Search

BACKGROUND: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. RESULTS: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

PURPOSE: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. RESULTS: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. CONCLUSIONS: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

BACKGROUND: Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individuals perceptions and decision making. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%,

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relate to prostate volume of benign tissue, Gleason pattern 3 (GP3) and Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) cancer. METHODS: The cohort included 2209 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at 2 academic institutions with pT2N0, Grade Group 1-4 prostate cancer and an undetectable postoperative PSA. Volume of benign, GP3, and GP4 were estimated. The primary analysis evaluated the association between PSA and volume of each type of tissue using multivariable linear regression. R2, a measure of explained variation, was calculated using a multivariable model. RESULTS: Estimated contribution to PSA was 0.04/0.06 ng/mL/cc for benign, 0.08/0.14 ng/mL/cc for GP3, and 0.62/0.80 ng/ml/cc for GP4 for the 2 independent cohorts, respectively. GP4 was associated with 6 to 8-fold more PSA per cc compared to GP3 and 15-fold higher compared to benign tissue. We did not observe a difference between PSA per cc for GP3 vs. benign tissue (P = 0.2). R2 decreased only slightly when removing age (0.006/0.018), volume of benign tissue (0.051/0.054) or GP3 (0.014/0.023) from the model. When GP4 was removed, R2 decreased 0.051/0.310. PSA density (PSA divided by prostate volume) was associated with volume of GP4 but not GP3, after adjustment for benign volume. CONCLUSION: Gleason pattern 4 cancer contributes considerably more to PSA and PSA density per unit volume compared to GP3 and benign tissue. Contributions from GP3 and benign are similar. Further research should examine the utility of determining clinical management recommendations by absolute volume of GP4 rather than the ratio of GP3 to GP4.

PurposeGermline 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsLarge 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.ConclusionThis 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.

PurposeWe update the prior standard operating procedure for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, and summarize the available data about the technique and clinical use for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This update includes practical recommendations on the use of magnetic resonance imaging for screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment and surveillance of prostate cancer.Materials and methodsA panel of clinicians from the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and technique of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus.ResultsProstate magnetic resonance imaging should be performed according to technical specifications and standards, and interpreted according to standard reporting. Data support its use in men with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. Sufficient data now exist to support the recommendation of magnetic resonance imaging before prostate biopsy in all men who have no history of biopsy. Currently, the evidence is insufficient to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer.ConclusionsUse of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification, diagnosis and treatment pathway of men with prostate cancer is expanding. When quality prostate imaging is obtained, current evidence now supports its use in men at risk of harboring prostate cancer and who have not undergone a previous biopsy, as well as in men with an increasing prostate specific antigen following an initial negative standard prostate biopsy procedure.

PurposeThe following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer.Materials and methodsThe workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics.ResultsThe workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade.ConclusionsThe workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

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.

PurposeWe summarize the available data about the clinical and economic effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, and provide practical recommendations for its use in the screening, diagnosis, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer.Materials and methodsA panel of clinicians with expertise in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer evaluated the current published literature on the use and effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for this disease. When adequate studies were available for analysis, recommendations were made on the basis of data and when adequate studies were not available, recommendations were made on the basis of expert consensus.ResultsAt this time the data support the use of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with a previous negative biopsy and ongoing concerns about increased risk of prostate cancer. The data regarding its usefulness for initial biopsy suggest a possible role for magnetic resonance imaging in some circumstances. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend magnetic resonance imaging for screening, staging or surveillance of prostate cancer.ConclusionsAlthough it adds cost to the management of prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging offers superior anatomic detail, and the ability to evaluate cellular density based on water diffusion and blood flow based on contrast enhancement. Imaging targeted biopsy may increase the diagnosis of clinically significant cancers by identifying specific lesions not visible on conventional ultrasound. The clinical indications for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving.

Simple Summary: This study investigated whether quantitative MRI and histology of the prostate reveal differences between races that can affect diagnosis. The cancer signal enhancement rate (α) on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) was significantly higher for African Americans (AAs) compared to Caucasian Americans (CAs). The signal washout rate (β) was significantly lower in benign tissue in AAs and significantly elevated in cancers in AAs. However, no significant differences were found for ADC and T2. The ROC analysis showed that the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T2 are slightly less effective in AAs compared to CAs. DCE significantly improves the differentiation of PCa from benign in AAs (α: 52%, β: 62% more effective in AAs compared to CAs). Histologic analysis showed that cancers have a greater proportion of epithelium and lower lumen in AAs compared to CAs. This study shows that the different races have different quantitative MRI values and histologic makeup. Quantitative DCE-MRI is highly effective and improves PCa diagnosis in African Americans. Purpose: This study investigates whether quantitative MRI and histology of the prostate reveal differences between races, specifically African Americans (AAs) and Caucasian Americans (CAs), that can affect diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Patients (98 CAs, 47 AAs) with known or suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent 3T MRI (T2W, DWI, and DCE-MRI) prior to biopsy or prostatectomy. Quantitative mpMRI metrics: ADC, T2, and DCE empirical mathematical model parameters were calculated. Results: AAs had a greater percentage of higher Gleason-grade lesions compared to CAs. There were no significant differences in the quantitative ADC and T2 values between AAs and CAs. The cancer signal enhancement rate (α) on DCE-MRI was significantly higher for AAs compared to CAs (AAs: 13.3 ± 9.3 vs. CAs: 6.1 ± 4.7 s−1, p < 0.001). The DCE signal washout rate (β) was significantly lower in benign tissue of AAs (AAs: 0.01 ± 0.09 s−1 vs. CAs: 0.07 ± 0.07 s−1, p < 0.001) and significantly elevated in cancer tissue in AAs (AAs: 0.12 ± 0.07 s−1 vs. CAs: 0.07 ± 0.08 s−1, p = 0.02). DCE significantly improves the differentiation of PCa from benign in AAs (α: 52%, β: 62% more effective in AAs compared to CAs). Histologic analysis showed cancers have a greater proportion (p = 0.04) of epithelium (50.9 ± 12.3 vs. 44.7 ± 12.8%) and lower lumen (10.5 ± 6.9 vs. 16.2 ± 6.8%) in CAs compared to AAs. Conclusions: This study shows that AAs have different quantitative DCE-MRI values for benign prostate and prostate cancer and different histologic makeup in PCa compared to CAs. Quantitative DCE-MRI can significantly improve the performance of MRI for PCa diagnosis in African Americans but is much less effective for Caucasian Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ContextGiven the highly variable behavior and clinical course of prostate cancer (PCa) and the multiple available treatment options, a personalized approach to oncologic risk stratification is important. Novel genetic approaches offer additional information to improve clinical decision making.ObjectiveTo review the use of genomic biomarkers in the prognostication of PCa outcome and prediction of therapeutic response.Evidence acquisitionSystematic literature review focused on human clinical studies reporting outcome measures with external validation. The literature search included all Medline, Embase, and Scopus articles from inception through July 2014.Evidence synthesisAn improved understanding of the genetic basis of prostate carcinogenesis has produced an increasing number of potential prognostic and predictive tools, such as transmembrane protease, serine2:v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2:ERG) gene fusion status, loss of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene, and gene expression signatures utilizing messenger RNA from tumor tissue. Several commercially available gene panels with external validation are now available, although most have yet to be widely used. The most studied commercially available gene panels, Prolaris, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and Decipher, may be used to estimate disease outcome in addition to clinical parameters or clinical nomograms. ConfirmMDx is an epigenetic test used to predict the results of repeat prostate biopsy after an initial negative biopsy. Additional future strategies include using genetic information from circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood to guide treatment decisions at the initial diagnosis and at subsequent decision points.ConclusionsMajor advances have been made in our understanding of PCa biology in recent years. Our field is currently exploring the early stages of a personalized approach to augment traditional clinical decision making using commercially available genomic tools. A more comprehensive appreciation of value, limitations, and cost is important.Patient summaryWe summarized current advances in genomic testing in prostate cancer with a special focus on the estimation of disease outcome. Several commercial tests are currently available, but further understanding is needed to appreciate the potential benefits and limitations of these novel tests.

PurposeGleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.Materials and methodsMembers of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.ResultsThe Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.ConclusionsThe definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening.