Phillips, Ryan M.

Background The optimal management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, particularly in the absence of clinical or radiographic evidence of disease. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) remains standard of care, but it is unclear whether SRT benefits patients when modern imaging with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA‐PET/CT) are negative for local recurrence. Retrospective data comparing SRT to observation for such patients is fraught with selection bias, underscoring the need for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Study Design and Methods The Biochemical Recurrence Irradiation or Observation (BRIO) is a randomised study under the DIVINE trial framework (NCT06378866) enrolling men with BCR (prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] level ≥0.2, up to 1.5 ng/mL) after RP with no radiographic evidence of recurrence on mpMRI and PSMA‐PET/CT. Major inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP with a PSA level between 0.2 and 1.5 ng/mL, and no local or metastatic recurrence on imaging. A total of 312 patients will be enrolled. Participants are randomised 1:1 to standard‐of‐care SRT followed by surveillance (Group A), or initial observation with subsequent image‐guided therapy at radiographic progression (Group B). Based on historical analysis, a total of 30 metastasis events provides 80% power to detect a significant improvement (hazard ratio 0.5 corresponding to a 5‐year metastasis‐free proportion of 80.7% in the control group and 89.8% in the experimental group with one‐sided type I error rate of 0.15). All participants undergo baseline blood collection to measure prostate cancer‐extracellular vesicles and cell‐free DNA for biomarker development. Participants are followed in a 16‐week cycle with serial PSA measurements, repeat imaging if PSA doubles, safety assessment, and patient‐reported outcomes. Endpoints The primary endpoint is distant recurrence‐free survival at 5‐years using a 12‐month landmark to mitigate bias arising from differing assessment schedules for patients receiving optional 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Key secondary outcomes include time to hormone therapy, quality of life measures, adverse effects, and novel blood and urine biomarkers. Conclusion The BRIO study will clarify the clinical benefit of immediate SRT vs observation with image‐guided intervention in mpMRI and PET‐negative BCR after RP.

ABSTRACT Purpose The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains understudied, with limited long‐term data from large cohorts inclusive of both salvage radiotherapy (SRT)‐treated and untreated patients. Herein, we sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with BCR and the impact of SRT on disease progression. Materials and Methods Patients undergoing RP who developed BCR (PSA ≥ 0.20 ng/mL) were included. Patients with BCR treated with SRT were compared to untreated patients using risk‐set matching with time‐dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was derived at 5 and 15 years. Results Among 6881 patients with BCR, 2109 received SRT. At a median follow‐up of 10.2 years, 1147 patients developed metastases. The median PSA at the time of SRT was 0.50 ng/mL. After 1:1 propensity score matching (2109 patients per cohort), SRT significantly reduced the risk of metastases at 5 (12.7% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, SRT independently reduced metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, p = 0.002), translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively. Interaction analyses between SRT and nodal status ( p = 0.04) showed greater metastasis risk reduction in pN+ (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.77, p = 0.005) compared to pN− disease (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, p = 0.02). Conclusions Most patients with BCR post‐RP do not progress to metastasis. For those who do progress, SRT inarguably improves the oncologic outcomes in the BCR setting. However, careful patient selection and shared decision making should be encouraged in order to limit overtreatment and side effects.

Major advances in prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, and management have occurred over the past decade, largely due to our improved understanding of the technical aspects and clinical applications of advanced imaging, specifically magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-cancer-specific positron emission tomography (PET). Herein, we review the established utility of these important and exciting technologies, as well as areas of controversy and uncertainty that remain important areas for future study. There is strong evidence supporting the utility of MRI in guiding initial biopsy and assessing local disease. There is debate, however, regarding how to best use the imaging modality in risk stratification, treatment planning, and assessment of biochemical failure. Prostate-cancer-specific PET is a relatively new technology that provides great value to the evaluation of newly diagnosed, treated, and recurrent prostate cancer. However, its ideal use in treatment decision making, staging, recurrence detection, and surveillance necessitates further research. Continued study of both imaging modalities will allow for an improved understanding of their best utilization in improving cancer care.

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) parenchymal brain metastases are uncommon and troubling observations in the course of the disease. Our study aims to evaluate the prevalence of brain metastases among PCa patients while reporting various therapeutic modalities, clinical features, and oncological outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 34 patients with parenchymal brain metastasis out of 4575 patients using a prospectively maintained database that contains clinicopathologic characteristics of PCa patients between January 2012 and December 2021. Based on the three treatment modalities used, the patients were divided into three groups: stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and systemic therapy alone. The Kaplan–Meier curve was used to calculate overall survival [OS] probability and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare between groups.ResultsAt the time of brain metastasis diagnosis, the median age was 66 years, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) was 2.2 (0.1–26.6) ng/ml and the median (IQR) months from initial PCa diagnosis to brain metastasis development was 70.8 (27.6–100.9). The median (IQR) primary Gleason score was 8 (7–9) and over a median (IQR) follow‐up time of 2.2 (1.2–16.5) months, 76.5% (n = 26) of the patients died. Thirteen (38.2%) patients had solitary lesion, whereas 21 (61.8%) had ≥2 lesions. The lesions were supratentorial in 19 (55.9%) patients, infratentorial in six (17.6%), and both sides in nine (26.5%). Among all 34 patients, 10 (29.4%) were treated with SRS, seven (20.6%) with WBRT, and 17 (50%) with systemic therapy alone. OS varied greatly between the three treatment modalities (log‐rank test, p = 0.049). Those who were treated with SRS and WBRT had better OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy alone (hazard ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.16–0.86, p = 0.022).ConclusionsIn our single‐institutional study, we confirmed that PCa brain metastasis is associated with poor survival outcomes and more advanced metastatic disease. Furthermore, we found that SRS and WBRT for brain metastasis in patients with recurrent PCa appear to be associated with improved OS as compared with systemic therapy alone and are likely secondary to selection bias.

BackgroundPatients with high‐risk prostate cancer (HRPC) have multiple accepted treatment options. Because there is no overall survival benefit of one option over another, appropriate treatment must consider patient life expectancy, quality of life, and cost.MethodsThe authors compared quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost effectiveness among treatment options for HRPC using a Markov model with three treatment arms: (1) external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivered with 20 fractions, (2) EBRT with 23 fractions followed by low‐dose‐rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost, or (3) radical prostatectomy alone. An exploratory analysis considered a simultaneous integrated boost according to the FLAME trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01168479).ResultsTreatment strategies were compared using the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). EBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost was a cost‐effective strategy (ICER, $20,929 per QALY gained). These results were most sensitive to variations in the biochemical failure rate. However, the results still demonstrated cost effectiveness for the brachytherapy boost paradigm, regardless of any tested parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT with LDR brachytherapy was favored in 52% of 100,000 Monte Carlo iterations. In an exploratory analysis, EBRT with a simultaneous integrated boost was also a cost‐effective strategy, resulting in an ICER of $62,607 per QALY gained; however, it was not cost effective compared with EBRT plus LDR brachytherapy boost.ConclusionsEBRT with LDR brachytherapy boost may be a cost‐effective treatment strategy compared with EBRT alone and radical prostatectomy for HRPC, demonstrating high‐value care. The current analysis suggests that a reduction in biochemical failure alone can result in cost‐effective care, despite no change in overall survival.

Purpose of review Metastases directed therapy (MDT) is an increasingly utilized modality in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) recurrence. The purpose of our review is to discuss the recent literature on the safety and oncologic outcomes of this treatment approach. Recent findings Metastases directed therapy, in particular, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and salvage lymph node dissection (sLND), has shown promising efficacy in patients with OMPC. Many case series report favorable outcomes with MDT as compared to hormonal deprivation therapy alone or surveillance. Of the few case series investigating the use of MDT as part of a multimodality approach in castrate-resistant OMPC, more favorable outcomes in comparison to the use of systemic treatment alone are reported. Summary With the recent advances in imaging techniques, particularly molecular imaging, management of OMPC has progressed rapidly in the last few years. The feasibility and benefits of MDT in OMPC have been demonstrated in prospective and retrospective series. Further prospective studies investigating the role of MDT to define optimal patient subgroups and management strategies are warranted.