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy was 87%. Conclusions: Despite the 4-yr interval an important shift of all prognostic factors occurred in favour of round 2. In those men who underwent radical prostatectomy, 42.6% fulfilled the criteria of minimal cancer. These data suggest that overdiagnosis increases with repeat screening

Repeatability of Quantitative 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Measurements in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Quantitative evaluation of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scans may be used to monitor treatment response in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). To interpret longitudinal differences in PSMA uptake, the intrinsic variability of tracer uptake in PCa lesions needs to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of quantitative PET/CT measurements using 18F-DCFPyL ([2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid], a second-generation 18F-PSMA-ligand) in patients with PCa. Methods: Twelve patients with metastatic PCa were prospectively included, of whom 2 were excluded from final analyses. Patients received 2 whole-body 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans (median dose, 317 MBq; uptake time, 120 min) within a median of 4 d (range, 1-11 d). After semiautomatic (isocontour-based) tumor delineation, the following lesion-based metrics were derived: mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio; SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax normalized to body weight; tumor volume; and total lesion uptake (TLU). Additionally, patient-based total tumor volume (TTV) (sum of PSMA-positive tumor volumes) and total tumor burden (TTB) (sum of all lesion TLUs) were derived. Repeatability was analyzed using repeatability coefficients (RC) and intraclass correlation coefficients. Additionally, the effect of point-spread function (PSF) image reconstruction on the repeatability of uptake metrics was evaluated. Results: In total, 36 18F-DCFPyL PET-positive lesions were analyzed (≤5 lesions per patient). The RCs for mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio were 31.8%, 31.7%, and 37.3%, respectively. For SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, the RCs were 24.4%, 25.3%, and 31.0%, respectively. All intraclass correlation coefficients were at least 0.97. Tumor volume delineations were quite repeatable, with an RC of 28.1% for individual lesion volumes and 17.0% for TTV. TTB had an RC of 23.2% and 33.4% when based on SUVmean and mean tumor-to-blood ratio, respectively. Small lesions (<4.2 cm3) had worse repeatability for volume measurements. The repeatability of SUVpeak, TLU, and all patient-level metrics was not affected by PSF reconstruction. Conclusion:18F-DCFPyL uptake measurements are quite repeatable and can be used for clinical validation in future treatment response assessment studies. Patient-based TTV may be preferred for multicenter studies because its repeatability was both high and robust to different image reconstructions

Lutetium-177-PSMA-I&T as metastases directed therapy in oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer, a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 225057.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: In recent years, there is increasing evidence showing a beneficial outcome (e.g. progression free survival; PFS) after metastases-directed therapy (MDT) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or targeted surgery for oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (oHSPC). However, many patients do not qualify for these treatments due to prior interventions or tumor location. Such oligometastatic patients could benefit from radioligand therapy (RLT) with (177)Lu-PSMA; a novel tumor targeting therapy for end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Especially because RLT could be more effective in low volume disease, such as the oligometastatic status, due to high uptake of radioligands in smaller lesions. To test the hypothesis that (177)Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment in oHSPC to prolong PFS and postpone the need for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), we initiated a multicenter randomized clinical trial. This is globally, the first prospective study using (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T in a randomized multicenter setting. METHODS & DESIGN: This study compares (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T MDT to the current standard of care (SOC); deferred ADT. Fifty-eight patients with oHSPC (≤5 metastases on PSMA PET) and high PSMA uptake (SUVmax > 15, partial volume corrected) on (18)F-PSMA PET after prior surgery and/or EBRT and a PSA doubling time of < 6 months, will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The patients randomized to the interventional arm will be eligible for two cycles of 7.4GBq (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T at a 6-week interval. After both cycles, patients are monitored every 3 weeks (including adverse events, QoL- and xerostomia questionnaires and laboratory testing) at the outpatient clinic. Twenty-four weeks after cycle two an end of study evaluation is planned together with another (18)F-PSMA PET and (whole body) MRI. Patients in the SOC arm are eligible to receive (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T after meeting the primary study objective, which is the fraction of patients who show disease progression during the study follow up. A second primary objective is the time to disease progression. Disease progression is defined as a 100% increase in PSA from baseline or clinical progression. DISCUSSION: This is the first prospective randomized clinical study assessing the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T for patients with oHSPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04443062

Simplified Methods for Quantification of F-18-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET has demonstrated promising results for prostate cancer (PCa) imaging. Quantification of PSMA radiotracer uptake is desired as it enables reliable interpretation of PET images, use of PSMA uptake as an imaging biomarker for tumor characterization, and evaluation of treatment effects. The aim of this study was to perform a full pharmacokinetic analysis of 2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6- 18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid ( 18F-DCFPyL), a second-generation 18F-labeled PSMA ligand. On the basis of the pharmacokinetic analysis (reference method), simplified methods for quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake were validated. Methods: Eight patients with metastasized PCa were included. Dynamic PET acquisitions were performed at 0-60 and 90-120 min after injection of a median dose of 313 MBq of 18F-DCFPyL (range, 292-314 MBq). Continuous and manual arterial blood sampling provided calibrated plasma tracer input functions. Time-activity curves were derived for each PCa metastasis, and 18F-DCFPyL kinetics were described using standard plasma input tissue-compartment models. Simplified methods for quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake (SUVs; tumor-to-blood ratios [TBRs]) were correlated with kinetic parameter estimates obtained from full pharmacokinetic analysis. Results: In total, 46 metastases were evaluated. A reversible 2-tissue-compartment model was preferred for 18F-DCFPyL kinetics in 59% of the metastases. The observed k 4 was small, however, resulting in nearly irreversible kinetics during the course of the PET study. Hence, k 4 was fixated (0.015) and net influx rate, K i, was preferred as the reference kinetic parameter. Whole-blood TBR provided an excellent correlation with K i from full kinetic analysis (R 2 = 0.97). This TBR could be simplified further by replacing the blood samples with an image-based, single measurement of blood activity in the ascending aorta (image-based TBR, R 2 = 0.96). SUV correlated poorly with K i (R 2 = 0.47 and R 2 = 0.60 for SUV normalized to body weight and lean body mass, respectively), most likely because of deviant blood activity concentrations (i.e., tumor tracer input) in patients with higher tumor volumes. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL kinetics in PCa metastases are best described by a reversible 2-tissue-compartment model. Image-based TBRs were validated as a simplified method to quantify 18F-DCFPyL uptake and might be applied to clinical, whole-body PET scans. SUV does not provide reliable quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients’ perspective

Purpose: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. Methods: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care–based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients’ ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. Results: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0–100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients’ lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients’ perspective

Purpose: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. Methods: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care–based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients’ ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. Results: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0–100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients’ lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. Conclusion: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician’s knowledge about patients’ life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved