The epidemiology of high-risk prostate cancer
Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. Current opinion in urology
(Impact Factor: 2.33).
04/2013; 23(4). DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328361d48e
Purpose of review:
Concern for over and under-treatment of men with prostate cancer has led to an increased focus on the identification and selective treatment of men with high-risk features. The purpose of this review is to summarize the epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment trends of men with high-risk prostate cancer.
Findings from recent trials on prostate-specific antigen-based screening suggest that screening has substantially reduced the incidence of high-risk prostate cancer. Men with high-risk disease tend to be older at diagnosis than those with low-risk disease. There is marked variation in the treatment of men with high-risk features; contemporary studies favor multimodal therapy, but high-risk disease is often under-treated with androgen deprivation alone, particularly among older men.
Variations in the incidence, mortality, and treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer may reflect heterogeneity among studies in the definition of high-risk disease. Future research should attempt to standardize definitions of high-risk prostate cancer to allow better comparison between studies and provide a more homogeneous assessment of natural history.
Available from: Giorgio Treglia
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Skeletal metastases are very common in prostate cancer and represent the main metastatic site in about 80% of prostate cancer patients, with a significant impact in patients' prognosis. Early detection of bone metastases is critical in the management of patients with recently diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer: radical treatment is recommended in case of localized disease; systemic therapy should be preferred in patients with distant secondary disease. Bone scintigraphy using radiolabeled bisphosphonates is of great importance in the management of these patients; however, its main drawback is its low overall accuracy, due to the nonspecific uptake in sites of increased bone turnover. Positron-emitting radiopharmaceuticals, such as fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose, choline-derived drugs (fluorine-18-fluorocholine and carbon-11-choline) and sodium fluorine-18-fluoride, are increasingly used in clinical practice to detect metastatic spread, and particularly bone involvement, in patients with prostate cancer, to reinforce or substitute information provided by bone scan. Each radiopharmaceutical has a specific mechanism of uptake; therefore, diagnostic performances may differ from one radiopharmaceutical to another on the same lesions, as demonstrated in the literature, with variable sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy values in the same patients. Whether bone scintigraphy can be substituted by these new methods is a matter of debate. However, greater radiobiological burden, higher costs, and the necessity of an in-site cyclotron limit the use of these positron emission tomography methods as first-line investigations in patients with prostate cancer: bone scintigraphy remains the mainstay for the detection of bone metastases in current clinical practice.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Despite a rapid dissemination of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP), to date no study has compared perioperative outcomes between the two approaches in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of RARP in this setting.
Patients and methods:
Overall, 1,512 patients with high-risk PCa within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End RESULTS (SEER) Medicare-linked database diagnosed between 2008 and 2009 were abstracted. Patients were treated with RARP or ORP. Postoperative complications, blood transfusions, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), positive surgical margins, and additional cancer therapy rates were compared. Propensity-score matched analyses and logistic regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations for clustering among hospitals were performed.
Overall, 706 (46.7%) and 806 (53.3%) patients underwent ORP and RARP, respectively. Following propensity-matched analyses, 706 patients remained. No differences were observed in complications (P=0.6), positive surgical margins (P=0.4), or additional therapy after surgery (P=0.2) between patients treated with RARP and ORP; however, RARP was associated with lower rates of transfusions and shorter hospitalization (all P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, patients undergoing RARP were less likely to receive a blood transfusion (P=0.002) or to experience pLOS (P<0.001) compared with men treated with ORP.
RARP and ORP have comparable complications, positive surgical margins, and additional cancer therapy rates in high-risk PCa. RARP is associated with lower rates of blood transfusions and shorter hospital stays. These findings suggest that RARP is safe and feasible even in this clinical scenario.
Available from: tandfonline.com
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
High-risk prostate cancer (PC) has poor outcomes due to therapeutic resistance to conventional treatments, which include prostatectomy, radiation, and hormone therapy. Previous studies suggest that anticoagulant (AC) use may improve treatment outcomes in PC patients. We hypothesized that AC therapy confers a freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and overall survival (OS) benefit when administered with radiotherapy in patients with high-risk PC.
Materials and methods:
Analysis was performed on 74 high-risk PC patients who were treated with radiotherapy from 2005 to 2008 at UT Southwestern. Of these patients, 43 were on AC including aspirin (95.6%), clopidogrel (17.8%), warfarin (20%), and multiple ACs (31.1%). Associations between AC use and FFBF, OS, distant metastasis, and toxicity were analyzed.
Median follow-up was 56.6 mo for all patients. For patients taking any AC compared with no AC, there was improved FFBF at 5 years of 80% vs. 62% (P = 0.003), and for aspirin the FFBF was 84% vs. 65% (P = 0.008). Aspirin use was also associated with reduced rates of distant metastases at 5 years (12.2% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.039). On subset analysis of patients with Gleason score (GS) 9-10 histology, aspirin resulted in improved 5-year OS (88% vs. 37%, P = 0.032), which remained significant on multivariable analysis (P<0.05).
AC use was associated with a FFBF benefit in high-risk PC which translated into an OS benefit in the highest risk PC patients with GS 9-10, who are most likely to experience mortality from PC. This hypothesis-generating result suggests AC use may represent an opportunity to augment current therapy.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.