FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
Figure 1 – Failure-free survival according to NCCN risk group:
In the PROTECT study, 77% of the patients were Gleason 6 on biopsy. Only 120 men in each group were with Gleason 7 or higher.3 This study was underpowered to show a difference and results are misleading in this regard, according to Dr. Klotz.
Dr. Klotz then discussed the question whether MRI and novel biomarkers will transform this controversy of AS in IRPC. The answer is most probably yes, but neither MRI and the novel biomarkers are perfect. With GGG1 disease, the goal of monitoring is to identify the presence of higher grade cancer. With GGG2 disease, triggers for intervention are not so obvious, and metastasis may occur during the surveillance period. We cannot be 100% certain that a Gleason 3+4 disease with a stable MRI lesion does not metastasize during surveillance. Various studies have shown that MRI has a negative predictive value of ruling out clinically significant cancer between 76%-100% as summarized in Table 1.
Dr. Klotz summarized his excellent talk and reiterated that all studies of Gleason 7 on AS show substantially increased risk of metastasis with long term follow-up (despite offering selective delayed intervention). Many patients do well, but the risk is substantial and not to be taken lightly. The key has always been and will remain patient selection and identification of relevant triggers.
There are many emerging therapeutic alternatives – focal therapy (HIFU, Cryotherapy, Brachytherapy, electroporation, and more), which are being incorporated into the standard of care and their exact role will need to be sorted out in the future. Lastly, MRI and biomarkers have limitations, and validation in this setting is mandatory.
Table 1: How well does MRI detect and rule out clinically significant cancer?
1. Patel HD, Jama Onc. 2018
2. Godtman RA Eur Urol 2016
3. Hamdy FC et al. NEJM 2016
Presented by: Laurence Klotz, MD, Sunnybrook Health Science center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Written by: Hanan Goldberg, MD, Urologic Oncology Fellow (SUO), University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre @GoldbergHanan at the 2018 FOIU 4th Friends of Israel Urological Symposium, July 3-5. 2018, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Read the Opposing Argument: Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer - FOR