Steven Joniau

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVESnTo present a summary of the 2007 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa).nnnMETHODSnA 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.nnnRESULTSnA 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.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe 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.

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

OBJECTIVEnOur 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).nnnMETHODSnThe 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.nnnRESULTSnA 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.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe 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–ESTRO–SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVEnTo present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).nnnEVIDENCE ACQUISITIONnThe working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence.nnnEVIDENCE SYNTHESISnBRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patients wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).nnnPATIENT SUMMARYnThe 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men and predominantly affects older men (aged ≥70 years). The median age at diagnosis is 68 years; overall, two‐thirds of prostate cancer‐related deaths occur in men aged ≥75 years. With the exponential ageing of the population and the increasing life‐expectancy in developed countries, the burden of prostate cancer is expected to increase dramatically in the future. To date, no specific guidelines on the management of prostate cancer in older men have been published. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) conducted a systematic bibliographic search based on screening, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for localized and advanced prostate cancer, to develop a proposal for recommendations that should provide the highest standard of care for older men with prostate cancer. The consensus of the SIOG Prostate Cancer Task Force is that older men with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, which is mainly driven by the severity of associated comorbid conditions, and not according to chronological age. Existing international recommendations (European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Urological Association) are the backbone for localized and advanced prostate cancer treatment, but need to be adapted to patient health status. Based on a rapid and simple evaluation, patients can be classified into four different groups: 1, ‘Healthy’ patients (controlled comorbidity, fully independent in daily living activities, no malnutrition) should receive the same treatment as younger patients; 2, ‘Vulnerable’ patients (reversible impairment) should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; 3, ‘Frail’ patients (irreversible impairment) should receive adapted treatment; 4, Patients who are ‘too sick’ with ‘terminal illness’ should receive only symptomatic palliative treatment.

Mapping of Pelvic Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUNDnOpinions about the optimal lymph node dissection (LND) template in prostate cancer differ. Drainage and dissemination patterns are not necessarily identical.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo present a precise overview of the lymphatic drainage pattern and to correlate those findings with dissemination patterns. We also investigated the relationship between the number of positive lymph nodes (LN+) and resected lymph nodes (LNs) per region.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSnSeventy-four patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were prospectively enrolled. Patients did not show suspect LNs on computed tomography scan and had an LN involvement risk of ≥ 10% but ≤ 35% (Partin tables) or a cT3 tumor.nnnINTERVENTIONnAfter intraprostatic technetium-99m nanocolloid injection, patients underwent planar scintigraphy and single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. Then surgery was performed, starting with a sentinel node (SN) procedure and a superextended lymphadenectomy followed by radical prostatectomy.nnnOUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISnDistribution of scintigraphically detected SNs and removed SNs per region were registered. The number of LN+, as well as the percentage LN+ of the total number of removed LNs per region, was demonstrated in combining data of all patients. The impact of the extent of LND on N-staging and on the number of LN+ removed was calculated.nnnRESULTS AND LIMITATIONSnA total of 470 SNs were scintigraphically detected (median: 6; interquartile range [IQR]: 3-9), of which 371 SNs were removed (median: 4; IQR: 2.25-6). In total, 91 LN+ (median: 2; IQR: 1-3) were found in 34 of 74 patients. The predominant site for LN+ was the internal iliac region. An extended LND (eLND) would have correctly staged 32 of 34 patients but would have adequately removed all LN+ in only 26 of 34 patients. When adding the presacral region, these numbers increased to 33 of 34 and 30 of 34 patients, respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnStandard eLND would have correctly staged the majority of LN+ patients, but 13% of the LN+ would have been missed. Adding the presacral LNs to the template should be considered to obtain a minimal template with maximal gain. NOTE: This manuscript was invited based on the 2011 European Association of Urology meeting in Vienna.

Outcome Predictors of Radical Prostatectomy in Patients With Prostate-Specific Antigen Greater Than 20 ng/ml: A European Multi-Institutional Study of 712 Patients

BACKGROUNDnProstate cancer (PCa) patients with pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/ml have a high risk of biochemical and clinical failure and even cancer-related death after local therapy. Pretreatment predictors of outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP) in this patient group are necessary.nnnOBJECTIVEnOur aim was to assess how the use of additional high-risk factors (biopsy Gleason score [bGS] > or = 8 or clinical stage 3-4) can improve prediction of treatment failure and cancer-related death after RP in patients with PSA >20.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSnIn a retrospective multicentre cohort study from six European centres between 1987 and 2005, 712 patients with PSA >20 ng/ml underwent RP and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy.nnnMEASUREMENTSnSubgroups were analysed to determine the relationship between the number of high-risk factors and histopathology, biochemical progression-free survival, clinical evidence of progressive disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and Cox multivariable analysis were applied.nnnRESULTS AND LIMITATIONSnMedian follow-up was 77 mo. The number of high-risk factors was significantly associated with unfavourable histopathology. Among patients with only PSA >20 ng/ml, 33% had pT2 PCa, 57.9% had bGS <7, 54% had negative surgical margins, and 85% were lymph node negative (pN0), whereas among patients with all three high-risk factors, 4.5% had pT2 PCa, 2.3% had bGS <7, 20.5% had negative margins, and 49% were pN0 (p<0.001). The strongest predictor of progression and mortality was bGS. PSA >20 ng/ml associated with bGS < or =7 resulted in 10-yr PCSM of 5%; when associated with bGS > or =8, PCSM was 35%. The main limitations of the study were retrospective design and varying treatment modalities.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPCa patients with PSA >20 ng/ml have varying risk levels of disease progression and PCSM. Considering additional risk factors further stratifies this group into four subgroups that can guide the clinician in preoperative patient counselling.

Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high‐risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy

Study Type – Therapy (outcomes research)

Identifying the Best Candidate for Radical Prostatectomy Among Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUNDnThe current role of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with high-risk disease remains controversial.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo identify which high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients might have favorable pathologic outcomes when surgically treated.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSnWe evaluated 1366 patients with high-risk PCa (ie, at least one of the following risk factors: prostate-specific antigen [PSA]>20 ng/ml, cT3, biopsy Gleason 8-10) treated with RP and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at eight European centers between 1987 and 2009. A favorable pathologic outcome was defined as specimen-confined (SC) disease-namely, pT2-pT3a, node negative PCa with negative surgical margins.nnnINTERVENTIONnAll patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and PLND.nnnMEASUREMENTSnUnivariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested the association between predictors and SC disease. A logistic regression coefficient-based nomogram was developed and internally validated using 200 bootstrap resamples. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to depict biochemical recurrence (BCR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates.nnnRESULTS AND LIMITATIONSnOverall, 505 of 1366 patients (37%) had SC disease at RP. All preoperative variables (ie, age and PSA at surgery, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason sum) were independent predictors of SC PCa at RP (all p≤0.04). Patients with SC disease had significantly higher 10-yr BCR-free survival and CSS rates than patients without SC disease at RP (66% vs 47% and 98 vs 88%, respectively; all p<0.001). A nomogram including PSA, age, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason sum demonstrated 72% accuracy in predicting SC PCa. This study is limited by its retrospective design and by the lack of an external validation of the nomogram.nnnCONCLUSIONSnRoughly 40% of patients with high-risk PCa have SC disease at final pathology. These patients showed excellent long-term outcomes when surgically treated, thus representing the ideal candidates for RP as the primary treatment for PCa. Prediction of such patients is possible using a nomogram based on routinely available clinical parameters.

Guía de la EAU sobre el cáncer de próstata. Parte I: cribado, diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer clínicamente localizado

OBJECTIVEnOur 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).nnnMETHODSnThe 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.nnnRESULTSnA 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 74Gy and 78Gy 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.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe 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.

Impact of Age and Comorbidities on Long-term Survival of Patients with High-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-institutional Competing-risks Analysis.

BACKGROUNDnSurvival after surgical treatment using competing-risk analysis has been previously examined in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). However, the combined effect of age and comorbidities has not been assessed in patients with high-risk PCa who might have heterogeneous rates of competing mortality despite the presence of aggressive disease.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo examine the risk of 10-yr cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) according to clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk PCa.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSnWithin a multi-institutional cohort, 3828 men treated with RP for high-risk PCa (defined as the presence of at least one of these risk factors: prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score 8-10, clinical stage ≥ T3) were identified.nnnINTERVENTIONnAll patients underwent RP and pelvic lymph node dissection.nnnOUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISnCompeting-risk Poisson regression analyses were performed to simultaneously assess the 10-yr CSM and OCM rates after RP. The same analyses were also conducted after stratification of patients according to age at surgery, comorbidity status assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and number of risk factors (one vs two or more).nnnRESULTS AND LIMITATIONSnOverall, 229 patients (5.9%) died from PCa; 549 (14.3%) died from other causes. The 10-yr CSM and OCM rates ranged from 5.1% to 12.8% and from 4.3% to 37.4%, respectively. Age and CCI were the major determinants of OCM; their impact on CSM was minimal. OCM was the leading cause of death in all patient groups except in young men (≤ 59 yr) with no comorbidities, regardless of the number of risk factors (10-yr CSM and OCM 6.9-12.8% and 5.5-6.3%, respectively). The main limitation was the lack of patients managed conservatively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnEven in the context of high-risk PCa, long-term CSM after RP is modest and represents the leading cause of death only in young, healthy patients. Conversely, older and sicker patients with multiple risk factors are at the highest risk of dying from OCM while sharing very low CSM rates.