Search

PurposeThe RAZOR (Randomized Open versus Robotic Cystectomy) trial revealed noninferior 2-year progression-free survival for robotic radical cystectomy. This update was performed with extended followup for 3 years to determine potential differences between the approaches. We also report 3-year overall survival and sought to identify factors predicting recurrence, and progression-free and overall survival.Materials and methodsWe analyzed the per protocol population of 302 patients from the RAZOR study. Cumulative recurrence was estimated using nonbladder cancer death as the competing risk event and the Gray test was applied to assess significance in differences. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log rank test. Predictors of outcomes were determined by Cox proportional hazard analysis.ResultsEstimated progression-free survival at 36 months was 68.4% (95% CI 60.1-75.3) and 65.4% (95% CI 56.8-72.7) in the robotic and open groups, respectively (p=0.600). At 36 months overall survival was 73.9% (95% CI 65.5-80.5) and 68.5% (95% CI 59.8-75.7) in the robotic and open groups, respectively (p=0.334). There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence rates of recurrence (p=0.802). Patient age greater than 70 years, poor performance status and major complications were significant predictors of 36-month progression-free survival. Stage and positive margins were significant predictors of recurrence, and progression-free and overall survival. Surgical approach was not a significant predictor of any outcome.ConclusionsThis analysis showed no difference in recurrence, 3-year progression-free survival or 3-year overall survival for robotic vs open radical cystectomy. It provides important prospective data on the oncologic efficacy of robotic radical cystectomy and high level data for patient counseling.

PurposeGleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.Materials and methodsMembers of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.ResultsThe Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.ConclusionsThe definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening.

Intravesical therapy (IVT) is the standard of care to decrease risk of recurrence and progression for high‐grade nonmuscle‐invasive bladder cancer. However, post‐IVT recurrence remains common and the ability to risk‐stratify patients before or after IVT is limited. In this prospectively designed and accrued cohort study, we examine the utility of urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) for predicting recurrence risk following transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) and evaluating longitudinal IVT response. Urine was collected before and after IVT instillation and uCGP testing was done using the UroAmp™ platform. Baseline uCGP following TURBT identified patients with high (61%) and low (39%) recurrence risk. At 24 months, recurrence‐free survival (RFS) was 100% for low‐risk and 45% for high‐risk patients with a hazard ratio (HR) of 9.3. Longitudinal uCGP classified patients as minimal residual disease (MRD) Negative, IVT Responder, or IVT Refractory with 24‐month RFS of 100%, 50%, and 32%, respectively. Compared with MRD Negative patients, IVT Refractory patients had a HR of 10.5. Collectively, uCGP enables noninvasive risk assessment of patients following TURBT and induction IVT. uCGP could inform surveillance cystoscopy schedules and identify high‐risk patients in need of additional therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intraprostatic local radiorecurrence (LRR) after definitive radiation is being increasingly identified due to the implementation of molecular positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging for the evaluation of biochemical recurrence. Salvage high‐dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy offers a promising local therapy option, with encouraging toxicity and efficacy based on early series. Furthermore, the incorporation of advanced imaging allows for focal HDR to further reduce toxicity to maximise the therapeutic ratio. The objectives of the 'focal salvage HDR brachytherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer in patients treated with prior radiotherapy' (F‐SHARP) trial are to determine the acute and late toxicity and efficacy outcomes of focal salvage HDR brachytherapy for LRR prostate cancer. Study Design: The F‐SHARP is a multi‐institutional two‐stage Phase I/II clinical trial of salvage focal HDR brachytherapy for LRR prostate cancer enrolling patients at three centres. Endpoints: The primary endpoint is the acute radiation‐related Grade ≥3 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, version 4.03) genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity rate, defined as within 3 months of brachytherapy. Secondary endpoints include acute and late CTCAE toxicity, biochemical failure, patterns of clinical progression, disease‐specific and overall survival, and health‐related quality of life, as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score and 26‐item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite instruments. Patients and Methods: Key eligibility criteria include: biopsy confirmed LRR prostate adenocarcinoma after prior definitive radiation therapy using any radiotherapeutic modality, no evidence of regional or distant metastasis, and cT1–3a Nx or N0 prostate cancer at initial treatment. All patients will have multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and molecular PET/CT imaging if possible. In Stage 1, seven patients will be accrued. If there are two or more GI or GU Grade ≥3 toxicities, the study will be stopped. Otherwise, 17 additional patients will be accrued (total of 24 patients). For Stage 2, the cohort will expand to 62 subjects to study the efficacy outcomes, long‐term toxicity profile, quality of life, and compare single‐ vs multi‐fraction HDR. Transcriptomic analysis of recurrence biopsies will be performed to identify potential prognostic and predictive biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]