A Systematic Review of Patients’ Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours

Comparative healthcare research outcomes of novel surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): a prospective, multi-centre therapeutic phase II parallel randomised control trial

Introduction Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies. Patients and methods CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B. Results Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B. Conclusion CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session

The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer:the PART feasibility RCT

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. Design We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. Setting Five NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. Interventions Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. Primary outcome measure The randomisation of 80 men. Secondary outcome measures Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. Results Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) – with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants – than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. Conclusions Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted

Analysis of the genetic phylogeny of multifocal prostate cancer identifies multiple independent clonal expansions in neoplastic and morphologically normal prostate tissue.

Genome-wide DNA sequencing was used to decrypt the phylogeny of multiple samples from distinct areas of cancer and morphologically normal tissue taken from the prostates of three men. Mutations were present at high levels in morphologically normal tissue distant from the cancer, reflecting clonal expansions, and the underlying mutational processes at work in morphologically normal tissue were also at work in cancer. Our observations demonstrate the existence of ongoing abnormal mutational processes, consistent with field effects, underlying carcinogenesis. This mechanism gives rise to extensive branching evolution and cancer clone mixing, as exemplified by the coexistence of multiple cancer lineages harboring distinct ERG fusions within a single cancer nodule. Subsets of mutations were shared either by morphologically normal and malignant tissues or between different ERG lineages, indicating earlier or separate clonal cell expansions. Our observations inform on the origin of multifocal disease and have implications for prostate cancer therapy in individual cases

Sequencing of prostate cancers identifies new cancer genes, routes of progression and drug targets

Prostate cancer represents a substantial clinical challenge because it is difficult to predict outcome and advanced disease is often fatal. We sequenced the whole genomes of 112 primary and metastatic prostate cancer samples. From joint analysis of these cancers with those from previous studies (930 cancers in total), we found evidence for 22 previously unidentified putative driver genes harboring coding mutations, as well as evidence for NEAT1 and FOXA1 acting as drivers through noncoding mutations. Through the temporal dissection of aberrations, we identified driver mutations specifically associated with steps in the progression of prostate cancer, establishing, for example, loss of CHD1 and BRCA2 as early events in cancer development of ETS fusion-negative cancers. Computational chemogenomic (canSAR) analysis of prostate cancer mutations identified 11 targets of approved drugs, 7 targets of investigational drugs, and 62 targets of compounds that may be active and should be considered candidates for future clinical trials