Background

We examine the practical application of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prostate biopsy data using established pre-RP nomograms and its potential implications on RP intraoperative decision-making. We hypothesize that current nomograms are suboptimal in predicting outcomes with mpMRI targeted biopsy (TBx) data.

Materials and methods

Patients who underwent mpMRI-based TBx prior to RP were assessed using the MSKCC and Briganti nomograms with the following iterations: (1) Targeted (T) (targeted only), (2) Targeted and Systematic (TS) and (3) Targeted Augmented (TA) (targeted core data; assumed negative systematic cores for 12 total cores). Nomogram outcomes, lymph node involvement (LNI), extracapsular extension (ECE), organ-confined disease (OCD), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), were compared across iterations. Clinically significant impact on management was defined as a change in LNI risk above or below 2% (Δ2) or 5% (Δ5).

Results

A total of 217 men met inclusion criteria. Overall, the TA iteration had more conservative nomogram outcomes than the T. Moreover, TA better predicted RP pathology for all four outcomes when compared with the T. In the entire cohort, Δ2 and Δ5 were 16.6-25.8% and 20.3-39.2%, respectively. In the subset of 190 patients with targeted and systematic cores, TA was a better approximation of TS outcomes than T in 71% (MSKCC) and 82% (Briganti) of patients.

Conclusion

In established pre-RP nomograms, mpMRI-based TBx often yield variable and discordant results when compared with systematic biopsies. Future nomograms must better incorporate mpMRI TBx core data. In the interim, augmenting TBx data may serve to bridge the gap.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radiation therapy has increasingly been used in the management of pelvic malignancies. However, the use of radiation continues to pose a risk of a secondary malignancy to its recipients. This study investigates the risk of secondary malignancy development following radiation for primary pelvic malignancies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1975 to 2016 was performed. Primary pelvic malignancies were subdivided based on the receipt of radiation, and secondary malignancies were stratified as pelvic or nonpelvic to investigate the local effect of radiation. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2 102 192 patients were analyzed (1 189 108 with prostate, 315 026 with bladder, 88 809 with cervical, 249 535 with uterine, and 259 714 with rectal/anal cancer). The incidence rate (defined as cases per 1000 person years) of any secondary malignancies (including but not limited to secondary pelvic malignancies) was higher in radiation patients than in nonradiation patients (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.04, confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.05), with significantly greater rates noted in radiation patients with prostate (IRR 1.22, CI 1.21-1.24), uterine (IRR 1.34), and cervical (IRR 1.80, CI 1.72-1.88) cancer. While the overall incidence rate of any secondary pelvic malignancy was lower in radiation patients (IRR 0.79, CI 0.78-0.81), a greater incidence was still noted in the same cohorts including radiation patients with prostate (IRR 1.42, CI 1.39-1.45), uterine (IRR 1.15, CI 1.08-1.21), and cervical (IRR 1.72, CI 1.59-1.86) cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Except for localized cervical cancer, when put in the context of median overall survival, the impact of radiation likely does not carry enough weight to change practice patterns. Radiation for pelvic malignancies increases the risk for several secondary malignancies, and more specifically, secondary pelvic malignancies, but with a relatively low absolute risk of secondary malignancies, the benefits of radiation warrant continued use for most pelvic malignancies. Practice changes should be considered for radiation utilization in malignancies with excellent cancer-specific survival such as cervical cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of radiation for the management of pelvic malignancies induces a risk of secondary malignancies to its recipients. However, the absolute risk being low, the benefits of radiation warrant its continued use, and a change in practice patterns is unlikely.

Purpose

Only retrospective data are available for low-dose-rate (LDR) salvage prostate brachytherapy for local recurrence after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The primary objective of this prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) was to evaluate late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (AEs) after salvage LDR brachytherapy.

Methods and materials

Eligible patients had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer before EBRT and biopsy-proven recurrence >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen levels <10 ng/mL and no regional/distant disease. The primary endpoint was grade 3 or higher late treatment-related gastrointestinal or genitourinary AEs occurring 9 to 24 months after brachytherapy. These AEs were projected to be ≤10%, with ≥20% considered unacceptable. All events were graded with National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Multivariate analyses investigated associations of pretreatment or treatment variables with AEs.

Results

One hundred patients from 20 centers were registered from May 2007 to January 2014. The 92 analyzable patients had a median follow-up of 54 months (range, 4-97) and a median age of 70 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65-74). The initial Gleason score was 7 in 48% of patients. The median dose of EBRT was 74 Gy (IQR, 70-76) at a median interval of 85 months previously (IQR, 60-119). Only 16% had androgen deprivation at study entry. Twelve patients (14%) had late grade 3 gastrointestinal/genitourinary AEs, with no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 AEs. No pretreatment variable predicted late AEs, including prior EBRT dose and elapsed interval. Higher V100 (percentage of prostate enclosed by prescription isodose) predicted both occurrence of late AEs (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.52; P = .03) and earlier time to first occurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34; P = .02).

Conclusions

This prospective multicenter trial reports outcomes of salvage LDR brachytherapy for post-EBRT recurrence. The rate of late grade 3 AEs did not exceed the unacceptable threshold. The only factor predictive of late AEs was implant dosimetry reflected by V100. Efficacy outcomes will be reported at a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

Purpose

To investigate the utility of ¹⁵³Sm lexidronam (Quadramet) in the setting of men with prostate cancer status post radical prostatectomy who develop biochemical failure with no clinical evidence of osseous metastases.

Patients and methods

Trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0622 is a single-arm phase 2 trial that enrolled men with pT2-T4, N0-1, M0 prostate cancer status post radical prostatectomy, who meet at least 1 of these biochemical failure criteria: (1) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 1.0 ng/mL; (2) PSA > 0.2 ng/mL if Gleason score 9 to 10; or (3) PSA > 0.2 ng/mL if N1. Patients received ¹⁵³Sm (2.0 mCi/kg intravenously × 1) followed by salvage external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the prostatic fossa (64.8-70.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy daily fractions). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. The primary objective was PSA response within 12 weeks of receiving ¹⁵³Sm. The secondary objectives were to: (1) assess the completion rate for the regimen of ¹⁵³Sm and EBRT; (2) evaluate the hematologic toxicity and other adverse events (AEs) at 12 and 24 weeks; and (3) determine the freedom from progression rate at 2 years.

Results

A total of 60 enrolled eligible patients were included in this analysis. Median follow-up was 3.97 years. A PSA response was achieved in 7 of 52 evaluable patients (13.5%), compared with the 25% hypothesized. The 2-year freedom from progression rate was 25.5% (95% confidence interval 14.4%-36.7%), and the biochemical failure rate was 64.4% (95% CI 50.5%-75.2%). Samarium-153 was well tolerated, with 16 (of 60) grade 3 to 4 hematologic AEs and no grade 5 hematologic AEs. Radiation therapy was also well tolerated, with no grade 3 to 5 acute radiation therapy-related AEs and 1 grade 3 to 4 and no grade 5 late radiation therapy-related AEs.

Conclusions

Trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0622 did not meet its primary endpoint of PSA response, although the regimen of ¹⁵³Sm and salvage EBRT was well tolerated. Although the toxicity profile supports study of ¹⁵³Sm in high-risk disease, it may not be beneficial in men receiving EBRT.

Purpose

We report efficacy of a prospective phase 2 trial (NCT00450411) of salvage low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy (BT) for local failure (LF) after prior external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with minimum 5-years' follow-up.

Methods and materials

Eligible patients had low/intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) before EBRT and biopsy-proven LF >30 months after EBRT, with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/mL and no regional/distant disease. The primary endpoint, late gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0) grade ≥3 were 14%. With minimum 5-year follow-up after salvage BT, secondary clinical outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS; includes death from any cause), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Local tumor progression (ie, LF), distant failure (DF), and biochemical failure (BF) were estimated using cumulative incidence. Time to LF, DF, and BF were modeled by cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

From May 2007 to January 2014, 20 centers registered 100 patients (92 analyzable). Median follow-up is 6.7 years (range, 0.3-11.2); median age 70 years (range, 55-82); median prior EBRT dose 74 Gy [interquartile range (IQR):70 - 76] at a median of 85 months prior (IQR 60-119 months). Androgen deprivation was combined with salvage BT in 16%. Ten-year OS is 70% [95% confidence interval (CI) 58% - 83%]. Nineteen patients died (5 PCa, 10 other, 4 unknown). Ten-year failure rates are local 5% (95% CI, 1-11), distant 19% (95% CI, 10-29), and biochemical 46% (95% CI, 34-57). DFS is 61% at 5 years and 33% at 10 years. No baseline characteristic was significantly associated with any clinical outcome.

Conclusions

This is the first prospective multicenter trial reporting outcomes of salvage LDR BT for LF after EBRT. Five-year freedom from BF is 68%, comparable to other salvage modalities. Although further LF is rare (5%), BF climbs to 46% by 10 years.

Management of men with prostate cancer is fraught with uncertainty as physicians and patients balance efficacy with potential toxicity and diminished quality of life. Utilization of genomics as a prognostic biomarker has improved the informed decision-making process by enabling more rationale treatment choices. Recently investigations have begun to determine whether genomic information from tumor transcriptome data can be used to impact clinical decision-making beyond prognosis. Here we discuss the potential of genomics to alter management of a patient who presented with high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma. We suggest that this information help selecting patients for advanced imaging, chemotherapies, or clinical trial.

Purpose

Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs.

Patients and methods

Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05.

Results

Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%).

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Purpose

Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services.

Methods

A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider).

Results

Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches.

Conclusion

This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.