Michel Bolla

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES To present a summary of the 2007 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS A literature review of the new data emerging from 2004 to 2007 was performed by the working panel. The guidelines have been updated, and the level of evidence/grade of recommendation was added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS A full version is available at the EAU Office or at www.uroweb.org. Systemic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance is the preferred diagnostic method. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy being shown to be superior to watchful waiting in a prospective randomized trial. Nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 72 and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PCa, respectively. Monotherapeutic androgen deprivation is the standard of care in metastatic PCa; intermittent androgen deprivation might be an alternative treatment option for selected patients. Follow-up is largely based on prostate-specific antigen and a disease-specific history with imaging only indicated when symptoms occur. Cytotoxic therapy with docetaxel has emerged as the reference treatment for metastatic hormone-refractory PCa. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial

BACKGROUND We did a randomised phase III trial comparing external irradiation alone and external irradiation combined with an analogue of luteinising-hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) to investigate the added value of long-term androgen suppression in locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS Between 1987 and 1995, 415 patients were randomly assigned radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate androgen suppression. Eligible patients had T1-2 tumours of WHO grade 3 or T3-4 N0-1 M0 tumours; the median age of participants was 71 years (range 51-80). In both treatment groups, 50 Gy radiation was delivered to the pelvis over 5 weeks, and 20 Gy over 2 weeks as a prostatic boost. Goserelin (3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks) was started on the first day of irradiation and continued for 3 years; cyproterone acetate (150 mg orally) was given for 1 month starting 1 week before the first goserelin injection. The primary endpoint was clinical disease-free survival. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS 412 patients had evaluable data, with median follow-up of 66 months (range 1-126). 5-year clinical disease-free survival was 40% (95% CI 32-48) in the radiotherapy-alone group and 74% (67-81) in the combined-treatment group (p=0.0001). 5-year overall survival was 62% (52-72) and 78% (72-84), respectively (p=0.0002) and 5-year specific survival 79% (72-86) and 94% (90-98). INTERPRETATION Immediate androgen suppression with an LHRH analogue given during and for 3 years after external irradiation improves disease-free and overall survival of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Improved Survival in Patients with Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy and Goserelin

BACKGROUND We conducted a randomized, prospective trial comparing external irradiation with external irradiation plus goserelin (an agonist analogue of gonadotropin-releasing hormone that reduces testosterone secretion) in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS From 1987 to 1995, 415 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy alone or radiotherapy plus immediate treatment with goserelin. The patients had a median age of 71 years (range, 51 to 80). Patients in both groups received 50 Gy of radiation to the pelvis over a period of five weeks and an additional 20 Gy over an additional two weeks as a prostatic boost. Patients in the combined-treatment group received 3.6 mg of goserelin (Zoladex) subcutaneously every four weeks starting on the first day of irradiation and continuing for three years; those patients also received cyproterone acetate (150 mg orally per day) during the first month of treatment to inhibit the transient rise in testosterone associated with the administration of goserelin. RESULTS Data were available for analysis on 401 patients. The median follow-up was 45 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at five years were 79 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 72 to 86 percent) in the combined-treatment group and 62 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 52 to 72 percent) in the radiotherapy group (P=0.001). The proportion of surviving patients who were free of disease at five years was 85 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 92 percent) in the combined-treatment group and 48 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 38 to 58 percent) in the radiotherapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant treatment with goserelin, when started simultaneously with external irradiation, improves local control and survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised Disease

OBJECTIVE Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa). METHODS The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in <3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013

CONTEXT The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) was published in 2011. OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A literature review of the new data emerging from 2011 to 2013 has been performed by the EAU PCa guideline group. The guidelines have been updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation have been added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A full version of the guidelines is available at the EAU office or online (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention, whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial. In men with locally advanced PCa for whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in prospective randomized trials. Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease, while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with ≥ 74 Gy in low-risk PCa and 78 Gy in intermediate- or high-risk PCa. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA and a disease-specific history, with imaging indicated only when symptoms occur. CONCLUSIONS Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY A summary is presented of the 2013 EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Screening continues to be done on an individual basis, in consultation with a physician. Diagnosis is by prostate biopsy. Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment. Radical prostatectomy is the only surgical option. Radiation therapy can be external or delivered by way of prostate implants. Treatment follow-up is based on the PSA level.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer ☆

OBJECTIVES Our aim is to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence (LEs) and/or grades of recommendation (GR) were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews. RESULTS Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Although LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, their clinical benefit remains to be determined. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) results in equivalent oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <2.5 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include screening for the metabolic syndrome and an analysis of PSA and testosterone levels. Treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) includes second-line hormonal therapy, novel agents, and chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m(2) every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel as a second-line therapy for relapse after docetaxel might become a future option. Zoledronic acid and denusomab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications. CONCLUSION The knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and CRPC is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or online at www.uroweb.org.

Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911)

BACKGROUND Local failure after prostatectomy can arise in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. We did a randomised controlled trial to compare radical prostatectomy followed by immediate external irradiation with prostatectomy alone for patients with positive surgical margin or pT3 prostate cancer. METHODS After undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy, 503 patients were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy, and 502 to immediate postoperative radiotherapy (60 Gy conventional irradiation delivered over 6 weeks). Eligible patients had pN0M0 tumours and one or more pathological risk factors: capsule perforation, positive surgical margins, invasion of seminal vesicles. Our revised primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS The median age was 65 years (IQR 61-69). After a median follow-up of 5 years, biochemical progression-free survival was significantly improved in the irradiated group (74.0%, 98% CI 68.7-79.3 vs 52.6%, 46.6-58.5; p<0.0001). Clinical progression-free survival was also significantly improved (p=0.0009). The cumulative rate of locoregional failure was significantly lower in the irradiated group (p<0.0001). Grade 2 or 3 late effects were significantly more frequent in the postoperative irradiation group (p=0.0005), but severe toxic toxicity (grade 3 or higher) were rare, with a 5-year rate of 2.6% in the wait-and-see group and 4.2% in the postoperative irradiation group (p=0.0726). INTERPRETATION Immediate external irradiation after radical prostatectomy improves biochemical progression-free survival and local control in patients with positive surgical margins or pT3 prostate cancer who are at high risk of progression. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on overall survival.

Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND The combination of radiotherapy plus long-term medical suppression of androgens (> or = 2 years) improves overall survival in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. We compared the use of radiotherapy plus short-term androgen suppression with the use of radiotherapy plus long-term androgen suppression in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who had received external-beam radiotherapy plus 6 months of androgen suppression to two groups, one to receive no further treatment (short-term suppression) and the other to receive 2.5 years of further treatment with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (long-term suppression). An outcome of noninferiority of short-term androgen suppression as compared with long-term suppression required a hazard ratio of more than 1.35 for overall survival, with a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. An interim analysis showed futility, and the results are presented with an adjusted one-sided alpha level of 0.0429. RESULTS A total of 1113 men were registered, of whom 970 were randomly assigned, 483 to short-term suppression and 487 to long-term suppression. After a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 132 patients in the short-term group and 98 in the long-term group had died; the number of deaths due to prostate cancer was 47 in the short-term group and 29 in the long-term group. The 5-year overall mortality for short-term and long-term suppression was 19.0% and 15.2%, respectively; the observed hazard ratio was 1.42 (upper 95.71% confidence limit, 1.79; P=0.65 for noninferiority). Adverse events in both groups included fatigue, diminished sexual function, and hot flushes. CONCLUSIONS The combination of radiotherapy plus 6 months of androgen suppression provides inferior survival as compared with radiotherapy plus 3 years of androgen suppression in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003026.)

Hyperfractionation versus conventional fractionation in oropharyngeal carcinoma: final analysis of a randomized trial of the EORTC cooperative group of radiotherapy

EORTC protocol 22791 compared once daily fractionation (CF) of 70 Gy in 35-40 fractions in 7-8 weeks, to pure hyperfractionation (HF) of 80.5 Gy in 70 fractions in 7 weeks using 2 fractions of 1.15 Gy per day, in T2-T3 oropharyngeal carcinoma (excluding base of tongue), N0,N1 of less than 3 cm. From 1980 to 1987, 356 patients were entered. In the final analysis (June 1990), the local control was significantly higher (p = 0.02 log-rank) after HF compared with CF. At 5 years, 59% of patients are local disease-free in the HF arm compared to 40% in the CF arm. The superiority of HF was demonstrated in patients staged T3N0,T3N1 but not in T2. The Cox model confirmed that the treatment regimen was an independent significant prognostic factor for locoregional control (p = 0.007 log-rank). This improvement of locoregional control was responsible for a trend to an improved survival (p = 0.08 log-rank). There was no difference in late normal tissue damage between the two treatment modalities.

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Adult Patients With Cerebral Low-Grade Glioma

PURPOSE To identify prognostic factors for survival in adult patients with cerebral low-grade glioma (LGG), to derive a prognostic scoring system, and to validate results using an independent data set. PATIENTS AND METHODS European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22844 and EORTC trial 22845 are the largest phase III trials ever carried out in adult patients with LGG. The trials were designed to investigate the dosage and timing of postoperative radiotherapy in LGG. Cox analysis was performed on 322 patients from EORTC trial 22844 (construction set), and the results were validated on 288 patients from trial 22845 (validation set). Patients with pilocytic astrocytomas were excluded from this prognostic factor analysis. RESULTS Multivariate analysis on the construction set showed that age > or = 40 years, astrocytoma histology subtype, largest diameter of the tumor > or = 6 cm, tumor crossing the midline, and presence of neurologic deficit before surgery were unfavorable prognostic factors for survival. The total number of unfavorable factors present can be used to determine the prognostic score. Presence of up to two of these factors identifies the low-risk group, whereas a higher score identifies high-risk patients. The validity of the multivariate model and of the scoring system was confirmed in the validation set. CONCLUSION In adult patients with LGG, older age, astrocytoma histology, presence of neurologic deficits before surgery, largest tumor diameter, and tumor crossing the midline were important prognostic factors for survival. These factors can be used to identify low-risk and high-risk patients.