Management of Prostate Cancer

July 2017

Case of the Month Management of Prostate Cancer NYU Case of the Month, July 2017 Samir S. Taneja, MD Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY [Rev Urol. 2017;19(3):180–184 doi: 10.3909/riu0771] ® © 2017 MedReviews , LLC A 61-year-old man is referred for discussion of management options for prostate cancer in July 2015. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2013, and has been on active surveillance since that time. He presented to his local urologist in May 2013 with a rising serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level—most recently 8.36 ng/dL (Table 1). A systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in July 2013 demonstrated Gleason 313 adenocarcinoma of the prostate in 1 of 12 cores. An Oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) genomic test from the biopsy tissue demonstrated a Genomic Prostate Score™ (GPS) of 21, predicting a 9% likelihood of dominant Gleason pattern 4 or higher and a 7% risk of non–organ-confined disease. Overall, the GPS predicted very low risk, with an 86% likelihood of favorable pathology. On this basis, the patient elected active surveillance. His PSA level remained stable over the next year and was 8.6 ng/dL in March 2014. A repeat systematic biopsy in March 2014 demonstrated 1-mm Gleason 313 prostate cancer in 1 of 12 cores. The PSA began to rise, reaching a peak level of 9.9 in early 2015 (Table 1). Aside from the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the patient is healthy, with no competing risks for mortality. He denies erectile dysfunction or bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms, and reports a Sexual Health Inventory for Men score of 25, without the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, and an International Prostate Symptom Score of 3. He exercises regularly and quit smoking 20 years prior. On examination, his prostate is smooth, symmetric, and without nodules or induration. He wishes to determine whether active surveillance remains a reasonable option for him. 180 • Vol. 19 No. 3 • 2017 • Reviews in Urology Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on August 8, 2015, demonstrated a 26 3 13-mm anterior mid gland and apex Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 region of suspicion, with extension of tumor beyond the anterior fibromuscular stroma (Figure 1A-C). Additionally, a 7 3 5-mm left posterolateral apex PI-RADS 3 (intermediate suspicion) region is noted, corresponding with the site of previous cancer detection (Figure 1D-F). An MRI-targeted risk stratification biopsy, with MRI to ultrasound coregistration, performed on September 24, 2015, demonstrated Gleason 514 cancer within the anterior MRI-targeted regions, Gleason 415 cancer within the left apex MRI-targeted region, and Gleason 414 cancer within the systematic sample. A bone scan demonstrated no metastatic disease. A bilateral nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy was performed on November 17, 2015. Despite the presence of a large volume of high-grade cancer, nerve sparing was considered feasible because of the very anterior location of the dominant tumor within the prostate, allowing a wide anterior margin without resection of neurovascular bundles (Figure 2A-C). Surgical pathology revealed high-volume Gleason 415 cancer, occupying 75% of the gland, with bladder neck invasion. The final stage was pT3a, N0 (9 nodes), Mx, with a positive bladder neck margin. Following surgery, the first postoperative PSA value was 0.05 ng/dL, on February 20, 2016. Salvage intensity-modulated radiotherapy was completed on June 23, 2017, with a total dose of 6600 cGy. In followup, the patient’s PSA level declined to ,0.01 ng/dL and remained undetectable on April 15, 2017. At last followup, he is continent and does not wear protective pads. He notes occasional leaking during strenuous exercise. He Management of Prostate Cancer TABLE 1 Patient Data Date 12/5/06 11/27/07 12/30/08 12/10/09 11/29/11 12/5/12 5/22/13 7/25/13 8/21/13 12/6/13 3/20/14 PSA Level (ng/mL) Oncotype DX® GPS GPS 21 (very low risk) 9.1, 5% 8.6 Gleason 313 in 1 of 12 biopsy cores 9.9 PI-RADS 5 in bilateral mid anterior, PI-RADS 3 in left lateral apex 8/10/15 MRI-targeted biopsy, Gleason 514 cancer in multiple cores 9/21/15 10/12/15 Normal RARP; pT3a, N0, Gleason 514, positive margins 11/17/15 2/18/16 2/25/16 0.05 0.05 Completed 6600 cGy EBRT 6/24/16 10/1/16 MRI 1.7 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.51 6.29 8.36 3/28/14 3/10/15 Nuclear Medicine Bone Scan Biopsy/Treatment ,0.01 EBRT, external beam radiation therapy; GPS, Genomic Prostate Score™ (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA); MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. is potent, with erections sufficient for penetrative intercourse, on tadalafil, 5 mg daily. Discussion Active surveillance has become a well-accepted management option for men diagnosed with low-risk 1,2 disease. Previous concerns regarding the use of surveillance in young men have been greatly reduced by the demonstration of extremely low rates of metastatic progression and cancer-specific mortality at 10 and 15 years of 3-5 follow-up. Despite low rates of mortality in general, 50% to 60% of men on surveillance require treatment within 5 to 10 years because of evidence of clinical progression in the form of increasing grade, 3 cancer volume, or serum PSA. Whether delay in treatment worsens treatment outcome is not well Vol. 19 No. 3 • 2017 • Reviews in Urology • 181 Management of Prostate Cancer continued Figure 1. Prostate MRI demonstrating (A-C) a bilateral anterior mid gland very high suspicion, PI-RADS 5, region of suspicion (single arrow) with suggestion of extraprostatic extension at the anterior fibromuscular stroma. The lesion demonstrates a circumscribed moderately hypointense mass on T2-weighted image (A), markedly restricted diffusion on ADC map (B), and early enhancement on dynamic contrast enhancement (C) following the administration of gadolinium. Irregularity of the anterior capsule suggests extraprostatic extension (double arrow). Apical images (D, E) demonstrate extension of the anterior lesion (single arrow), with an intermediate suspicion, PI-RADS 3, abnormality in the left posterior apex (double arrow) on T2-weighted (D), ADC map (E), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (F) images. ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System. A B C D E F demonstrated, and this remains 5 controversial. Candidate selection remains a primary challenge of implementing active surveillance in clinical practice. Among men with low-risk pathology demonstrated on systematic biopsy (men who would have been candidates for surveillance), up to 45% demonstrate adverse a number of tools have emerged for better selection of low-risk patients prior to surveillance, including risk assessment nomograms, genomic 8-17 tests, and multiparametric MRI. Controversy remains regarding whether or not each deposit of cancer within the prostate is likely to demonstrate genomic expression patterns representative of pathology when they choose radi6 cal prostatectomy. As such, progression on follow-up biopsy may reflect true disease progression 7 in some cases, but likely reflects missed occult high-grade and/or locally advanced disease on baseline biopsy in many cases. Because systematic biopsy is such an inaccurate tool for candidate selection, Figure 2. The Taneja technique of retrograde neurovascular bundle dissection in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. (A) Prior to division of the urethra or the bladder neck, the endopelvic fascia is incised and the prostate is freed from the sidewall to the level of the perirectal fascia. The lateral fascia is incised and reflected off the posterolateral surface of the prostate. The neurovascular bundle is reflected laterally in an extrafascial fashion (double arrow), exposing Denonvilliers’ fascia medial to the nerve bundle (single arrow). (B) Denonvilliers’ fascia is sharply incised, exposing the perirectal fat in the retroprostatic space (arrow). (C) A cottonoid sponge is packed into the defect to tamponade any bleeding along the neurovascular bundle, until the prostate is excised. Image courtesy of A. Mass, MD and SS. Taneja, MD. A B 182 • Vol. 19 No. 3 • 2017 • Reviews in Urology C Management of Prostate Cancer TABLE 2 Outcomes of MRI-targeted Biopsy in 252 Men Presenting With a History of Previously Diagnosed Gleason 313 Prostate Cancer, Segregated by MRI Suspicion Score/PI-RADS mSS/PIRADS N GS 6 GS $7 Any Cancer Overall 5 4 3 2 1 252 14 65 73 91 9 35.3% (89) 14.3% (2) 33.8% (22) 46.6% (34) 30.7% (28) 33.3% (3) 29.8% (75) 85.7% (12) 52.3% (34) 27.4% (20) 9.8% (9) 0.0% (0) 65.1% (164) 100% (14) 86.2% (56) 74.0% (54) 40.6% (37) 33.3% (3) GS, Gleason score; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; mSS, MRI suspicion score; PI-RADS, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System. Unpublished data from Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center (New York, NY). the overall aggressiveness of the 18 patient’s cancer. In this case, it did not. In this patient, despite the presence of occult high-grade disease, genomic testing suggested a very low risk of unfavorable pathology, demonstrating the imperfection of the testing. Management In the Department of Urology at NYU Langone Medical Center (New York, NY), we have utilized multiparametric MRI as a primary risk assessment tool among men referred for consideration of surveillance of low-risk prostate 19-22 Our expericancer since 2011. 23-26 along with that of several ence, 27-32 has demonstrated other groups, that upon repeat MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy with MRIultrasound coregistration, up to 40% of men are found to have increased risk compared with baseline biopsy, allowing earlier treatment for those who need it, fewer follow-up biopsies among those selected for surveillance, and, in theory, a lower likelihood of progression on surveillance. Prostate MRI has the advantage of both assessing the relative risk of occult high-grade prostate cancer through the suspicion score (Table 2) and determining the location and extent of cancer, allowing directed MRItargeted biopsy or staging prior to treatment. In this case, based on our experience, the presence of a very high suspicion, PI-RADS 5, abnormality could have allowed for treatment without repeat biopsy, based on the very high rate of treatment following repeat biopsy (Figure 3). Upon diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer, surveillance was no longer a reasonable option for this patient and treatment was indicated. Patients with high-risk prostate cancer should be counseled that single-modality treatment might not be curative because of the high 33-36 risk of systemic recurrence. Management options for highrisk prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, with or without adjuvant/salvage radiation, or radiotherapy in combination with Figure 3. Likelihood of remaining on active surveillance following MRI-targeted biopsy, segregated by MRI suspicion score/PI-RADS in 252 men. MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADS, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System. Unpublished data from Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center (New York, NY). MRI Suspicion Score/PI-RADS 100% 90% 88% 86% 80% 76% 70% 60% 56% 50% 40% 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Vol. 19 No. 3 • 2017 • Reviews in Urology • 183 Management of Prostate Cancer continued 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy. In treating high-risk patients surgically, wide margin control is essential, but margin control can be improved through the consideration of MRI results. The patient’s pathology demonstrated locally advanced, Gleason 514 prostate cancer with positive surgical margins. Two large, randomized studies have demonstrated that the use of adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the risk of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality among men with extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion, 37 and/or positive surgical margins. On this basis, the recently published American Urological Association/ American Society for Radiation Oncology guidelines suggest that all men with high-risk pathology should be counseled regarding the 38 option of adjuvant radiotherapy. There is no direct comparison of adjuvant versus early salvage radiotherapy; therefore, timing of radiation following surgery has become 39,40 The use of adjucontroversial. vant radiotherapy does result in a reduction in recovery of potency and continence following surgery; for this reason, the managing physician should consider the relative risk of mortality associated with 41 relapse for the individual patient. Men with Gleason score 8-10 disease and extraprostatic extension are at a high relative risk of mortality following disease relapse; in these men, early adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy should be a consideration. References 1. 2. 3. Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:205-215. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:1742-1749. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Longterm follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272-277. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379-3385. Diniz CP, Landis P, Carter HB, et al. Comparison of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy triggered by grade reclassification on active surveillance and men newly diagnosed with similar grade disease. J Urol. 2017;198:608-613. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;76:689-692. Palapattu GS, Salami SS, Cani AK, et al. Molecular profiling to determine clonality of serial magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsies from men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:985-991. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:807-811. Wang SY, Cowan JE, Cary KC, et al. Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;114:E18-E24. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, et al. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1023-1031. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66:550-560. Klein EA, Santiago-Jiménez M, Yousefi K, et al. Molecular analysis of low grade prostate cancer using a genomic classifier of metastatic potential. J Urol. 2017;197:122-128. Boström PJ, Bjartell AS, Catto JW, et al. Genomic predictors of outcome in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1033-1044. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1428-1434. Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, et al; Transatlantic Prostate Group. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1095-1099. Tamada T, Dani H, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The role of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient analysis for predicting outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance [published online April 10, 2017]. Abdom Radiol (NY). doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1135-2. Barrett T, Haider MA. The emerging role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance and ongoing challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:131-139. Wei L, Wang J, Lampert E, et al. Intratumoral and intertumoral genomic heterogeneity of multifocal localized prostate cancer impacts molecular classifications and genomic prognosticators. Eur Urol. 2017;71:183-192. Mendhiratta N, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The role of MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Future Oncol. 2016;12:2431-2443. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Taneja SS. Using multiparametric MRI to ‘personalize’ biopsy for men. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25:498-503. Bjurlin MA, Mendhiratta N, Wysock JS, Taneja SS. Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69:9-18. Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB, et al. AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer [published online May 5, 2017]. J Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.101. Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192:648-658. 184 • Vol. 19 No. 3 • 2017 • Reviews in Urology 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016;69:512-517. Tamada T, Prabhu V, Li J, et al. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection and assessment of aggressiveness—comparison between conventional and kurtosis models. Radiology. 2017;284:100-108. Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, et al. Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:840-846. Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies. J Urol. 2015;194:350-356. Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):632-639. Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, et al. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer. 2017;123:1941-1948. Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72:275-281. Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;71:174-180. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:3359-3366. Juloori A, Shah C, Stephans K, et al. Evolving paradigm of radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: current consensus and continuing controversies. Prostate Cancer. 2016; 2016:2420786. doi: 10.1155/2016/2420786. Epub 2016 May 23. Weiner AB, Matulewicz RS, Schaeffer EM, et al. Contemporary management of men with high-risk localized prostate cancer in the United States. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:283-288. Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD, et al. Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically highrisk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;68:497-505. Pompe RS, Karakiewicz PI, Tian Z, et al. Oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy for high or very high risk prostate cancer: European validation of the current NCCN® guideline [published online Feb 16, 2017]. J Urol. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2017.02.070. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181:956-962. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190:441-449. Kang JH, Ha YS, Kim S, et al. Concern for overtreatment using the AUA/ASTRO guideline on adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2014;14:30. Dess RT, Morgan TM, Nguyen PL, et al. Adjuvant versus early salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy for men with localized prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18:55. Freedland SJ, Rumble RB, Finelli A, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3892-3898.