Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial.
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.
This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894.
Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients).
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy.
The Lancet. Oncology. 2016 Dec 19 [Epub ahead of print]
Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi, Sébastien Vincendeau, Eric Barret, Antony Cicco, François Kleinclauss, Henk G van der Poel, Christian G Stief, Jens Rassweiler, Georg Salomon, Eduardo Solsona, Antonio Alcaraz, Teuvo T Tammela, Derek J Rosario, Francisco Gomez-Veiga, Göran Ahlgren, Fawzi Benzaghou, Bertrand Gaillac, Billy Amzal, Frans M J Debruyne, Gaëlle Fromont, Christian Gratzke, Mark Emberton, PCM301 Study Group
Department of Urology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France., Department of Urology, CIC-INSERM 1414, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France., Department of Urology, Centre Catalan Urologie Andrologie, Cabestany, France., Department of Urology, Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France., Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands., Department of Urology, LMU-Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany., Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken, Heilbronn, Germany., Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany., Department of Urology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain., Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain., Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital and School of Medicine, Tampere, Finland., Academic Department of Urology, University of Sheffield, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK., Department of Urology, Salamanca University Hospital GITUR-IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain; Department of Urology, University Hospital Complex, La Coruna, Spain., Department of Urology, Skäne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden., Medical Department, Steba Biotech, Paris, France., LA-SER Analytica, London, UK., Andros Men's Health Institute, Arnhem, Netherlands., Department of Pathology, Tours University Hospital, Tours, France., Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: .