Optimizing anti-androgen treatment use among men with pathologic lymph-node positive prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: the importance of postoperative PSA kinetics.
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jul 2022
06 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
28
04
2022
accepted:
27
06
2022
revised:
09
06
2022
entrez:
6
7
2022
pubmed:
7
7
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Optimal postsurgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with nodal metastasis at the time of radical prostatectomy remains unclear. We sought to examine the role of postoperative PSA kinetics and pathologic tumor characteristics in guiding additional hormonal therapy use in pN1 men. In total, 297 pN1 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy and ePLND between 2002 and 2018 were identified within our prospectively maintained institutional cancer data-registry. Following surgery, these patients were managed with either immediate androgen deprivation therapy (iADT) or observation with deferred ADT (dADT). The former was defined as ADT given within ≤6 months of surgery and the latter as >6 months. The primary outcome was metastasis. Regression-tree analysis was used to stratify patients into novel risk-groups based on post-prostatectomy tumor characteristics and PSA kinetics and the corresponding metastasis risk. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the impact of iADT versus observation ± dADT on metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality within each risk-group separately. The median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR 3.2-9.0). Regression-tree analysis stratified patients into 3 novel risk-groups (Harrell's C-index 0.79) based on PSA-nadir and time to biochemical failure: group 1 (low-risk) included patients with time to biochemical recurrence >6 months (n = 115), while groups 2 and 3 included patients with biochemical failure within ≤6 months with a postoperative PSA-nadir <1.05 ng/mL (group 2 [intermediate-risk], n = 125) or ≥1.05 ng/mL (group 3 [high-risk], n = 57), respectively. No other patient or tumor characteristics were significant for risk stratification. Within each risk-group, the 10-year metastasis-free survival rates with iADT versus observation ± dADT use were: group 1, 100% versus 95.4% (Log-rank p = 0.738), group 2, 80.6% versus 53.5% (Log-rank p = 0.016), and group 3, 41.5% versus 0% (Log-rank p = 0.015), respectively. Adjusted Cox regression analyses confirmed the benefit of iADT utilization in reducing metastasis in group 2 (p = 0.029) and group 3 (p = 0.008) patients, with no benefit for group 1 patients (p = 0.918). Similar results were noted for cancer-specific and overall mortality. Following radical prostatectomy, early postoperative PSA kinetics may provide valuable information for guiding the timing of ADT initiation-this may reduce over- and undertreatment of pN1 PCa men.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Optimal postsurgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients with nodal metastasis at the time of radical prostatectomy remains unclear. We sought to examine the role of postoperative PSA kinetics and pathologic tumor characteristics in guiding additional hormonal therapy use in pN1 men.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 297 pN1 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy and ePLND between 2002 and 2018 were identified within our prospectively maintained institutional cancer data-registry. Following surgery, these patients were managed with either immediate androgen deprivation therapy (iADT) or observation with deferred ADT (dADT). The former was defined as ADT given within ≤6 months of surgery and the latter as >6 months. The primary outcome was metastasis. Regression-tree analysis was used to stratify patients into novel risk-groups based on post-prostatectomy tumor characteristics and PSA kinetics and the corresponding metastasis risk. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the impact of iADT versus observation ± dADT on metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality within each risk-group separately.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR 3.2-9.0). Regression-tree analysis stratified patients into 3 novel risk-groups (Harrell's C-index 0.79) based on PSA-nadir and time to biochemical failure: group 1 (low-risk) included patients with time to biochemical recurrence >6 months (n = 115), while groups 2 and 3 included patients with biochemical failure within ≤6 months with a postoperative PSA-nadir <1.05 ng/mL (group 2 [intermediate-risk], n = 125) or ≥1.05 ng/mL (group 3 [high-risk], n = 57), respectively. No other patient or tumor characteristics were significant for risk stratification. Within each risk-group, the 10-year metastasis-free survival rates with iADT versus observation ± dADT use were: group 1, 100% versus 95.4% (Log-rank p = 0.738), group 2, 80.6% versus 53.5% (Log-rank p = 0.016), and group 3, 41.5% versus 0% (Log-rank p = 0.015), respectively. Adjusted Cox regression analyses confirmed the benefit of iADT utilization in reducing metastasis in group 2 (p = 0.029) and group 3 (p = 0.008) patients, with no benefit for group 1 patients (p = 0.918). Similar results were noted for cancer-specific and overall mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Following radical prostatectomy, early postoperative PSA kinetics may provide valuable information for guiding the timing of ADT initiation-this may reduce over- and undertreatment of pN1 PCa men.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35794359
doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00572-z
pii: 10.1038/s41391-022-00572-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cai J, Pinski J, et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172:2252–5.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000143448.04161.cc
Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, Bagniewski S, Bergstralh EJ, Karnes RJ, et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol. 2007;178:864–70. discussion 870-861.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.048
Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, Sammon J, Rogers CG, Stricker H, et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1168–76.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025
Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1781–8.
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199912093412401
Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, Kiernan M, Crawford D, Wilding G, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:472–9.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70700-8
Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281:1591–7.
doi: 10.1001/jama.281.17.1591
Wong YN, Freedland S, Egleston B, Hudes G, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K. Role of androgen deprivation therapy for node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:100–5.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2042
Touijer KA, Mazzola CR, Sjoberg DD, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Long-term outcomes of patients with lymph node metastasis treated with radical prostatectomy without adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. Eur Urol. 2014;65:20–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.053
Kim DK, Koo KC, Abdel Raheem A, Kim KH, Chung BH, Choi YD, et al. Single positive lymph node prostate cancer can be treated surgically without recurrence. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152391.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152391
Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, Cozzarini C, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, et al. Predicting survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer following multimodal treatment. Eur Urol. 2014;65:554–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.025
VanderWeele DJ, Finney R, Katayama K, Gillard M, Paner G, Imoto S, et al. Genomic heterogeneity within individual prostate cancer foci impacts predictive biomarkers of targeted therapy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:416–24.
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.006
Sharifi N, Gulley JL, Dahut WL. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;294:238–44.
doi: 10.1001/jama.294.2.238
Keating NL, O’Malley AJ, Smith MR. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4448–56.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.2497
Abdollah F, Sammon JD, Reznor G, Sood A, Schmid M, Klett DE, et al. Medical androgen deprivation therapy and increased non-cancer mortality in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients aged >/=66 years. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:1529–39.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.06.011
Schmid M, Sammon JD, Reznor G, Kapoor V, Speed JM, Abdollah FA, et al. Dose-dependent effect of androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer on adverse cardiac events. BJU Int. 2016;118:221–9.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13203
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J, Team VIP. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol. 2003;169:2289–92.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067464.53313.dd
Ghani KR, Trinh QD, Menon M. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy-Technique in 2012. J Endourol / Endourological Soc. 2012;26:1558–65.
doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0455
Sood A, Jeong W, Peabody JO, Hemal AK, Menon M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: inching toward gold standard. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41:473–84.
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.07.002
Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, Warncke SH, Thalmann GN, Krause T, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol. 2008;53:118–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.07.035
Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, Davis BJ, Goldenberg SL, Hahn C, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190:441–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.032
Gharzai LA, Jiang R, Wallington D, Jones G, Birer S, Jairath N, et al. Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:402–10.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30730-0
Segal MR. Regression trees for censored data. Biometrics. 1988;44:35–47.
doi: 10.2307/2531894
Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1315–6.
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d
Krasnova A, Epstein M, Marchese M, Dickerman BA, Cole AP, Lipsitz SR, et al. Risk of dementia following androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:410–8.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0189-3
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N. Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250–61.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa074311
van Andel G, Kurth KH. The impact of androgen deprivation therapy on health related quality of life in asymptomatic men with lymph node positive prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2003;44:209–14.
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00208-2
Kang JJ, Reiter RE, Steinberg ML, King CR. Ultrasensitive prostate specific antigen after prostatectomy reliably identifies patients requiring postoperative radiotherapy. J Urol. 2015;193:1532–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.017
Grivas N, de Bruin D, Barwari K, van Muilekom E, Tillier C, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Ultrasensitive prostate-specific antigen level as a predictor of biochemical progression after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Towards risk adapted follow-up. J Clin Lab Anal. 2019;33:e22693.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.22693
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2020 update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;79:263–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046
Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, Cozzarini C, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3939–47.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.7893
Touijer KA, Karnes RJ, Passoni N, Sjoberg DD, Assel M, Fossati N, et al. Survival outcomes of men with lymph node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of different postoperative management strategies. Eur Urol. 2018;73:890–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.027
Tilki D, Chen MH, Wu J, Huland H, Graefen M, Wiegel T, et al. Adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy for men at high risk for recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and the risk of death. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2284–93.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03714
Wang X, Kattan MW. Cohort studies: design, analysis, and reporting. Chest. 2020;158(1S):S72–S78.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.014
Hoffmann MA, Buchholz HG, Wieler HJ, Miederer M, Rosar F, Fischer N et al. PSA and PSA kinetics thresholds for the presence of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT-detectable lesions in patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:398.
Bhargava P, Ravizzini G, Chapin BF, Kundra V. Imaging Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy: Where Are We Headed? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:1248–58.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21905
Daly T. Evolution of definitive external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020;38:565–91.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02661-6
Magnan S, Zarychanski R, Pilote L, Bernier L, Shemilt M, Vigneault E, et al. Intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1261–9.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2895