Treatment strategies for locally advanced prostate cancer.
Kai Zhang,Xianghua Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20131549
IF: 6.133
2014-01-01
Chinese Medical Journal
Abstract:Nowadays, prostate cancer (PCa) is recognized as one of the most dangerous problem for men. In world wide, PCa is the second most common malignant tumor in male population.1 In Europe, the incidence rate of PCa is about 21.4%, which is the highest among all cancers.2 Moreover, PCa is currently the second most common cause of cancer death in men.3 In Asian and African regions, PCa is not so common as in Europe and north America. However, a rapidly increased incidence of PCa has been noted in most Asian countries including China in the past decade,4 mainly because of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and population aging. Researchers from Shanghai showed that PCa has become the most popular malignant urinary tumor in men.5 Regarding clinical management of PCa, either early PCa or advanced PCa is easy to get a reasonable treatment selection, while the locally advanced PCa is difficult to reach a standard decision. Although there is no universally accepted definition on locally advanced PCa, treatment selection of locally advanced PCa has been becoming the focus in the world. In a broad sense, it may include any of the following: (1) Clinical stages cT1 and cT2 (“localized”) tumor at diagnosis, while so-called high risk features indicate the likelihood of extraprostatic invasion or clinically undetectable metastases (2) Clinical stages T3, T4 or N1 tumor, without evidence of distant metastases (M0) (3) Pathological stage pT2 or pT3 tumor, with high risk features owing to upstaging from additional pathological information after radical prostatectomy.6 Clinically, the locally advanced PCa refers to the patients diagnosed as cT3N0M0, particularly T3a tumor. In this article, the locally advanced PCa is defined as cT2 with high risk factors and cT3 patients. Locally advanced PCa has been reported to be cured by surgical therapy or radiotherapy, and also by combined therapy of surgery with radiotherapy or hormonal therapy. However, the treatment selection for locally advanced PCa is still controversial.7 We would like to introduce and discuss on the treatment strategies for the locally advanced PCa. Efficacy of radical prostatectomy In previous clinical practice, locally advanced PCa was usually associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margins and lymph node metastasis and/or distant relapse following radical prostatectomy.8 Therefore, radiotherapy combined with hormonal therapy was the main selection for the patients with locally advanced PCa. Between 1995 and 2001, only a small proportion of patients with clinical stage cT3 PCa underwent radical prostatectomy in America.9 However, due to improved surgical techniques and increased clinical case study, the benefit of surgery has been noted in the patients with locally advanced PCa in recent years. On the other hand, both urologists and patients also concern the effectiveness of local tumor control and the long term survival rate following radical prostatectomy for cT3 PCa.10 In Mayo Clinic, a large group of patients with cT3 PCa were treated with radical prostatectomy. In this series, 25% of the patients was pathologically defined as organ confined PCa which likely to be cured by surgical therapy alone. Cancer specific survival rate at 5, 10 and 15 years was 93%, 84% and 74%, respectively. The authors concluded that excellent long term survival was possible by radical prostatectomy or combined with adjuvant therapy in those locally advanced PCa patients.11 Mitchell et al12 identified 843 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for cT3 tumours between 1987 and 1997. Local recurrence-free, systemic progression-free and cancer-specific survival was 76%, 72%, and 81%, respectively, at 20 years. They also found that more recent year of surgery was associated with decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality. Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial 8 794 showed the results of 431 with pathological stage pT3 PCa who had undergone radical prostatectomy and randomizedly received adjuvant radiotherapy or observation.13 The median follow up was 10.2 years in this study, and the biochemical control was significantly improved in the group received radical prostatectomy and immediate adjuvant radiotherapy. Furthermore, a trend towards better metastasis free survival was noted in the group received radical prostatectomy and immediate adjuvant radiotherapy. The results of SWOG trial 8794 demonstrated that postoperative radiotherapy could reduce the risk of both biochemical recurrence and clinical failure for men with locally advanced PCa. In order to compare possible differences between radical prostatectomy and observation in 731 men with localized PCa, Wilt et al14 finished a random study through at least 12 years of follow-up, and suggested that radical prostatectomy might reduce mortality among men with higher PSA values and possibly among men with higher-risk tumors. However, in China, it seems to be difficult to persuade patients to receive observation. In addition, the patient follow-up system is still far from complete even in major cities, so observation is not appropriate for locally advanced PCa in our country. The effect of adjuvant hormonal therapy or neoadjuvant hormonal therapy is still controversial in patients with locally advanced PCa. Traditional viewpoint is that adjuvant hormonal therapy following radical prostatectomy shows no survival advantage. However, a recent cochrane review and meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in disease-free survival at both 5 years (P <0.000 01) and 10 years in favour of the hormonal therapy arm.15 More recently, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy did not improve overall survival or disease-free survival in the patients with locally advanced PCa.16 However, this study showed a significant reduction of positive margin rates, organ confinement and lymph node matastasis in the locally advanced PCa patients received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Actually, there are few reports about long-term results of radical prostatectomy for locally advanced PCa in China. Usually, we mainly perform radical prostatectomy in the locally advanced PCa patients with a life expectancy 10 years, without high-risk factors (Gleason score 8-10 or PSA >20 ng/ml). According to the level of PSA before surgery and the pathological results including surgical margin and organ confinement following surgery, we may apply adjuvant radiotherapy or hormonal therapy to the selected patients. It should be noted that, even for those patients with some high risk factor, they could also benefit from surgery. A Mayo Clinic study found that 10-year PSA recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival and cancer-specific survival was 36%, 74% and 79%, respectively, in men received radical prostatectomy and adjuvant therapy with a serum PSA level of ≥100 ng/ml.17 Efficacies of radiotherapy and hormonal therapy Compared with surgical therapy in locally advanced PCa, radiotherapy may be expected to represent a selection with more advanced stages. But in the past 10 years, development of new radiotherapy techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, image-guided radiation therapy and proton therapy, has made delivery of higher doses of external beam radiation (EBRT) feasible with acceptable morbidity. In 1997, Bolla et al18 and Pilepich et al19 respectively demonstrated the benefit of the addition of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy to local radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced PCa. From then on, results from more and more trials demonstrated significant improvements in disease control with combination therapy for locally advanced PCa. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 trial included 818 locally advanced PCa patients randomly assigned to EBRT alone (66 Gy/33 fractions), 3 months of hormonal therapy with goserelin and flutamide starting 2 months before radiotherapy, or 6 months of hormonal therapy with the same regimen starting 5 months before EBRT. After a median follow-up of 10.6 years, the patients who received 3 months hormonal therapy had a decreased cumulative incidence of PSA progression, local progression, and event-free survival as compared with EBRT alone. Furthermore, both PSA progression and clinical progression were greatly decreased in the patients who received 6 months hormonal therapy as compared with EBRT alone.20 The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9 202 trial reported the results of 1 554 locally advanced PCa patients who received 4 months short-term or 24 months long-term hormonal therapy (goserelin and flutamide) before and during EBRT. Following a median follow-up of 11.27 years of all survival patients, the long-term hormonal therapy arm showed significant improvement over the short-term hormonal therapy arm in all efficacy endpoints, except 10-year overall survival, which was 51.6% versus 53.9% (P=0.36), respectively. In a subset of patients with Gleason score 8-10 tumours, the long-term hormonal therapy arm showed significantly better overall survival after 10 years than the short-term hormonal therapy arm, with 45% versus 32% (P=0.006).21 Meantime, prostate brachytherapy should not be ignored, which has been routinely practiced for over two decades. Stock first reported prostate brachytherapy delivered via intraoperative planning using a biplanar ultrasound probe in 1995.22 Now it has been a mature technique that is well established as a standard treatment modality for early-stage, low-risk, and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in north America.23 Recently, Carpenter TJ and colleagues demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of brachytherapy-based radiotherapy in combination with EBRT and hormonal therapy for patients with T3 or N1 PCa. The 7-year biochemical control was 67% with evidence of greater efficacy for patients receiving a biologically effective dose over 200 Gy.24 In China, Wang et al25 reported the results of 32 PCa patients who transperineal 125I-seed implantation guided by ultrasonography. Following a follow-up of 3-29 months, the biochemical control of T2-3N0M0 patients was 100%, the biochemical control of recurrent patients was 75%.25 Although data supporting the application of prostate brachytherapy as a component of multimodality therapy is growing bigger rapidly, it is not yet considered a standard treatment to T3 PCa.26 According to the previous studies, radiotherapy may offer the same long-term survival results as surgery.27 Moreover, external beam radiation therapy provides a quality of life (QOL) at least as good as that provided by surgery.28 However, radiotherapy has not been widely used in China as compared to western countries. Traditionally, Chinese patients prefer to receive surgical resection of the tumor rather than conservative treatment. Therefore, radiotherapy is usually used in patients who are unfit to surgery, or as an adjuvant treatment following radical prostatectomy in China. The aims of hormonal therapy are to reduce the tumour bulk and potentially treat microscopic metastases together with the primary tumour. This can cause an average of 25%-30% cytoreduction of the prostate.29 Widmark et al30 finished an open phase III study comparing hormonal therapy with and without local radiotherapy between 1996 and 2002. This randomised trial included men 875 patients with locally advanced PCa. They were randomly assigned to hormonal therapy alone, or to the same hormonal therapy combined with radiotherapy. After a median follow-up of 7.6 years, they noted that combination therapy halved the 10-year prostate-cancer-specific mortality, and substantially decreased overall mortality with fully acceptable risk of side-effects compared with hormonal therapy alone.30 Obviously, hormonal therapy is not the main selection for locally advanced PCa, but can be used as an adjuvant treatment following surgery or radiotherapy. The management of locally advanced PCa remains a challenge for us. Radiotherapy combined with long term hormonal therapy has been recommended as a treatment selection in the locally advanced PCa for more than two decades. According to the development of surgical therapy, radiotherapy and hormonal therapy in recent years, radical prostatectomy could be considered part of a combined modality approach. Observation is not appropriate for locally advanced PCa. In the absence of a well-conducted randomized trial, there is no definite evidence that one treatment is superior to the other. It is clear that selected patients with locally advanced PCa may benefit from curative surgical treatment. Also, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that combined treatment may improve disease-specific outcomes and the overall survival rate over single treatment for selected patient groups. With modern surgical techniques in experienced hands, radical prostatectomy is a reasonable treatment option in selected patients with locally advanced PCa, and adjuvant radiotherapy may improve local tumor control and reduce the biochemical and clinical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.