Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume 30, Issue 1 , Pages 3-15, January 2012

The multi-disciplinary management of high-risk prostate cancer

  • Jonathan C. Picard, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-843-792-4286; fax: +1-843-792-8523
    • ,
  • Ali-Reza Golshayan, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Hematology and Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
    • ,
  • David T. Marshall, M.D., M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
    • ,
  • Krisha J. Opfermann, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
    • ,
  • Thomas E. Keane, M.B.B.Ch., F.R.C.S.I., F.A.C.S.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA

Received 30 June 2009; received in revised form 2 September 2009; accepted 3 September 2009. published online 30 November 2009.

Article Outline

Abstract 

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Such men can experience a continuum of disease presentations from indolent to highly aggressive. For physicians who care for these men, a significant challenge has been and continues to be identifying and treating those men with localized cancer who are at a higher risk of dying from their disease. We discuss the risk stratification of patients in order to better identify those patients at higher risk of progression. A comprehensive review of the literature was then performed reviewing the roles of surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and chemotherapy, as well as combinations of these modalities, in treating these challenging patients. An integrated approach combining local and systemic therapies can be beneficial in the management of high-risk localized prostate cancer. The choice of therapy or combination of therapies is dependant upon many considerations, including patient preference and quality of life aspects. It is becoming clearer that the addition of hormonal therapies or chemotherapies to established therapies, such as radiotherapy or surgery, will have significant benefits. As evidence accumulates regarding the efficacy of these new regimens, our hope is that the challenge of optimizing the management of high-risk prostate cancer will be delivered. However, many important questions remain unresolved regarding the optimal type, combination, timing of therapy, and duration of therapy. Such questions will only be answered with large, well-designed prospective clinical trials.

Keywords:  High risk prostate cancer , Prostatectomy , Chemotherapy , Radiotherapy , Hormone therapy

 

Back to Article Outline

1. Introduction 

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in men in the United States [1]. Such men can experience a continuum of disease presentations from indolent to highly aggressive. For physicians who care for these men, a significant challenge has been and continues to be identifying those men with localized cancer who are at a higher risk of dying from their disease. Patients with prostate cancer can be categorized based upon the risk of PSA failure and prostate cancer-specific mortality after definitive therapy. The American Urologic Association has defined patients with high risk as having an initial PSA > 20 ng/ml or a Gleason score of 8–10, or clinical stage T2c [2]. The precise definition of “high-risk” prostate cancer has evolved over time and, therefore, patient inclusion criteria for clinical trials have varied (see Table 1). However, it has been suggested that the risk of biochemical progression is similar regardless of the definition of high-risk prostate cancer used [3]. Although men with low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer have greater than 90% long-term survival, men with high-risk prostate cancer have a 25% of death due to prostate cancer at 5 years [4]. The relative risk of prostate cancer-related mortality in men with high-risk prostate cancer has been estimated to be 14.2 after radical prostatectomy and 14.3 after radiation therapy [5].

Table 1. Various definitions of high-risk prostate cancer
American Urologic Association [2]
PSA > 20 ng/ml or

GL ≥ 8 or

Stage T2c

D'Amico definition
PSA > 20 ng/ml or

GL ≥ 8 or

Stage ≥ T2c

NCCN definition
PSA > 20 ng/ml or

GL ≥ 8 or

Stage ≥ T3 or

Any 2 of the following: T2b/c, GL = 7, PSA > 10

GL = Gleason score; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.

There is currently no consensus on the optimal management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Single modality treatment with either surgery or radiation results in a progression-free survival of only about 50% [6]. Therefore, it is reasonable to employ more aggressive strategies in such patients. The utilization of a multidisciplinary oncology team allows specialists from different disciplines to collaborate in the best possible care of the individual patient. The treatment chosen is based upon prognostic factors: age, patient co-morbidities, and individual patient preferences.

Back to Article Outline

2. The role of surgery 

2.1. Surgery monotherapy 

Radical prostatectomy represents one of the two most often utilized therapeutic modalities in the treatment of high-risk localized prostate cancer. Radical prostatectomy series from major institutions show 5-year and 10-year freedom from biochemical relapse rates from approximately 30% to 70% and 15 to 60% for high-risk prostate cancer, respectively [7], [8], [9]. A recent update on radical prostatectomy monotherapy for T3a prostate cancer by Freedland et al. found that 49% of men at 15 years after surgery had not developed a PSA recurrence. Additionally, in patients with a PSA recurrence, the PSA doubling time was greater than 9 months in nearly half and greater than 15 months in one-third. At 15 years after surgery, only 16% of patients had died of prostate cancer. He argued that radical prostatectomy was a reasonable option for selected high-risk patients. His review also demonstrated that 9% of specimens were down-staged to organ-confined disease after prostatectomy [10]. Prior series found that 24% to 27% of patients were over-staged [11], [12], [13]. It has been argued that these patients may have been unnecessarily subjected to the morbidity of additional therapies.

Yossepowitch et al. reported their experience in 4,708 men with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1985 and 2004. Depending upon the definition of high-risk prostate cancer utilized, patients classified as high-risk were found to have adverse features, such as extracapsular extension (35%–71%), seminal vesicle invasion (10%–33%), and lymph node metastasis (7%–23%). These patients were also found to have an increased likelihood of PSA progression with a hazard ratio of 1.8–4.8. However, he found that between 22% and 63% of these men had organ-confined disease, and 41% to 74% remained progression-free 10 years after surgery alone. He concluded that while some patients at high-risk may harbor systemic disease and relapse after local therapy, a substantial proportion have localized disease and may be cured by surgery alone and spared the morbidity of additional therapies [14].

2.2. Surgery and hormonal therapy 

The role of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy has been investigated in multiple prospective trials. Such therapy has been shown to be safe to administer. Patients who have received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation have shown a significant decrease in positive surgical margins and lymph node metastasis, as well as reductions in tumor size and PSA levels [15], [16], [17]. However, no trial has been successful in producing a complete pathologic response, and no trial has demonstrated an improvement in the rate of biochemical recurrence or in overall survival [18]. In a recent meta-analysis, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival, but may reduce positive surgical margins and improve local pathologic variables, such as lymph node involvement [19]. Similarly, the meta-analysis found that adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy did not improve overall survival. Although immediate hormonal therapy has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival in patients with gross lymph node involvement, it is not known whether such benefit will translate to those patients with localized disease [20]. Longer follow-up may be required to observe a survival benefit. Therefore, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy is not recommended outside of a clinical trial.

2.3. Surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy 

The utilization of radiation after surgery can significantly reduce the risk of local recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy with extra-capsular extension, positive margins, or seminal vesicle involvement. This benefit has been demonstrated in multiple studies [21], [22], [23]. At a follow-up of 15 years, local control was significantly better in men who received postoperative radiation (82% vs. 53%, P = 0.002) [21]. However, there were no improvements in the rates of distant metastasis, progression free survival or overall survival.

A randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial (SWOG 8794) was opened to determine whether adjuvant radiotherapy improved metastasis-free survival in patients with pT3 N0 prostate cancer [24]. Eligible patients were required to have extracapsular extension, positive seminal vesicles, or positive surgical margins. Patients were randomized to receive 60–64 Gy of external beam radiotherapy to the prostatic fossa within 16 weeks of radical prostatectomy or to observation. The study was opened in 1988 and completed accrual of 425 men in 1997. The results were not presented until a median follow-up of 10.6 years. Adjuvant radiotherapy improved metastasis-free survival (35.5% vs. 43.1%; P = 0.06), median PSA relapse-free survival (10.3 years vs. 3.1 years; P < 0.001), and median recurrence-free survival (13.8 years vs. 9.9 years; P = 0.001) compared with observation alone. However, at that time, there was no significant difference in overall survival. It should be noted that 33% of men assigned to observation received radiation at the time of disease failure. Adverse side effects were more common in the radiotherapy arm compared with the observation arm. The rates of rectal complications, urethral stricture, and total urinary incontinence were 3.3% vs. 0%, 17.8% vs. 9.5%, and 6.5% vs. 2.8% for the adjuvant radiation therapy vs. observation arms, respectively. In a subgroup analysis, patients who had a postoperative detectable PSA and then received adjuvant therapy were more likely to have PSA progression at 10 years compared with those patients who had a postoperative undetectable PSA (73% vs. 42%). Although this may suggest that patients who benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy are those who have an undetectable PSA after surgery, such a hypothesis will require confirmation in larger clinical trials. A recent update of SWOG 8794 revealed a statistically significant benefit in overall survival at 15-years (47% vs.37%, P = 0.053) [25].

In a similar fashion, the EORTC 22911 trial enrolled over 1,000 men with high-risk prostate cancer to undergo 60 Gy of radiotherapy after undergoing radical prostatectomy or observation [26]. After a median follow-up of 5 years, men who had been treated with radiotherapy had improved biochemical progression-free survival (74% vs. 53%; P < 0.0001), clinical progression-free survival (85% vs. 77.5%; P ≤ 0.0009), and a lower rate of loco-regional failure (P < 0.0001). A German study (ARO 9602) has reported similar improvements in progression-free survival [27].

Therefore, in 3 prospective randomized trials, the use of adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to significantly improve 5-year progression-free survival by about 20%. The SWOG study shows a statistically significant benefit in overall survival after a median follow-up of 11 years. This is compelling evidence for the efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

2.4. Surgery and chemotherapy 

2.4.1. Surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in several cancers can decrease tumor bulk, down-stage tumors, and target micrometastases; recurrence rates are thereby reduced after definitive local treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy permits histologic analysis of the response to systemic treatment after examination of tissue postoperatively, as well as enabling the assessment of biological end points and of chemosensitivity of cancer cells to an agent. Such trials can be performed in a relatively timely and cost-effective manner. There have been multiple phase II trials evaluating the benefit of chemotherapy prior to radical prostatectomy using mitoxantrone, docetaxel, and estramustine-based regimens (see Table 2).

Table 2. Selected trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer
Treatment regimenNumber of patientsFollow-up time (median, range)Disease-free survival
Pettaway 2000 [28]Ketoconazole, Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Estranustine, LHRH agonist, Antiandrogen3313months(9–18)60%
Clark 2001 [27]Estramustane, Etoposide1814months(5–20)78%
Hussain 2003 [30]Docetaxel, Estramustine2113.1months(9–18)71%
Dreicer 2004 [23]Docetaxel2923months(1.5–36)71%
Febbo 2005 [24]Docetaxel1926.5months(4.5–40)44%
Prayer-Galetti 2007 [29]Docetaxel, Estramustine, LHRH agonist2153months(30–64)42%
Chi 2008 [25]Docetaxel, LHRH agonist, Antiandrogen7242.7months(26–66)70%
Vuky 2009 [32]Docetaxel, Gefintinib3028months(10–42)66%
Mathew 2009 [33]Docetaxel, Imatinib, LHRH agonist3639months53%

Several groups have tested the efficacy of single agent docetaxel chemotherapy prior to radical prostatectomy. Neoadjuvant docetaxel was well-tolerated with reported PSA decreases of 50% or greater in 24% to 58% of patients [28], [29]. In a Canadian phase II study, 72 men with high-risk prostate cancer were treated with combined androgen deprivation and docetaxel 35 mg/m2 weekly for 6 of 8 weeks for 3 doses [30]. Sixty-four patients underwent radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy within 2 weeks of the last dose of docetaxel. The median PSA decreased by 98.4%. Two patients had a complete pathologic response and 16 patients had a tumor volume of ≤ 5% in prostatectomy specimens. At a median follow-up of 42.7 months, 30% had a PSA recurrence.

The use of estramustine-based neoadjuvant regimens has been shown to result in an undetectable PSA in approximately 50% of patients and decrease tumor volume. However, such regimens may be associated with significant toxicities including thromboembolic disease [31], [32], [33]. The combination of docetaxel and estramustine has been used in this patient population, with acceptable levels of toxicity and disease-free survival [34], [35]. As a result, the CALGB has sponsored a randomized study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy prior to radical prostatectomy vs. immediate radical prostatectomy (CALGB 902030)[36]. It is planned to accrue 750 patients who have a 60% or less chance of being disease-free 5 years after surgery. Patients are randomized to either prostatectomy alone or to receive 70 mg/m2 docetaxel every 21 days for 6 cycles followed by radical prostatectomy. The primary end-point was to determine whether chemotherapy decreases 5-year biochemical recurrence compared with radical prostatectomy alone.

The use of novel agents in this setting has also been investigated. Vuky and colleagues gave 31 men with high-risk prostate cancer neoadjuvant docetaxel and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, gefitinib [37]. This combination appeared to be well tolerated, but did not result in any pathologic complete responses. Mathew et al. investigated the addition of imatinib to docetaxel and androgen deprivation in the neoadjuvant setting [38]. Imatinib is an inhibitor of platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR). It is known that PDGFR is expressed in high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma and bone metastases. It was hypothesized that the combination of inhibition of PDGFR, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy would improve progression-free survival. Unfortunately, although the therapy was feasible, no significant improvements in outcomes were observed. Several trials employing anti-angiogenic agents are currently underway, including thalidomide, bevacizumab, CCI-799, RAD 001, and sunitinib. In addition, other novel agents such as vorinostat, sirolimus, ixabepilone, degarelix, anti-CTLA-4 antibody, and sipuleucel are being investigated in the neoadjuvant setting.

It remains unclear whether there is any advantage to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To date, no trial has appeared to improve postoperative pathologic outcomes. It is hoped that current trials under study will be shown to be advantageous. It is important to remember that the current standards of care for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in other tumor types were established only after the completion of large studies of patients followed for many years.

2.4.2. Surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy 

Adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive local therapy has become a standard of care in many solid tumors. This evolved from the benefit of cytotoxic agents in metastatic disease, which was then demonstrated to improve survival in the adjuvant setting. However, the current standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy was established only after the completion of many large studies of patients followed for years. Unfortunately to date, no study has definitively demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in prostate cancer.

In a randomized study, 93 men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer undergoing hormonal therapy were treated with or without mitoxantrone [39]. Only 38 men had localized disease and no definitive local treatment was given. However, in those men with localized disease, the median survival was longer in the mitoxantrone arm (80 months vs. 36 months, P = 0.04).

In a phase II trial, 77 men with high-risk prostate cancer were treated with 6 cycles of docetaxel 35 mg/m2 weekly following radical prostatectomy [40]. At a median of 29 months of follow-up, 60.5% of patients had disease progression, and 7 patients were deceased. The expected progression-free survival was 10 months, since 99% of patients had non-organ-confined disease, 56% had Gleason score ≥ 8, 65% had positive surgical margins, 65% had seminal vesicle involvement, and 38% had lymph node involvement. The observed median progression-free survival was 15.7 months, an encouraging finding. Grades 3 and 4 toxicities occurred in 26% and 4% of patients, respectively. Adjuvant docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer was further evaluated in the TAX 3501 phase III trial. The study planned to enroll over 2,000 men after radical prostatectomy and randomize patients to either immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for 18 months with or without 6 cycles of docetaxel. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Unfortunately, the trial was closed prematurely prior to completing enrollment, which may limit its usefulness.

A randomized phase III study (SWOG 9921) enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer to androgen deprivation therapy for 2 years with or without 6 cycles of mitoxantrone after radical prostatectomy [41]. The primary endpoint was overall survival and planned accrual was for 1,360 patients over 10 years. However, in January 2007, after enrolling only 983 men, the trial was closed to further accrual after 3 cases of acute myelogenous leukemia were reported in the mitoxantrone treatment arm. Patients continue to be observed and a report of the results is awaited. The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs is also conducting a phase III trial of adjuvant docetaxel after prostatectomy. High-risk patients will be allocated to receive either 18 weeks of docetaxel or observation. Accrual is expected to be 636 patients, and the primary endpoint is progression-free survival.

2.4.3. Surgery, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy 

Docetaxel is also finding a place in clinical trials investigating the benefits of combining the drug with androgen deprivation and radiotherapy in the post-prostatectomy setting for high-risk patients. Investigators at the University of California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center have initiated a trial combining 3-D conformal radiotherapy to 66 Gy with total androgen blockade and weekly docetaxel at 20 mg/m2 in post-prostatectomy patients (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00669162). Similar trials are being considered by other groups in order to combine the local control benefits of radiotherapy and the systemic control benefits of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy.

Back to Article Outline

3. The role of radiotherapy 

3.1. Radiotherapy monotherapy 

Radiotherapy represents the second of the 2 major therapeutic modalities for localized high-risk prostate cancer. Radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy monotherapies have not been directly compared in modern series. The methods differ in toxicity profiles but, overall, appear to have similar long-term survival. Single modality therapy with either surgery or radiotherapy has a low rate of success for high-risk prostate cancer. Similar to the results from radical prostatectomy, outcomes with radiotherapy alone are poor. Results from the radiotherapy-alone arms of radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 86-10 and 85-31 show that 44–46 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes and 65–72 Gy to the prostate produce 5-year biochemical control rates of only around 10% to 20%. More recent dose escalation studies with modern radiotherapy techniques allow for biochemical control rates on the order of 38% for high-risk patients for radiotherapy alone [42]. With the poor outcomes of single modality therapy, it appears that a multi-modal approach is indicated in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

3.2. Radiotherapy and hormonal therapy 

Many trials have been performed combining radiotherapy and hormonal therapy. Hormonal therapy has been combined with radiotherapy as neoadjuvant, concurrent, or adjuvant therapy. A list of selected trials involving these therapies is included below with a detailed discussion to follow (See Table 3).

Table 3. Selected trials of hormonal and radiation combination therapy
Treatment regimenNumber of patientsMedian follow-up timeDisease-free survival
Crook J et al. [43]Neoadvuvant 8 vs. 3 months of flutamide and goserelin followed by radiotherapy1126.6years
5-year

71% vs. 42%

Lawton CA et al. [44]Radiotherapy followed by indefinite goserelin vs. Radiotherapy alone followed by hormones at relapse9458years
8-year

36% vs. 25%

Pilepich MV et al. [45]Neoadjuvant (2 months) and concurrent goserelin and flutamide with radiotherapy (total 112 days) vs. radiotherapy alone4566.7years
8-year

33% vs. 21%

Bolla M et al. [46]Concurent and adjuvant goserelin with radiotherapy (total 3 years) vs. radiotherapy alone40145months
5-year

85% vs. 48%

Hanks, GE et al. [47]Neoadjuvant (2 months), concurrent (2 months), and adjuvant (2 years) goserelin and flutamide plus radiotherapy vs. neoadjuvant (2 months) and concurrent (2 months) goserelin and flutamide plus radiotherapy15145.8years
5-year

46% vs. 28%

D'Amico AV et al. [48]Neoadjuvant (2 months), concurrent (2 months) and adjuvant (2 months) LHRH agonist and flutamide plus radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone2064.5years
5-year

82% vs. 57%

In a recent meta-analysis, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy has been demonstrated to improve both clinical and biochemical disease-free survival [19]. Adjuvant hormonal therapy following radiotherapy resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival at 5 and 10 years. There was also a significant improvement in disease-specific survival and disease-free survival at 5 years [19].

A recent report outlining the results of a Canadian phase III randomized trial of 3 vs. 8 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer has been published. The disease-free survival rate at 5 years was improved for the high-risk patients in the 8-month arm vs. the 3-month arm (71% vs. 42%, P = 0.01). High-risk prostate cancer was defined as stage T3 or Gleason score 8–10 or PSA level > 20 ng/ml [43].

The phase III RTOG trial 85-31 evaluated the benefit of adding adjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-agonist therapy following definitive radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Eligible patients included clinical T1and T2 patients with lymph node involvement or clinical T3 patients, regardless of lymph node status. Patients with bulky tumors > 25 cm2 on digital rectal exam were not eligible for this trial unless they had lymph node involvement outside the pelvis. All trial participants received 44–46 Gy to the regional lymph nodes, if involved, with an additional boost to the prostate, bringing the total dose to the prostate up to 65–70 Gy. A small number of patients (∼15%) in the study had undergone radical prostatectomy; those patients received a total dose of 60–65 Gy to the prostatic fossa. Patients were randomized to radiation alone (with goserelin reserved for the time of relapse) or radiation followed by indefinite goserelin therapy. Improvements in multiple outcomes at a follow-up of 8-years were seen with the addition of immediate adjuvant goserelin therapy after radiotherapy including local failure (23% vs. 37%, P < 0.0001), distant metastasis (27% vs. 37%, P < 0.0001), disease-free survival (36% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001), and biochemical relapse-free survival (32% vs. 8%, P < 0.0001). Overall survival and cause-specific survival were not statistically different. A subset analysis of patients whom did not undergo prostatectomy with Gleason score 8–10 showed a statistically significant improvement in overall (P = 0.036) and cause-specific survival (P = 0.019) [44].

The phase III RTOG trial 86-10 evaluated short-term neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation combined with radiotherapy. In this study, 471 patients with locally advanced disease (T2b–T4 with or without pelvic lymph node involvement) were randomized to receive radiation therapy alone or radiation therapy with short-term androgen deprivation using goserelin and flutamide. Goserelin and flutamide were started 2 months prior to and continued concurrently with radiotherapy in the combined therapy arm. After 8 years of follow-up, the addition of short-term androgen deprivation therapy was associated with improved local control (42% vs. 30%; P = 0.016), a lower incidence of distant metastasis (34% vs. 45%, P = 0.04), an improved disease-free survival (33% vs. 21%; P = 0.004), and cause-specific mortality (23% v,. 31%; P = 0.05) compared with radiation therapy alone. There was no statistically significant benefit in overall survival for the entire group. A subgroup analysis suggested a significant benefit for all endpoints including overall survival (70% vs. 52%, P = 0.015) for patients with a Gleason score less than 7 [45]. A recent update has confirmed these results for the overall group. There continued to be improvements in 10-year disease-free survival (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.0001), distant metastasis rate (35% vs. 47%, P = 0.006), and biochemical failure (65% vs. 80%, P = 0.0001). There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival, although a trend in favor of short-term androgen deprivation was observed (43% vs. 34%, P = 0.12) [49].

A randomized trial by the EORTC published in 1997 examined the benefit of long-term hormonal therapy in combination with radiotherapy in 415 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. The patients were stage T1-T2 and WHO grade 3 cancers, or T3-T4 without lymph node involvement. Both arms received radiotherapy to the pelvic lymph nodes to 50 Gy followed by a 20 Gy boost to the prostate and seminal vesicles. One arm received concurrent and adjuvant hormone therapy (goserelin) for 3 years. Five-year overall survival was 79% in the radiotherapy and hormonal therapy arm vs. 62% in the radiotherapy-alone arm (P = 0.001). Similarly, the 5-year disease-free rate, local control rate, and time-to-treatment failure were all in favor of the combined therapy arm with P values < 0.001, < 0.001, and < 0.001, respectively [46]. A 2002 update published with a median follow-up of 66 months had significant improvements in 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and locoregional failure. Biochemical disease-free survival and the incidence of distant metastatic disease also trended in favor of the arm treated with radiation and hormonal therapy [9]. A 10-year update of this study was recently reported. Long-term androgen suppression increased the difference in 10-year survival between the two groups from 39.8% to 58.1% (P = 0.0004) in favor of the combined modality arm. Once again, the clinical progression-free survival (P < 0.0001), distant progression-free survival (P < 0.0001), and clinical/biochemical progression-free survival (P < 0.0001) were improved in the combined modality group. The 10-year incidence of prostate cancer mortality was 31.0% in the radiotherapy-alone arm and 11.1% with combined therapy (P < 0.001) [50].

The RTOG has also evaluated neoadjuvant, concurrent, and long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation combined with radiotherapy. RTOG 92-02 included patients with clinical T2-T4 without nodal involvement of the common iliac or higher chains. All patients received 44–46 Gy to the pelvic lymphatics with a boost to a total of 66–70 Gy to the prostate. Before radiotherapy began, all patients received total androgen blockade with flutamide and goserelin starting 2 months before radiotherapy. Total androgen blockade was continued in all patients until the completion of radiotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive no further treatment or adjuvant goserelin for an additional 2 years following radiotherapy. Five-year results showed significant improvements in all end points except overall survival. These improvements included gains in disease free survival (46.4% vs. 28.1%, P < 0.0001), a lower distant metastasis rate (17.0% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.0035), and increased local control (12.3% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.0001). A subset analysis revealed a significant advantage for adjuvant hormonal therapy in patients with Gleason scores 8–10, including overall survival (81% vs. 70.7%, P = 0.044) [47]. A 10-year update of RTOG 92-02 was recently published and confirmed the outcomes described above for the 5-year analysis [51].

D'Amico and associates reported the results of a randomized trial evaluating 6 months of hormonal therapy combined with approximately 70 Gy of radiotherapy for intermediate and some high-risk patients. Hormonal therapy consisted of 6 months (2 months neoadjuvant, 2 months concurrent and 2 months adjuvant) of total androgen blockade including a LHRH-agonist and flutamide. Patients were randomized between radiotherapy with hormonal therapy and radiotherapy alone. The 206 patients met one of the following criteria: clinical stage T1b-T2bNxM0 and PSA ≥ 10, Gleason score ≥ 7, or low-risk disease with an MRI consistent with seminal vesicle involvement or extracapsular extension. The radiation treatment consisted of 45 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by an additional 22 Gy boost to the prostate. The prescription of the radiotherapy was such that the total dose to the center of the prostate was around 70 Gy. Salvage hormonal therapy was started in both groups following PSA failure (the PSA reached a level of 10 ng/ml). Overall survival was significantly increased for patients receiving hormonal therapy (P = 0.04). Prostate cancer-specific mortality favored the combined therapy arm (P = 0.02) and the rate of non-prostate cancer-specific mortality did not differ (P = 0.31). However, the applicability of this trial to high-risk patients may be questioned since only 15% of patients had Gleason scores > 7, 13% had PSA > 20, and no patients with clinical stage greater than T2N0 were included in the study [48].

A meta-analysis of 5 RTOG clinical trials involving 2,743 patients identified 4 prognostic groups, and defined subsets of patients who either do not benefit from the use of adjuvant hormone treatment at all or who benefit from short-term or long-term hormone therapy. Patients with tumors of a high Gleason grade (8–10) and T3 disease had a significantly greater survival chance when treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy. However, the optimum duration of treatment has not been established. High-risk patients should be offered neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy followed by long-term adjuvant therapy for at least 2 years [52].

The studies described above evaluate the benefit of hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiotherapy. Some institutions have evaluated the role of hormonal therapy combined with brachytherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Since these patients are at a higher risk of extracapsular extension, brachytherapy is most often combined with a short course of external beam radiotherapy. While there are no randomized trials reported that have evaluated this trimodality approach, investigators at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York have reported their experience in treating high-risk patients with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy followed by Pd-103 permanent brachytherapy, with concurrent hormonal therapy followed by 2 months of external beam radiotherapy, including 45 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Patients receive 2 to 3 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy for an average of 9 total months of hormonal therapy. With a median follow-up of 50 months on 132 patients with high-risk disease, 5-year freedom from biochemical relapse for patients was 76% for patients with Gleason scores 8–10, 79% for patients with a serum PSA > 20 ng/dl, and 85% for patients with clinical stage greater than T2b [53].

From the studies discussed above, one may conclude that the addition of hormonal therapy to radiotherapy improves outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer patients. While most men in the United States with high-risk prostate cancer are treated aggressively with multimodal therapy, many noncurative approaches, such as hormonal monotherapy, may be considered in other parts of the world. A recently published study evaluated the addition of radiotherapy to hormonal therapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Widmark et al. reported the results of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study 7, a randomized controlled trial that included 880 men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients were required to have T1b-T2 disease with WHO grade 2–3 tumors or T3 disease regardless of grade. Patients with lymph node involvement were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive either 3 months of total androgen blockade with flutamide and leuprorelin followed by continuous anti-androgen therapy with flutamide until progression, or the same hormonal treatment regimen plus radiotherapy. Radiotherapy included a dose of 50 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles followed by a radiation boost for a total dose of 70 Gy to the prostate. At 4 years, the quality of life was similar between the 2 study groups. However, 18% of patients who underwent hormone therapy alone died of prostate cancer as compared with 9% of those who had combined therapy. The combined therapy provided a 50% reduction in the risk of death due to prostate cancer [54]. This study supports the conclusion that high-risk prostate cancer patients benefit from a combined modality approach.

3.3. Radiotherapy and salvage surgery 

Salvage radical prostatectomy may cure patients who have local prostate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy. Bianco et al. reported the long-term outcome of 100 consecutive patients (58 after external beam radiation, 42 after brachytherapy), between 1984 and 2003, treated with salvage prostatectomy for biopsy-confirmed locally recurrent prostate cancer. He reported an overall 5-year progression-free probability of 55% and a mean progression-free interval of 6.4 years. The preoperative serum PSA was significantly associated with the progression-free probability. The 5-year progression-free probabilities with serum PSA levels < 4, 4–10, and >10 ng/dl were 86%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. The 10- and 15-year cancer-specific mortality after salvage prostatectomy was 27% and 40%, respectively. An important note is that 16 patients received ADT with radiotherapy [55]. Lerner et al. reported comparable results on 132 patients undergoing salvage prostatectomy between 1967 and 1992. At 5 and 10 years, the cancer-specific mortality was 11% and 28%, respectively [56].

Many physicians are hesitant to offer salvage prostatectomy to their patients due to the concern that salvage prostatectomy is associated with increased complication rates. Lerner et al. reported an overall complication rate of 44% after salvage prostatectomy with a 6% incidence of rectal injury. His incontinence rate (requiring at least 2 pads per day) was 23% [56]. A recent report by Bianco et al. noted an overall complication rate of 33% between 1984 and 1993, including a 15% risk of rectal injury. He compared those older rates with his complication rates between 1993 and 2003, where his overall complication rate was only 13%, including a 2% risk of rectal injury. He attributed his high complication rates between 1984 and 1993 to the performance of staging lymph node dissections with or without retropubic brachytherapy. These procedures are now rarely performed. Overall, 23% of patients required an artificial urethral sphincter for moderate to severe incontinence, while 68% of patients were either continent or minimally incontinent (requiring only 1 pad per day) [55].

3.4. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy 

3.4.1. Radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy 

The RTOG conducted a randomized trial evaluating the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (RTOG 99-02). They planned to enroll 1,440 men who would be treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy for 2 years with or without combination chemotherapy with estramustine, paclitaxel, and etoposide. The primary endpoint was overall survival. This trial was closed after only 397 patients had been enrolled due to grade 4 or 5 adverse events and a high incidence of thromboembolic disease in 34 patients [57], [58].

An additional phase III trial has been initiated by the RTOG based on the positive results using docetaxel in hormone-refractory disease. RTOG 0521 plans to recruit 600 men with high-risk disease to receive radiation therapy and 2 years of androgen deprivation with or without adjuvant docetaxel (6 cycles at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) after completion of radiotherapy. No estramustine or etoposide is included in this trial. The primary endpoint is overall survival. It is designed to detect a 7% absolute improvement in overall survival at 4 years, which is equivalent to 90% power to detect a 51% reduction in yearly death rate.

3.4.2. Radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy 

A few small phase I/II studies have been performed or initiated looking at combining chemotherapy and radiotherapy concurrently. With the success of the docetaxel trials in hormone refractory disease, interest has turned to combining docetaxel with radiotherapy for earlier stages of high-risk prostate cancer. For example, Kumar and colleagues at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey reported their results of a phase I docetaxel dose-escalation trial. This trial treated patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer with external beam radiotherapy and weekly docetaxel in doses 5–25 mg/m2. Radiotherapy included 45 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes using a 4-field approach followed by a boost to the prostate for a total dose of 70.2 Gy using a 3D-conformal technique. The dose limiting toxicity was grade 3 diarrhea that was encountered in the first 2 patients at the 25 mg/m2 dose level. The maximally tolerated dose was determined to be 20 mg/m2 for weekly docetaxel given with radiotherapy that included treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes [59]. The same group completed another phase I/II trial using a fixed dose of 20 mg/m2 of docetaxel with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to 72 Gy. Seventeen of the 20 patients enrolled in this trial also received hormonal therapy. Radiotherapy details of this trial are not thoroughly described, but the majority of patients tolerated the treatment with mild to moderate toxicity. Three patients did require treatment breaks, 2 for dehydration from diarrhea and 1 from a gastrointestinal bleed, while an additional patient required I.VS. hydration without hospitalization [60]. Investigators at the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina are nearing completion of a phase I/II trial investigating total androgen blockade, weekly docetaxel, and intensity modulated radiotherapy to 77.4 Gy. In this trial, patients start radiotherapy 8 to 12 weeks after starting total androgen blockade. The seminal vesicles and prostate receive 45 Gy followed by a boost to the prostate for a total dose of 77.4 Gy. IMRT is delivered using image-guidance with implanted fiducials and an endorectal balloon to minimize target motion and set-up error. To date, 15 patients have been enrolled. With 3 patients enrolled in the final dose level of 25 mg/m2, only 1 dose-limiting toxicity has been seen, an elevation in total bilirubin in a patient with a history of hyperbilirubinemia in the months prior to starting therapy. There have been no other grade 3 toxicity events to date in the study (unpublished data, DTM). The trial continues to accrue (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00099086). Other similar trials are underway as well at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225420), and the National Cancer Institute of Canada (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00651326).

3.4.3. Radiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy 

There is little data regarding the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Zelefsky and colleagues treated 27 men who had prostate cancer with estramustine and vinblastine before and during conformal radiotherapy. After a median follow-up of 26 months, 7 of the 23 patients who completed therapy had PSA relapses, and the treatment demonstrated modest toxicity [42]. Ben-Josef et al. treated 18 patients who had T3 or T4 disease, a Gleason score of 8–10 and/or a PSA level greater than 15 ng/ml, with estramustine and etoposide. Overall 3-year disease-free survival was 73%. Repeat prostate needle biopsies performed 18 months after the completion of radiotherapy showed persistent local control in 71% of patients [61].

A current multi-center, randomized phase III trial from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is aiming to recruit 350 patients with high-risk disease in order to assess 6 months of androgen deprivation plus radiotherapy with or without neoadjuvant and concurrent docetaxel. Patients in the chemotherapy group will receive 3 cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel (60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) plus a luteinizing hormone-releasing agonist followed by 7 doses of weekly docetaxel (20 mg/m2) beginning with the first week of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint of this study is 5-year patient overall survival (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00116142).

Back to Article Outline

4. The role of hormonal therapy 

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with either medical or surgical castration remains the initial treatment for metastatic prostate cancer, localized disease in patients with poor prognostic factors, or in combination with other treatments. The ideal treatment would rapidly lower serum testosterone levels to castrate levels (20–50 ng/dl). Surgical castration has been found to lower serum testosterone levels to castrate levels within 3 to 12 hours after orchiectomy, with a subsequent decrease in serum PSA levels [62]. Medical castration is commonly performed with a LHRH or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist. The LHRH agonist binds to the LHRH receptor in the pituitary triggering a transient rise in serum LH and subsequent increase in serum testosterone. This flare is followed by an inhibition in LH secretion and subsequent reduction in serum testosterone. As an example, Sasagawa et al. administered a 3.75 mg depot injection of leuprolide and measured the serum LH and testosterone levels on days 0, 2, 5, 7, 14, 21, and 28 following the injection. He observed an increase in LH levels above pre-injection levels for approximately 7 days after the injection. Castrate levels of testosterone were not achieved until approximately 21 days after injection [63].

The benefits of early administration of ADT are primarily improvements in a patient's quality of life. These benefits include reduction in pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, and urinary obstruction [64]. Despite these benefits of immediate ADT, immediate vs. symptom-onset institution of ADT has demonstrated no overall survival advantage over delayed or symptom-onset institution of ADT at this time [65]. Adverse effects of ADT include hot flashes, skeletal complications, including loss of bone mineral density and fracture, increased sexual dysfunction, metabolic syndrome (increasing fat mass, increasing cholesterol, and glucose intolerance), anemia, gynecomastia, dry eyes, body hair loss, and vertigo [66].

Anti-androgen therapy also plays a significant role in the management of prostate cancer. Anti-androgen therapy has been utilized to minimize the impact of the testosterone flare by treating patients with a short 2 to 3 week course at the initiation of LHRH agonist administration or to provide long-term co-administration with LHRH agonists to achieve maximum androgen blockade.

The benefits of maximum androgen blockade are controversial. Many studies have been undertaken to determine the efficacy of maximum androgen blockade; however, the results of these studies have been inconsistent as a result of flawed study design including small study numbers, recruitment bias, and varying endpoints. Additionally, these studies were performed at a time when we did not fully understand the mechanism of the androgen receptor or appreciate the phenomenon of androgen withdrawal syndrome. A large number of meta-analyses were subsequently performed with the hopes of clarifying the benefits of maximum androgen blockade. One of the most useful meta-analyses was the Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group meta-analysis. This group performed a meta-analysis of 27 randomized trials comparing maximum androgen blockade (surgical castration or LHRH agonist plus anti-androgen) vs. surgical castration or LHRH agonist alone in 8,275 men (88% metastatic and 12% locally advanced). The results demonstrated a 5-year survival benefit of 2% to 3% [67].

Recently, as our understanding of the androgen receptor improved, a new wave of interest has developed in recommending maximum androgen blockade over LHRH-agonist monotherapy. Currently, a phase III randomized, double-blind multicenter trial is underway in a cohort of 205 Japanese patients randomized to receive a LHRH agonist in combination with either placebo or bicalutamide 80 mg daily (the approved dose of bicalutamide in Japan). Currently, the maximum androgen blockade cohort has demonstrated a significant improvement in the median time to PSA reduction to less than 4 ng/ml (8.1 vs. 24.1 weeks, P < 0.001), as well as the time-to-treatment failure (117.7 vs. 60.3 weeks, P < 0.001) and the time-to-disease progression (not yet reached vs. 96.9 weeks, P < 0.001) compared with LHRH agonist monotherapy. An interim comparison of overall survival was not significant due to relatively low mortality rates of both arms; however, with continued monitoring of these cohorts, it was expected that there would be a significant improvement in overall survival with maximum androgen blockade compared with LHRH agonist monotherapy [68]. A follow-up analysis was presented at the 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. At a median follow-up of 270 weeks, 5-year overall survival for combination therapy with LHRH agonist plus bicalutamide vs. LHRH agonist monotherapy was 75.3% vs. 63.4%, respectively. This difference was significant with P = 0.0425. Cause-specific survival was higher with maximum androgen blockade vs. LHRH monotherapy; however, the difference did not reach significance. Interestingly, overall survival was significantly better for patients with a PSA nadir < 1 ng/ml compared with >1 ng/ml (P = 0.0001) [69]. This trial is ongoing and will likely revolutionize the way we perform hormonal manipulations in the treatment of prostate cancer. This corroborates an indirect analysis by Klotz et al. published in 2004, in which he estimated that a combination of LHRH agonist plus bicalutamide 50 mg may provide a reduction in mortality risk of approximately 20% (range 2%–34%) compared with LHRH agonist monotherapy [70].

Recently, a new LHRH receptor antagonist, degarelix, has been FDA-approved for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. This medication reversibly binds to pituitary LHRH receptors. Klotz et al. reported on the safety and efficacy of degarelix in a 610-patient, 1-year trial compared with leuprolide, in achieving and maintaining testosterone suppression in prostate cancer patients. Three dosing regimens were utilized 240 mg degarelix initially plus 80 mg degarelix monthly, 240 mg degarelix initially plus 160 mg degarelix monthly, or leuprolide 7.5 mg monthly. Testosterone levels were <50 ng/dl as measured monthly between days 28 and 364 in 97.2%, 98.3%, and 96.4% in the degarelix 240/80 mg, degarelix 240/160 mg. and leuprolide groups respectively. Testosterone levels, as measured on day 3 were <50 ng/dl in 96.1%, 95.5%, and 0% of patients in the degarelix 240/80 mg, degarelix 240/160 mg, and leuprolide groups, respectively. Side effects of degarelix included injection site reactions, hot flashes, elevation in hepatic transaminases, back pain, hypertension, arthralgia, fatigue, urinary tract infections, hypercholesterolemia, chills, and constipation [71].

Gittelman et al. reported their results of a phase II dose-finding trial of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer in North America. A total of 127 patients received an initial 200 mg dose of degarelix. Patients in whom testosterone was <50 ng/dl at 28 days after the initial injection received either a dose of 60 or 80 mg of degarelix monthly. Testosterone was suppressed to <50 ng/dl in 88% of patients within 1 month. Ninety-three percent and 98% of patients receiving maintenance doses of 60 and 80 mg of degarelix, respectively, had testosterone levels <50 ng/dL at all monthly measurements between 1 month and 1 year. No evidence of testosterone surge was detected [72]. Degarelix provides the physician a tool to achieve a rapid, sustainable reduction in testosterone without the risks associated with testosterone flare.

Back to Article Outline

5. The role of chemotherapy 

Traditionally, prostate cancer was considered to be a disease that did not benefit from chemotherapeutic agents. However, since the mid 1990s, the use of chemotherapy in men with hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) has shown improvements in pain and quality of life, as well as decreases in prostate specific antigen (PSA) and measurable disease. Mitoxantrone has demonstrated improvement in quality of life and palliation of pain over steroids in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), although no improvement in overall survival was seen [73], [74]. Two large randomized, controlled trials have shown a survival benefit in patients with HRPC treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy [75], [76]. The TAX 327 trial randomized men with androgen-independent prostate cancer to receive docetaxel every 3 weeks, docetaxel every week, or mitoxantrone. All patients were given prednisone 5 mg twice a day. An improvement in median overall survival of about 2 months was seen in patients treated with docetaxel every 3 weeks. An update of this study was published after 867/1,006 deaths were recorded [77]. The median survival of patients was 19.2 (P = 0.004), 17.8 (P = 0.086), and 16.3 months, respectively. In addition, men in the every 3-week docetaxel arm had substantially better PSA response rates, quality of life, and pain control than those who received mitoxantrone. The SWOG 9916 study randomized 770 men to receive mitoxantrone plus prednisone vs. docetaxel plus estramustine every 3 weeks. Patients in the docetaxel arm had a significant improvement in median overall survival (17.5 vs. 15.6 months; P = 0.02), time to progression (6.3 vs. 3.2 months; P < 0.001), and PSA response (50% vs. 27%; P < 0.001). Subsequently, docetaxel-based chemotherapy has become the standard of care for men with HRPC.

Back to Article Outline

6. New horizons 

Many promising new therapies are currently under investigation. Attard et al. reported the results of a phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and anti-tumor activity of abiraterone acetate in HRPC. Abiraterone acetate is a potent, selective, irreversible inhibitor of cytochrome P17 (CYP17), a key enzyme in androgen synthesis. Greater than 50% declines in PSA confirmed after 1 month and persisting for more than 3 months were observed in 12 of 21 patients with HRPC. This study demonstrated that steroidogenic pathways within tumor cells produce local androgen and “castration-resistant prostate cancer” remains dependent on ligand-activated androgen receptor signaling [78].

Figg et al. have published another interesting report. The report evaluated thalidomide vs. placebo in patients on intermittent androgen ablation. Patients were treated with 6 months of LHRH agonist. Patients were then randomized to receive either thalidomide or placebo. Once patients had PSA progression, they were again treated with a LHRH agonist for 6 months followed by crossing over to the opposite treatment. Figg et al. was able to demonstrate a significant increase in PSA progression-free survival in patients treated with thalidomide vs. placebo after their second course of intermittent androgen ablation with LHRH agonists (17.1 months vs. 6.6 months) [79]. Indeed, future therapies will likely continue to combine a number of agents with the goal of prolonging survival.

Back to Article Outline

7. Conclusions 

An integrated approach combining local and systemic therapies can be beneficial in the management of high-risk localized prostate cancer. The choice of therapy or combination of therapies is dependant upon many considerations, including patient preference and quality of life aspects. It is clear that the addition of hormonal therapy to radiotherapy has significant benefits. The use of chemotherapy prior to definitive therapy has been encouraged on the basis of the evident activity of docetaxel in the later stages of the disease. At present, early phase trials have demonstrated that integrating chemotherapy with definitive local therapy is safe and feasible and may be promising. Several large randomized trials in the neoadjuvant, concurrent, and adjuvant settings are ongoing, and it is anticipated that these studies will help to identify whether the early use of chemotherapy is beneficial. There is also now considerable interest in the study of novel biological agents that are administered early in the natural history of prostate cancer, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, and early phase clinical trials employing such agents are already underway. As evidence accumulates regarding the efficacy of these new drugs, our hope is that the challenge of optimizing the management of high-risk prostate cancer will be delivered. However, many important questions remain unresolved regarding the optimal type and duration of chemotherapy, the optimal timing with respect to surgery or radiation, and the integration with other adjuvant therapies, including hormonal therapy. Such questions will only be answered with large, well-designed prospective clinical trials.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Jemal A , Thun MJ , Ries LA , et al.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control . J Natl Cancer Inst . 2008;100:1672–1694
  2. Thompson I , Thrasher JB , Aus G , et al.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update . J Urol . 2007;177:2106–2131
  3. Nguyen CT , Reuther AM , Stephenson AJ , et al.  The specific definition of high risk prostate cancer has minimal impact in biochemical relapse-free survival . J Urol . 2009;181:75–80
  4. D'Amico AV , Cote K , Loffredo M , et al.  Determinants of prostate cancer-specific survival after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2002;20:4567–4573
  5. D'Amico AV , Moul J , Carroll PR , et al.  Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era . J Clin Oncol . 2003;21:2163–2172
  6. D'Amico AV , Whittington R , Malkowicz SB , et al.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer . JAMA . 1998;280:969–974
  7. Roehl KA , Han M , Ramos CG , et al.  Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: Long-term results . J Urol . 2004;172:910–914
  8. Han M , Partin AW , Pound CR , et al.  Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy (The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience) . Urol Clin North Am . 2001;28:555–565
  9. Bianco FJ , Scardino PT , Eastham JA . Radical prostatectomy: Long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”) . Urology . 2005;66(5 Suppl):83–94
  10. Freedland  , Partin AW , Humphreys EB , et al.  Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease . Cancer . 2007;109:1273–1278
  11. Ward JF , Slezak JM , Blute ML , et al.  Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome . BJU Int . 2005;95:751–756
  12. Carver BS , Bianco FJ , Scardino PT , et al.  Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer . J Urol . 2006;176:564–568
  13. Hsu CY , Joniau S , Oyen R , et al.  Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: A single-institution experience . Eur Urol . 2007;51:121–129
  14. Yossepowitch O , Eggener SE , Bianco FJ , et al.  Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: Critical analysis of risk assessment methods . J Urol . 2007;178:493–499
  15. Powell IJ , Tangen CM , Miller GJ , et al.  Neoadjuvant therapy before radical prostatectomy for clinical T3/T4 carcinoma of the prostate: 5-year follow-up, Phase II Southwest Oncology Group Study 9109 . J Urol . 2002;168:2016–2019
  16. Dalkin BL , Ahmann FR , Nagle R , et al.  Randomized study of neoadjuvant testicular androgen ablation therapy before radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer . J Urol . 1996;155:1357–1360
  17. Soloway MS , Pareek K , Sharifi R , et al.  Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxMo prostate cancer: 5-year results . J Urol . 2002;167:112–116
  18. Namiki K , Rosser CJ . Neoadjuvant therapy and prostate cancer: What a urologist should know . Curr Opin Urol . 2007;17:188–193
  19. Kumar S , Shelley M , Harrison C , et al.   Neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer . Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4: CD006019
  20. Messing EM , Manola J , Yao J , et al.  Immediate vs. deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy . Lancet Oncol . 2006;7:472–479
  21. Anscher MS , Robertson CN , Prosnitz R . Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologic stage T3/4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate: 10-year update . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 1995;33:37–43
  22. Anscher MS , Prosnitz LR . Postoperative radiotherapy for patients with carcinoma of the prostate undergoing radical prostatectomy with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle involvement and/or penetration through the capsule . J Urol . 1987;138:1407–1412
  23. Gibbons RP , Cole BS , Richardson RG , et al.  Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Results and complications . J Urol . 1986;135:65–68
  24. Thompson IM , Tangen CM , Paradelo J , et al.  Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial . JAMA . 2006;296:2329–2335
  25. Swanson GP , Thompson IM , Tangen C , et al.  Update of SWOG 8794: Adjuvant radiotherapy for pT3 prostate cancer improves metastasis free survival . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2008;72:S31
  26. Bolla M , van Poppel H , Collette L , et al.  Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A randomized controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911) . Lancet . 2005;366:572–578
  27. Ganswindt U , Stenzl A , Bamberg M , et al.  Adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer—a new standard? . Eur Urol . 2008;54:528–542
  28. Dreicer R , Magi-Galluzzi C , Zhou M , et al.  Phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel before radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer . Urology . 2004;63:1138–1142
  29. Febbo PG , Richie JP , George DJ , et al.  Neoadjuvant docetaxel before radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer . Clin Cancer Res . 2005;11:5233–5240
  30. Chi KN , Chin JL , Winquist E , et al.  Multicenter phase II study of combined neoadjuvant docetaxel and hormone therapy before radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk localized prostate cancer . J Urol . 2008;180:565–570 Discussion 570
  31. Konety BR , Eastham JA , Reuter VE , et al.  Feasibility of radical prostatectomy after neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy for patients with high risk or locally advanced prostate cancer: Results of a phase I/II study . J Urol . 2004;171(2 Pt 1):709–713
  32. Clark PE , Peereboom DM , Dreicer R , et al.  Phase II trial of neoadjuvant estramustine and etoposide plus radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer . Urology . 2001;57:281–285
  33. Pettaway CA , Pisters LL , Troncoso P , et al.  Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy followed by radical prostatectomy: Feasibility and preliminary results . J Clin Oncol . 2000;18:1050–1057
  34. Prayer-Galetti T , Sacco E , Pagano F , et al.  Long-term follow-up of a neoadjuvant chemohormonal taxane-based phase II trial before radical prostatectomy in patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer . BJU Int . 2007;100:274–280
  35. Hussain M , Smith DC , El-Rayes BF , et al.  Neoadjuvant docetaxel and estramustine chemotherapy in high-risk/locally advanced prostate cancer . Urology . 2003;61:774–780
  36. Eastham JA , Kelly WK , Grossfeld GD , et al.  Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 90203: A randomized phase 3 study of radical prostatectomy alone vs. estramustine and docetaxel before radical prostatectomy for patients with high-risk localized disease . Urology . 2003;62(Suppl 1):55–62
  37. Vuky J , Porter C , Isacson C , et al.  Phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and gefitinib followed by radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer . Cancer . 2009;115:184–191
  38. Mathew P , Pisters LL , Wood CG , et al.  Neoadjuvant platelet derived growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy combined with docetaxel and androgen ablation for high risk localized prostate cancer . J Urol . 2009;181:81–87 Discussion 87
  39. Wang J , Halford S , Rigg A , et al.  Adjuvant mitoxantrone chemotherapy in advanced prostate cancer . BJU Int . 2000;86:675–680
  40. Kibel AS , Rosenbaum E , Kattan MW , et al.  Adjuvant weekly docetaxel for patients with high risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: A multi-institutional pilot study . J Urol . 2007;177:1777–1781
  41. Flaig TW , Tangen CM , Hussain MH , et al.  Randomization reveals unexpected acute leukemias in Southwest Oncology Group prostate cancer trial . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:1532–1536
  42. Zelefsky MJ , Fuks Z , Hunt M , et al.  High dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer . J Urol . 2001;166:876–881
  43. Crook J , Ludgate C , Malone S , et al.  Final report of multicenter Canadian phase III randomized trial of 3 vs. 8 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy before conventional-dose radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2009;73:327–333
  44. Lawton CA , Winter K , Murray K , et al.  Updated results of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 85-31 evaluating the potential benefit of androgen suppression following standard radiation therapy for unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2001;49:937–946
  45. Pilepich MV , Winter K , John MJ , et al.  Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2001;50:1243–1252
  46. Bolla M , Gonzalez D , Warde P , et al.  Improved survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and goserelin . N Engl J Med . 1997;337:295–300
  47. Hanks GE , Pajak TF , Porter A , et al.  Phase III trial of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation after neoadjuvant hormonal cytoreduction and radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02 . J Clin Oncol . 2003;21:3972–3978
  48. D'Amico AV , Manola J , Loffredo M , et al.  Six-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs. radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: A randomized controlled trial . JAMA . 2004;292:821–827
  49. Roach M , Bae K , Speight J , et al.  Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: Long-term results of RTOG 8610 . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:585–591
  50. Bolla M , Collette L , Van Tienhoven G , et al.  Ten-year results of long term adjuvant androgen deprivation with goserelin in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: A phase III EORTC study . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2008;72: S30-S1
  51. Horwitz EM , Bae K , Hanks GE , et al.  Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92-02: A phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:2497–2504
  52. Roach MR , Lu J , Pilepich MV , et al.  Predicting long-term survival, and the need for hormonal therapy: A meta-analysis of RTOG prostate cancer trials . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2000;47:617–627
  53. Stock RG , Cahlon O , Cesaretti JA , et al.  Combined modality treatment in the management of high-risk prostate cancer . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2004;59:1352–1359
  54. Widmark A , Klepp O , Solberg A , et al.  Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): An open randomized phase III trial . Lancet . 2009;373:301–308
  55. Bianco FJ , Scardino PT , Stephenson AJ , et al.  Long-term oncologic results of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2005;62:448–453
  56. Lerner SE , Blute ML , Zincke H. Critical evaluation of salvage surgery for radio-recurrent/resistant prostate cancer . J Urol . 1995;154:1103–1109
  57. Rosenthal SA , Bae K , Pienta KJ , et al.  Phase III multi-institutional trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with Paclitaxel, Estramustine, and Oral Etoposide combined with long-term androgen suppression therapy and radiotherapy vs. long-term androgen suppression plus radiotherapy alone for high-risk prostate cancer: Preliminary toxicity analysis of RTOG 99-02 . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2009;73:672–678
  58. Sandler HM , DeSilvio M , Pienta KJ , et al.   Preliminary analysis of RTOG 9902: Increased toxicity observed with the use of adjuvant chemotherapy . Am Soc Clin Oncol Prostate Cancer Symp. 2006; [Abstract 190]
  59. Kumar P , Perrotti M , Weiss R , et al.  Phase I trial of weekly docetaxel with concurrent three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the treatment of unfavorable localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate . J Clin Oncol . 2004;22:1909–1915
  60. Perrotti M , Doyle T , Kumar P , et al.  Phase I/II trial of docetaxel and concurrent radiation therapy in localized high risk prostate cancer (AGUSG 03-10) . Urol Oncol . 2008;26:276–280
  61. Ben-Josef E , Porter AT , Han S , et al.  Neoadjuvant estramustine and etoposide followed by concurrent estramustine and definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced prostrate cancer: Feasibility and preliminary results . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . 2001;49:699–703
  62. Lin BJ , Chen KK , Chen MT , et al.  The time for serum testosterone to reach castrate level after bilateral orchiectomy or oral estrogen in the management of metastatic prostate cancer . Urology . 1994;43:834–837
  63. Sasagawa I , Kubota Y , Nakada T , et al.  Influence of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues on serum levels of prostatic acid phosphatase and prostatic specific antigen in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate . Int Urol Nephrol . 1998;30:745–753
  64. Medical Research Council Prostate Cancer Working Party Investigators Group . Immediate vs. deferred treatment for advanced prostate cancer: Initial results of the Medical Research Council trial . Br J Urol . 1997;79:235–246
  65. Loblaw DA , Virgo KS , Nam R , et al.  Initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer: 2007 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology Proactive Guideline . J Clin Oncol . 2007;25:1596–1605
  66. Sharifi N , Gulley JL , Dahut WL . Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer . JAMA . 2005;294:238–244
  67. Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group . Maximum androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer: An overview of the randomized trials . Lancet . 2000;355:1491–1498
  68. Usami M , Akaza H , Arai Y , et al.  Bicalutamide 80 mg combined with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A) vs. LHRH-A monotherapy in advanced prostate cancer: Findings from a phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial in Japanese patients . Prostate Cancer and Prostat Dis . 2007;10:194–201
  69. Akaza H , Hinotsu S , Usami M , et al.  Extended analyses: Combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide vs. luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist monotherapy in Japanese men with untreated advanced prostate cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:5063; [Abstract]
  70. Klotz L , Schellhammer P , Carroll K . A reassessment of the role of combined androgen blockade for advanced prostate cancer . Br J Urol . 2004;93:1177–1182
  71. Klotz L , Boccon-Gibod L , Shore ND , et al.  The efficacy and safety of degarelix: A 12-month, comparative, randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase III study in patients with prostate cancer . Br J Urol Int . 2008;102:1531–1538
  72. Gittelman M , Pommerville PJ , Persson BE , et al.  A 1-year, open-label, randomized phase II dose finding study of degarelix for the treatment of prostate cancer in North America . J Urol . 2008;180:1986–1992
  73. Tannock IF , Osoba D , Stockler MR , et al.  Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: A Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points . J Clin Oncol . 1996;14:1756–1764
  74. Kantoff PW , Halabi S , Conaway M , et al.  Hydrocortisone with or without mitoxantrone in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: Results of the cancer and leukemia group B 9182 study . J Clin Oncol . 1999;17:2506–2513
  75. Petrylak DP , Tangen CM , Hussain MH , et al.  Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer . N Engl J Med . 2004;351:1513–1520
  76. Tannock IF , de Wit R , Berry WR , et al.  Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer . N Engl J Med . 2004;351:1502–1512
  77. Berthold DR , Pond GR , Soban F , et al.  Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer: Updated survival in the TAX 327 study . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:242–245
  78. Attard G , Reid AH , Yap TA , et al.  Phase I clinical trial of a selective inhibitor of CYP17, abiraterone acetate, confirms that castration-resistant prostate cancer commonly remains hormone driven . J Clin Oncol . 2008;26:4563–4571
  79. Figg WD , Hussain MH , Gulley JL , et al.  A double-blind randomized crossover crossover study of oral thalidomide vs. placebo for androgen dependent prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen ablation . J Urol . 2009;181:1104–1113

PII: S1078-1439(09)00283-X

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.09.002

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume 30, Issue 1 , Pages 3-15, January 2012

Article Tools