Outcomes of Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography: Results of a Multicenter European Study.

Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy Multimodal therapy Oligometastatic Prostate cancer Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 18 06 2023
revised: 29 08 2023
accepted: 11 09 2023
medline: 17 10 2023
pubmed: 17 10 2023
entrez: 16 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

De novo oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPCa) on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is a new disease entity and its optimal management remains unknown. To analyze the outcomes of patients treated with cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) for omPCa on PSMA-PET. Overall, 116 patients treated with cRP at 13 European centers were identified. Oligometastatic PCa was defined as miM1a and/or miM1b with five or fewer osseous metastases and/or miM1c with three or fewer lung lesions on PSMA-PET. Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy. Thirty-day complications according to Clavien-Dindo, continence rates, time to castration-resistant PCa (CRPC), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Overall, 95 (82%) patients had miM1b, 18 (16%) miM1a, and three (2.6%) miM1c omPCa. The median prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen was 14 ng/ml, and 102 (88%) men had biopsy grade group ≥3 PCa. The median number of metastases on PSMA-PET was 2; 38 (33%), 29 (25%), and 49 (42%) patients had one, two, and three or more distant positive lesions. A total of 70 (60%) men received neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and 37 (32%) underwent metastasis-directed therapy. Any and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications occurred in 36 (31%) and six (5%) patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 27 mo, 19 (16%) patients developed CRPC and eight (7%) patients died. The 1-yr urinary continence rate was 82%. The 2-yr CRPC-free survival and OS were 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.5-93.7%) and 98.9% (95% CI 96.8-100%), respectively. The limitations include retrospective design and short-term follow-up. Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy is a safe and feasible treatment option in patients with de novo omPCa on PSMA-PET. Despite overall favorable oncologic outcomes, some of these patients have a non-negligible risk of early progression and thus should be considered for multimodal therapy. We found that patients treated at expert centers with surgery for prostate cancer, with a limited number of metastases detected using novel molecular imaging, have favorable short-term survival, functional results, and acceptable rates of complications.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
De novo oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPCa) on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is a new disease entity and its optimal management remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To analyze the outcomes of patients treated with cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (cRP) for omPCa on PSMA-PET.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS METHODS
Overall, 116 patients treated with cRP at 13 European centers were identified. Oligometastatic PCa was defined as miM1a and/or miM1b with five or fewer osseous metastases and/or miM1c with three or fewer lung lesions on PSMA-PET.
INTERVENTION METHODS
Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Thirty-day complications according to Clavien-Dindo, continence rates, time to castration-resistant PCa (CRPC), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Overall, 95 (82%) patients had miM1b, 18 (16%) miM1a, and three (2.6%) miM1c omPCa. The median prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen was 14 ng/ml, and 102 (88%) men had biopsy grade group ≥3 PCa. The median number of metastases on PSMA-PET was 2; 38 (33%), 29 (25%), and 49 (42%) patients had one, two, and three or more distant positive lesions. A total of 70 (60%) men received neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and 37 (32%) underwent metastasis-directed therapy. Any and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications occurred in 36 (31%) and six (5%) patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 27 mo, 19 (16%) patients developed CRPC and eight (7%) patients died. The 1-yr urinary continence rate was 82%. The 2-yr CRPC-free survival and OS were 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.5-93.7%) and 98.9% (95% CI 96.8-100%), respectively. The limitations include retrospective design and short-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy is a safe and feasible treatment option in patients with de novo omPCa on PSMA-PET. Despite overall favorable oncologic outcomes, some of these patients have a non-negligible risk of early progression and thus should be considered for multimodal therapy.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
We found that patients treated at expert centers with surgery for prostate cancer, with a limited number of metastases detected using novel molecular imaging, have favorable short-term survival, functional results, and acceptable rates of complications.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37845121
pii: S2588-9311(23)00197-9
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.09.006
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Pawel Rajwa (P)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland.

Daniele Robesti (D)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Michael Chaloupka (M)

Department of Urology, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Alexander Giesen (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Nicolai A Huebner (NA)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Aleksandra Krzywon (A)

Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland.

Marcin Miszczyk (M)

IIIrd Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland.

Matthias Moll (M)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Rafał Stando (R)

Department of Radiotherapy, Holy Cross Cancer Center, Kielce, Poland.

Edoardo Cisero (E)

Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.

Sofiya Semko (S)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Enrico Checcucci (E)

Department of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.

Gaëtan Devos (G)

Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Maria Apfelbeck (M)

Department of Urology, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Cecilia Gatti (C)

Department of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.

Giancarlo Marra (G)

Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Roderick C N van den Bergh (RCN)

Department of Urology, St Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Gregor Goldner (G)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Sazan Rasul (S)

Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Francesco Ceci (F)

Division of Nuclear Medicine, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Francesco Porpiglia (F)

Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.

Paolo Gontero (P)

Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Anders Bjartell (A)

Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Christian Stief (C)

Department of Urology, LMU Klinikum, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Axel Heidenreich (A)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Steven Joniau (S)

Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Division of Urology, Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH