Hema Samaratunga

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND The absence of trial data comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy is a crucial knowledge gap in uro-oncology. We aimed to compare these two approaches in terms of functional and oncological outcomes and report the early postoperative outcomes at 12 weeks. METHOD In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, were able to read and speak English, had no previous history of head injury, dementia, or psychiatric illness or no other concurrent cancer, had an estimated life expectancy of 10 years or more, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital (Brisbane, QLD). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patients condition. Further, a masked central pathologist reviewed the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of EPIC) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and IIEF) at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 months and oncological outcome (positive surgical margin status and biochemical and imaging evidence of progression at 24 months). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality of life outcomes over 24 months. We report here the early outcomes at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. The per-protocol populations were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and 163 to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group. 121 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy completed the 12 week questionnaire versus 131 assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (74·50 vs 71·10; p=0·09) or 12 weeks post-surgery (83·80 vs 82·50; p=0·48). Sexual function scores did not differ significantly between the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group at 6 weeks post-surgery (30·70 vs 32·70; p=0·45) or 12 weeks post-surgery (35·00 vs 38·90; p=0·18). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of positive surgical margins between the two groups (15 [10%] in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs 23 [15%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a Δ of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were not significantly different (p=0·21). 14 patients (9%) in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group versus six (4%) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group had postoperative complications (p=0·052). 12 (8%) men receiving radical retropubic prostatectomy and three (2%) men receiving robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy experienced intraoperative adverse events. INTERPRETATION These two techniques yield similar functional outcomes at 12 weeks. Longer term follow-up is needed. In the interim, we encourage patients to choose an experienced surgeon they trust and with whom they have rapport, rather than a specific surgical approach. FUNDING Cancer Council Queensland.

A working group classification of focal prostate atrophy lesions

Focal atrophy is extremely common in prostate specimens. Although there are distinct histologic variants, the terminology is currently nonstandardized and no formal classification has been tested for interobserver reliability. This lack of standardization hampers the ability to study the biologic and clinical significance of these lesions. After informal and formal meetings by a number of the authors, focal atrophy lesions were categorized into 4 distinct subtypes as follows: (i) simple atrophy, (ii) simple atrophy with cyst formation, (iii) postatrophic hyperplasia, and (iv) partial atrophy. In phase 1 of the study, pathologists with varying levels of experience in prostate pathology were invited to view via the Internet a set of “training” images with associated descriptions of lesions considered typical of each subtype. In phase 2 of the study, each participant provided diagnoses on a series of 140 distinct “test” images that were viewed over the Internet. These test images consisted of the 4 subtypes of atrophy and images of normal epithelium, high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and carcinoma. The diagnoses for each image from each pathologist were compared with a set of “standard” diagnoses and the κ statistic was computed. Thirty-four pathologists completed both phases of the study. The interobserver reliability (median κ) for classification of lesions as normal, cancer, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or focal atrophy was 0.97. The median κ for the classification of atrophy lesions into the 4 subtypes was 0.80. The median percent agreement with the standard diagnosis for the atrophy subtypes were: simple 60.6%, simple with cyst formation 100%; postatrophic hyperplasia 87.5%; partial atrophy 93.9%. The lower percentage for simple atrophy reflected a propensity to diagnose some of these as simple atrophy with cyst formation. Seven pathologists completed the phase 2 analysis a second time, and their intraobserver reproducibility was excellent. Three of 4 pathologists with low agreement with the standard diagnosis for simple atrophy improved their scores after repeating the analysis after re-examination of the “training set” of images. In conclusion, these criteria for variants of focal prostate atrophy may facilitate studies to examine the relation between various patterns of prostate atrophy and prostate cancer.

New Genomic Structure for Prostate Cancer Specific Gene PCA3 within BMCC1: Implications for Prostate Cancer Detection and Progression

Background The prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3/DD3) gene is a highly specific biomarker upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa). In order to understand the importance of PCA3 in PCa we investigated the organization and evolution of the PCA3 gene locus. Methods/Principal Findings We have employed cDNA synthesis, RTPCR and DNA sequencing to identify 4 new transcription start sites, 4 polyadenylation sites and 2 new differentially spliced exons in an extended form of PCA3. Primers designed from these novel PCA3 exons greatly improve RT-PCR based discrimination between PCa, PCa metastases and BPH specimens. Comparative genomic analyses demonstrated that PCA3 has only recently evolved in an anti-sense orientation within a second gene, BMCC1/PRUNE2. BMCC1 has been shown previously to interact with RhoA and RhoC, determinants of cellular transformation and metastasis, respectively. Using RT-PCR we demonstrated that the longer BMCC1-1 isoform - like PCA3 – is upregulated in PCa tissues and metastases and in PCa cell lines. Furthermore PCA3 and BMCC1-1 levels are responsive to dihydrotestosterone treatment. Conclusions/Significance Upregulation of two new PCA3 isoforms in PCa tissues improves discrimination between PCa and BPH. The functional relevance of this specificity is now of particular interest given PCA3s overlapping association with a second gene BMCC1, a regulator of Rho signalling. Upregulation of PCA3 and BMCC1 in PCa has potential for improved diagnosis.

The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

CONTEXT Prostate cancer remains a significant public health problem. Recent publications of randomized trials and the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations have drawn attention to overtreatment of localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Active surveillance, in which patients undergo regular visits with serum prostate-specific antigen tests and repeat prostate biopsies, rather than aggressive treatment with curative intent, may address overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer. It is apparent that a greater awareness of the critical role of pathologists in determining eligibility for active surveillance is needed. OBJECTIVES To review the state of current knowledge about the role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer and to provide a multidisciplinary report focusing on pathologic parameters important to the successful identification of patients likely to succeed with active surveillance, to determine the role of molecular tests in increasing the safety of active surveillance, and to provide future directions. DESIGN Systematic review of literature on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, pathologic parameters important for appropriate stratification, and issues regarding interobserver reproducibility. Expert panels were created to delineate the fundamental questions confronting the clinical and pathologic aspects of management of men on active surveillance. RESULTS Expert panelists identified pathologic parameters important for management and the related diagnostic and reporting issues. Consensus recommendations were generated where appropriate. CONCLUSIONS Active surveillance is an important management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters have in identifying appropriate candidates for active surveillance. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists with accurate pathology reporting.

Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management option for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. The clinical parameters for patient selection and definition of progression for AS protocols are evolving as data from several large cohorts matures. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters play in identifying appropriate candidates for AS. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists. This report highlights the importance of accurate pathology reporting as a critical component of these protocols.

A progress report on a prospective randomised trial of open and robotic prostatectomy

A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy commenced in October 2010 and is progressing well. Clinical and quality of life outcomes together with economic costs to individuals and the health service are being examined critically to compare outcomes.

Prostate cancer grading: recent developments and future directions

*Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and Aquesta Uropathology, Brisbane, Queensland,Australia

Long-term outcomes of high-dose-rate brachytherapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer with a median follow-up of 10 years.

To evaluate the long‐term outcomes of high‐dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy for patients with intermediate‐ and high‐risk prostate cancer.

Kallikrein‐related peptidase 4 induces cancer‐associated fibroblast features in prostate‐derived stromal cells

The reciprocal communication between cancer cells and their microenvironment is critical in cancer progression. Although involvement of cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAF) in cancer progression is long established, the molecular mechanisms leading to differentiation of CAFs from normal fibroblasts are poorly understood. Here, we report that kallikrein‐related peptidase‐4 (KLK4) promotes CAF differentiation. KLK4 is highly expressed in prostate epithelial cells of premalignant (prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia) and malignant lesions compared to normal prostate epithelia, especially at the peristromal interface. KLK4 induced CAF‐like features in the prostate‐derived WPMY1 normal stromal cell line, including increased expression of alpha‐smooth muscle actin, ESR1 and SFRP1. KLK4 activated protease‐activated receptor‐1 in WPMY1 cells increasing expression of several factors (FGF1, TAGLN, LOX, IL8, VEGFA) involved in prostate cancer progression. In addition, KLK4 induced WPMY1 cell proliferation and secretome changes, which in turn stimulated HUVEC cell proliferation that could be blocked by a VEGFA antibody. Importantly, the genes dysregulated by KLK4 treatment of WPMY1 cells were also differentially expressed between patient‐derived CAFs compared to matched nonmalignant fibroblasts and were further increased by KLK4 treatment. Taken together, we propose that epithelial‐derived KLK4 promotes tumour progression by actively promoting CAF differentiation in the prostate stromal microenvironment.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND Previous trials have found similar early outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We report functional and oncological postoperative outcomes up to 24 months after surgery for these two surgical techniques. METHODS In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to have either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patients surgical treatment. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire [IIEF]) at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and oncological outcome (biochemical recurrence and imaging evidence of progression). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality-of-life outcomes over 24 months. All analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000661976. FINDINGS Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 163 to open radical retropubic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery. At the 24-month follow-up time point, 150 men remained in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group and 146 remained in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (88·68 [95% CI 86·79-90·58] vs 88·45 [86·54-90·36]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (90·76 [88·89-92·62] vs 91·53 [90·07-92·98]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (91·33 [89·64-93·03] vs 90·86 [89·01-92·70]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001). Sexual function scores were not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (EPIC: 37·40 [33·60-41·19] vs 38·63 [34·76-42·49], p1=0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 29·75 [26·66-32·84] vs 29·78 [26·41-33·16], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (EPIC: 42·28 [38·05-46·51] vs 42·51 [38·29-46·72], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·10 [29·59-36·61] vs 33·50 [29·87-37·13], p1=0·0002, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (EPIC: 45·70 [41·17-50·23] vs 46·90 [42·20-51·60], p1=0·0003, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·95 [30·11-37·78] vs 33·89 [29·82-37·96], p1=0·0003, p2=0·0004). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of biochemical recurrences between the two groups (13 [9%] in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs four [3%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a prespecified margin of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were significantly different (p=0·0199). Equivalence testing on the proportion of patients who had imaging evidence of progression revealed that the two groups were not significantly different (p=0·2956). INTERPRETATION Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy yielded similar functional outcomes at 24 months. We advise caution in interpreting the oncological outcomes of our study because of the absence of standardisation in postoperative management between the two trial groups and the use of additional cancer treatments. Clinicians and patients should view the benefits of a robotic approach as being largely related to its minimally invasive nature. FUNDING Cancer Council Queensland.