Why did biochemical control not translate into a survival increase after brachy boost therapy?

The first randomized clinical trial to prove that brachy boost (BB) therapy had better oncological outcomes among high risk patients was Sathya et al. (2005). After 5 years, 36% of those high-risk patients who received the brachy boost had a PSA recurrence vs. 66% of those who received external beam radiation (EBRT) only. In an update, the authors report that overall survival was not significantly different in the two groups. This seems to call into question whether PSA recurrence is a useful surrogate endpoint for survival, or if it is, under what circumstances?

Dayes et al. provided a 14-year median update on the original study and added further comments in this "Beyond the Abstract" essay. The 104 patients in the original study who were treated between 1992 and 1997 had the following characteristics and treatments:

• Median age was 66
• 60% were high risk, 40% intermediate risk
• All had a negative pelvic lymph node dissection, negative bone scan and CT
• Brachy boost (BB) comprised 35 Gy of Ir 192 over 48 hours plus 40 Gy of EBRT in 20 fractions for a total of 75 Gy [sic].
• EBRT-only compromised 66 Gy delivered in 33 fractions using 2DRT (an outmoded external beam technology).
• None received androgen deprivation as part of their radiation therapy, nor afterwards unless PSA reached 20 ng/ml.

As of the update on the 104 patients (with only 5 lost to follow-up):

• Mortality from any cause was 67% among the BB patients, 77% among the EBRT-only patients -- not significantly different
• Prostate cancer-specific mortality was 18% among the BB patients, 23% among the EBRT-only patients - not significantly different
• Incidence of metastases was 20% among the BB patients, 28% among the EBRT-only patients - not significantly different
• Improvement in PSA control was maintained: 47% higher rate of biochemical recurrence-free survival among the BB group

There was a biopsy given 2 years after treatment to 87 of the 104 men in the original study

• In the BB group, 24% had a positive biopsy and 6% were metastatic
• In the EBRT-only group, 51% had a positive biopsy and 6% were metastatic

The authors conclude:

Despite ongoing benefit with respect to biochemical disease control, long term follow up out to 2 decades failed to demonstrate improvements in other important outcomes such as development of metastatic disease, deaths from prostate cancer and deaths from any cause. 

Increased biochemical (PSA) control usually translates into increased survival later on. That correlation is well-characterized. So why did it not in this case?

This study, with a sample size of only 104 (51 BB, 53 EBRT-only), was not large enough to detect statistically significant survival differences. We note that directionally there was an improvement in survival even though the difference wasn't big enough for 95% confidence. Also, 40% were intermediate risk patients who are slower to have detectable metastases and are more likely to die of other causes. By contrast, the ASCENDE-RT trial of LDR brachy boost therapy recruited 398 men, 30% were intermediate risk, and may eventually be able to demonstrate overall survival differences with longer follow-up.

We have to acknowledge that the doses delivered in this study were below what is now considered curative, and the findings here are to a large extent irrelevant. I am at a loss to explain how a hot iridium implant could be left in a patient for 48 hrs without doing serious damage or cooking the prostate to a crisp.  Perhaps they used cooler implants back then.  I can only trust that Dr. Sathya is correct in not making a correction for the lack of fractionation, which would be typical. It seems the BB dose was sub-optimal as demonstrated by the fact that in a quarter of men, the cancer was left alive in the prostate. EBRT-only was worse - leaving cancer alive in the prostates of twice as many men. Although they dissected some pelvic lymph nodes that they could find, we now know that even with improved modern lymph node detection methods, we miss 44% of positive lymph nodes (see this link). The 6% who were metastatic might have been caught with some of our new PET scans. So, in both groups, there was a lot of cancer left behind. Many high-risk radiation patients today would have had whole-pelvic radiation and would have had hormone therapy for up to two years. This highlights the importance of expanding the treated area, using escalated doses, and adding systemic therapy when the probability is high that the cancer might have escaped the prostate.

Even though BB wasn't curative for many high risk patients, it is disappointing that death was not delayed by reducing the tumor burden. There are several clinical trials of treating the prostate (with surgery or radiation) even after metastases have been detected, thereby hoping to prolong survival by reducing the load of cancer cells. Metastasis-directed radiation is sometimes given in this hope as well. Both of those therapies decrease PSA, at least temporarily. But only treating PSA serves no purpose if that is the only outcome. If this study is any indication, the cancer will catch up and replace the killed cells with no net survival benefit. I hope that is not the case.

How anticipating regret and quick decisions can lead to poor decision making

An essay in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the cognitive components of regret. They opine that regret always involves self-recrimination and not just disappointment over poorer than expected outcomes.

They breakdown treatment regret into different causes:

• "Process Regret" occurs when patients do not consider information about all available choices before making a decision.
• "Role Regret" arises when a patient gives in to pressure from others to change his decision.
• Active decisions can lead to more regret than passive decisions when the outcome turns out poorly.
• "Omission Bias" is the tendency to avoid active decisions, even when in our best interest.
• "Commission bias" may occur when the patient is distraught and believes that immediate decisive action is needed.
• Regret is lower when things are going poorly anyway; higher when there is a downturn of fortunes.

But there is another kind of regret that is equally counterproductive. In fact, it can lead to our making poor treatment decisions. "Anticipated regret," the fear of future self-recrimination, can cripple the patient's decision process, and ironically lead to "treatment regret" farther down the road. They offer the following advice to physicians, but I think that we as peers should heed it as well:

"We should recognize that anticipated regret can leave a patient mired in decisional conflict, unable to choose. For these patients, it is vital to bring anticipated regret to the surface by openly discussing their fears and helping them gain a clear perspective on the risks and benefits of their options in order to move forward. To mitigate the possibility of future experienced regret, we as doctors can try to reduce the emotional temperature and, when feasible, avoid having patients make their decisions while in a hot state. Except in the most urgent circumstances, physicians can set in motion a deliberate process, exploring all treatment options to avert process regret. When patients are heavily influenced by others in making a decision, we can also be alert to the possibility of role regret.

Here's their essay.

My personal belief is that regret - either of the past or anticipated - is a destructive emotion that causes distress. The best way I know to avoid it is by practicing Mindfulness to keep us in the present moment as much as possible and less in an a past that we can no longer change or a future that we cannot reliably anticipate.

I have also come to believe that no doctor ought to accept as final any prostate cancer primary treatment decision made by a low, intermediate or high risk patient within a month of receiving his diagnosis, and preferably within 3 months. The emotional temperature has too strong an effect on decision making, and time is our friend in this regard. Similarly, doctors should insist that second opinions have been acquired.

A new study by Hirasawa et al. confirms others that demonstrate that waiting 6 months or more (median 7.6 months) from biopsy to surgery among patients with localized prostate cancer (low risk to high risk) had no effect on 5 year rates of biochemical recurrence. It also had no effect on whether nerve bundles were spared, pathological upgrading or upstaging, positive margins, or positive lymph node detection. A similar study has demonstrated the same thing when the eventual treatment choice was radiation, comparing  those who waited more than 3 months with those who had treatment within 3 months,. There is no medical reason to rush this primary treatment decision.

Does Lu-177-PSMA-617 increase survival?

We have enthusiastically reported the encouraging outcomes of the early clinical trials of the radiopharmaceutical Lu-177-PSMA, most recently at this link. Based on reduction in PSA, it performs well. But medicines have no real benefit if all they do is treat PSA. We want medicines that increase survival.

Rahbar et al. reported the outcomes of 104 patients treated with Lu-177-PSMA-617 at University Hospital Muenster, Germany. All patients had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and had already received docetaxel and at least one of abiraterone or enzalutamide. After the first of an average of 3.5 cycles, they had the following outcomes:

• 67% of patients had some PSA decline
• 33% of patients had a PSA decline of at least 50%
• Median overall survival was 56 weeks (13 months)

The authors conclude:

177Lu-PSMA-617 RLT is a new effective therapeutic and seems to prolong survival in patients with advanced mCRPC pretreated with chemotherapy, abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. 

But is this conclusion justified? It's hard to know without a prospective clinical trial where patients are randomized to receive the radiopharmaceutical or standard-of-care. The best we can do is look at the overall survival from clinical trials involving patients with symptomatic mCRPC. In the "ALSYMPCA" trial of Xofigo, among the subgroup of patients who had received docetaxel for their painful mCRPC (see this link), overall survival was:

• 14 months with Xofigo
• 11 months with placebo

The ALSYMPCA trial was conducted before abiraterone and enzalutamide were approved, so it is impossible to know how prior treatment with one of those might have changed survival. There have been a couple of small trials of "third-line" medicines after docetaxel and abiraterone were used.

In a non-randomized trial among 24 mCRPC patients after treatment with docetaxel and abiraterone, overall survival was:

• 9 months with cabazitaxel

In a Danish study among 24 mCRPC patients after treatment with docetaxel and abiraterone, overall survival was:

• 5 months with enzalutamide

So these data suggest that Lu-177-PSMA-617 may have prolonged life more than third-line treatment with another taxane or another hormonal agent. However, we expect much cross-resistance between abiraterone and enzalutamide, and resistance building up with prolonged use of taxanes. It is always hazardous to compare patient outcomes or declare success when they have not been randomized. Certainly there is enough suggestive data to warrant a Phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Record 10-year SBRT study among low risk patients

Alan Katz has now published the study with the longest-running follow-up of any study of external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer among low risk patients, in this case, using SBRT. 10-year follow-up among intermediate and high-risk patients will be presented at next year's ASTRO meeting. This study ties in longest length of follow-up with the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) study of IMRT. IMRT involves 40-45 radiation treatments over the course of about 9 weeks; SBRT shortens the number of treatments to 4 or 5 over the course of about 11 days.

Focusing on their low risk cohort only, the Katz study has a distinct advantage over the MSK study in sample size:

• The Katz study started with 230 low risk patients and, because of later start dates and some loss to follow-up, had 57 evaluable low-risk patients who were tracked for 10 years.
• The MSK study started with 49 low risk patients and, because of later start dates and loss to follow-up, ended with only 2 patients tracked for 10 years.
• Median follow-up was 108 months for Katz and 99 months for MSK

The IMRT study used a prescribed dose of 81 Gy in 45 fractions. The Katz study used a dose of 35 Gy in 5 fractions on 42 patients and 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions on 188 patients (average = 36 Gy). The biologically effective dose for cancer control was 17% higher in the Katz study.

It is risky to compare SBRT and IMRT when patients are not randomized to treatment with one or the other. There has been such a randomized trial, and partial results have been reported (see this link). The median age was the same in both studies (69 years of age), and the same definitions for the low risk category, and for biochemical failure were used. To highlight some of the differences and similarities in outcome:

• 10-year biochemical disease-free survival was 94% for Katz vs. 81% for MSK
• 10-year distant metastasis free-survival was 98.4% for Katz and 100% for MSK
• No prostate cancer-related deaths at 10 years in either study

Late-term urinary and rectal side effects were infrequent and mild in both studies:

• Late-term urinary side effects:
• Grade 2: 9%, Grade 3: 3% in the Katz study
• Grade 2: 9%, Grade 3: 5% in the MSK study
• Late-term rectal side effects:
• Grade 2: 4%, Grade 3: 0% in the Katz study
• Grade 2: 2%, Grade 3: 1% in the MSK study

Of those who were previously potent before radiation, 56% were potent (sufficient for intercourse) 10 years later (median age 79) in both studies.

Other interesting outcomes of the Katz study included:

• Median PSA fell to 0.1 ng/ml after a median of 48 months
• 21% experienced a PSA bounce along the way.
• Cure rates were independent of whether patients received 35 Gy or 36.25 Gy
• Urinary toxicity was higher in the group that got the higher dose
• Rectal toxicity was no different in the two groups
• Patient-evaluated urinary and rectal function declined acutely but returned to baseline within a year
• Sexual function declined by 23% at 6-12 months, and continued to decline by 38% by 8 years. It is unknown what percent of that decline was age related (but see this link).

Looking at the higher local control rates of SBRT and HDR brachytherapy, Dr. Katz sees evidence that IMRT is sub-optimal in delivering biological effective dose. He also believes that no more than 35 Gy in 5 fractions is necessary to achieve that control, and that it would minimize side effects.

Of course, probably half of the low risk men in this study might have gone those ten years without needing any kind of treatment at all. But for those who may not want or may not be good candidates for active surveillance, SBRT is a low cost, low bother, low side-effect alternative that delivers high rates of long-term oncological control.

Amazingly, I still hear that there are insurance companies that will not cover SBRT because longer follow-up is needed. Dr. Katz had already reported the nine-year follow-up (see this link), and with this addition and the 10-year higher-risk update at ASTRO next year, it's hard to see what any objection might be.

Dr. Katz is to be congratulated for continuing to update his study for 10 years. It is a lot of work to follow up with so many patients, and collect and tabulate their reported outcomes. He is a radiation oncologist not associated with a large tertiary care facility that might have more resources at its disposal.

A new Lu-177-PSMA ligand has good results in a new study

Targeted nuclear medicine has shown some impressive outcomes in several small studies, mostly conducted in Germany. Most of the studies have used a radioactive beta-particle emitter, Lutetium 177, attached to a ligand that has high and specific affinity for prostate cancer cells. Most medicines developed for this purpose have a ligand that attaches to Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA), a protein found on 90% of all prostate cancer cells. The ligand for Lu-177-PSMA has to have a "grappling hook" on one end (called a chelator) that holds onto the Lu-177. On the other end is a "magnet" of sorts that binds tightly to the PSMA. The beta particles then kill the cell that the ligand attaches to and some nearby cells as well.

There are also ligands that attach to prostate cancer proteins other than PSMA, and radioactive elements other than Lu-177 that are in clinical trials. This is a rapidly developing field.

The new ligand is called PSMA-I&T (imaging and therapy) or sometimes PSMA-DOTAGA. The ligand used in most of the other studies was PSMA-617 (also known as PSMA-DKFZ) or PSMA-J591. The ideal ligand attaches strongly to PSMA in prostate cancer tumors and to nothing else. Importantly, it should not accumulate in the kidneys to a great extent because it could damage them.

Last year, the Central Clinic of Bad Berka, Germany reported on 56 patients treated with Lu-177-PSMA-I&T (see this link). 80% of treated patients had a PSA response and toxicity was minor. Heck et al.  at the Technical University of Munich reported on 19 metastatic castration-resistant patients who were treated with 7.4 GBq per cycle and up to 4 cycles.

• In 56%, PSA decreased by at least 30%
• In 33%, PSA decreased by at least 50%
• In 11%, PSA decreased by at least 90%
• Complete remission of metastases in 5%
• Metastases stayed stable in 63%
• Metastases progressed in 32%
• Performance status was stable or improved in 74%
• In those with bone pain, it was reduced partially or completely in 58%
• Mild (Grade 1 or 2) toxicities included dry mouth (37%), anemia (32%), and platelet loss (25%)
• There were no severe (Grade 3 or 4) toxicities.
• There was no kidney toxicity up to 40 GBq (see this link)

(Update 11/2018) Heck et al. updated the above with information on 100 patients. They were heavily pre-treated with a median of 3 pre-treatments. In fact, they were required to have had Zytiga or Xtandi, and at least one cycle of taxane chemo. They were all mCRPC and 35% had visceral metastases. They may have had up to 6 cycles of Lu-177-PSMA-617 (average was 3.2 cycles).

• In 38%, PSA decreased by at least 50%
• Median clinical progression-free survival was 4.1 months
• Median overall survival was 12.9 months
• Treatment-emergent hematologic grade 3/4 toxicities were anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and neutropenia (6%)

A meta-analysis looked at the PSMA-I&T and PSMA-617 ligands in relation to the PSMA-J591 ligand. With a combined sample size of 369 patients across 10 studies, Calopedos et al. reported that:

• 68% of patients had some PSA decline
• 37% of patients had a PSA decline of at least 50%
• More patients had a PSA decline with the PSMA-I&T and PSMA-617 ligands, but there was a wide range of outcomes

These early indicators look good. Even if it just stabilizes performance status and mitigates bone pain in these end-stage patients, there is an important benefit. Of course, what we really want to see is evidence that it increases overall survival

While PSMA-I&T was developed to be a good ligand for imaging purposes as well as therapeutic purposes, a recent study found that, when used with Ga-68 (a positron emitter), PSMA-HBED-CC (also known as PSMA-11) was slightly better at detecting metastases (see this link). Another PSMA ligand, DCFPyL, that incorporates the positron emitter F18 into the ligand more tightly (avoiding chelation, which can easily be reversed), seems to be superior to the Ga-68-PSMA-HBED-CC PET tracer (see this link). Both DCFPyL PET and Ga-68-HBED-CC PET are in numerous clinical trials in the US and Canada. Lu-177 is a gamma emitter that can be seen by a gamma camera or via SPECT. However, it is usually used in conjunction with a positron-emitter in order to obtain a superior image.

Readers may wish to read these other articles on this subject:

Will Lutetium-177-anti-PSMA be the next Xofigo?
Lu-177-PSMA update
Lu-177-PSMA: another update
First in-human trial of Actinium-225-PSMA-617
Ac-225-PSMA-617 extends survival (update)
Ac-225-PSMA-617 (update)
I-131-MIP-135, a new radiopharmaceutical, in clinical trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering

Focal salvage ablation for radio-recurrent prostate cancer

When there is a recurrence after primary radiation treatment, it is very tempting to try to identify the site(s) of local recurrence within the prostate and prostate bed and only treat those. The hope is that we can destroy any remaining cancer while keeping toxicity to the bladder, rectum, and neurovascular bundles to a minimum. The alternative to treating just the identifiable recurrence sites (focal or hemi-gland treatment) is to treat the whole gland. We saw that whole gland re-treatment with brachytherapy or SBRT seems to have good oncological and toxicity outcomes. But the standard of care, other than salvage surgery, has been salvage whole gland cryotherapy.

Cryotherapy is one kind of tissue ablation technique - it irreversibly destroys prostate tissue, both healthy and cancerous. Other kinds of ablation techniques include High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), Photodynamic Therapy (PDT), and Focal Laser Ablation (FLA). There have been small clinical trials of a few types of salvage focal ablation.

Focal Cryotherapy

Abreu et al. compared outcomes of 25 patients who had hemi-gland cryotherapy to 25 patients who had whole gland cryotherapy between 2003 and 2010.

• 5-year biochemical failure free rate was 54% in the hemi-gland group and 86% in the whole gland group.
• New incontinence afflicted none of the hemi-gland group and 13% of the whole gland group.
• Potency preservation occurred in 2 of 7 in the hemi-gland group, but none of the whole gland group
• Fistula occurred in none of the hemi-gland group and in one patient in the whole gland group.

Li et al. reported the COLD Registry data on on 91 radio-recurrent patients treated with salvage focal cryotherapy between 2002 and 2012.

• 3-year biochemical disease-free survival was 72%
• 5-year biochemical disease-free survival was 47%
• 4 of 14 patients (29%) had positive biopsies
• 3 patients (3%) suffered a fistula
• 6 patients (7%) suffered urinary retention
• 5 patients (6%) suffered incontinence requiring pads
• Half of previously potent patients were able to have intercourse.

Weske et al. reported on 55 radio-recurrent patients treated with salvage focal cryotherapy at Columbia University Medical Center between 1994 and 2011.

• 5-year disease-free survival was 47%
• 10-year disease-free survival was 42%

While whole gland salvage had very good oncological results, the toxicity was unacceptable. Focal therapy has undoubtedly improved over the years, but oncological results could be a lot better, and potency preservation was poor. Could another kind of focal ablation do better?

Focal HIFU

The Ahmed/Emberton group in the UK reported the outcomes 150 radio-recurrent men treated with focal HIFU between 2006 and 2015.

• 3-year biochemical failure free survival was 48%
• 100% for low risk patients
• 61% for intermediate risk patients
• 32% for high risk patients
• 3-year composite endpoint-free survival was 40% (endpoints= PSA recurrence+positive imaging+positive biopsy+systemic therapy+metastasis detected+death from prostate cancer)
• 100% for low risk patients
• 49% for intermediate risk patients
• 24% for high risk patients
• Complications included: 
• urinary tract infection in 11%
• bladder neck stricture in 8%
• fistula in 2%
• inflammation around the pubic bone in 1 patient
• They did not report potency preservation

Focal Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)

IRE or NanoKnife has gained interest because it is less of a thermal-type ablation than cryotherapy or HIFU. (See this link and this one for recent reports on its use as a primary therapy.) It is not FDA-approved for use in the US, so its use is limited to clinical trials. An Australian group working under Phillip Stricker, conducted a pilot test on 18 radio-recurrent patients.

With median 21 month follow-up, Scheltema et al. reported:

• 85% (11 of 13 patients) had mpMRI-undetectable cancer in the ablation zone
• 1 had an out-of-field recurrence
• 1 had a false-positive out-of-field recurrence
• Biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) was 83% using the nadir+2 definition and 78% using the nadir+1.2 definition.
• 80% had biopsy-proven no evidence of disease on follow-up
• Incontinence requiring pads was suffered by 27%
• Potency preservation was reported by 33% (2 of 6 patients)

Salvage Surgery

For comparison, it is useful to note the outcomes of salvage surgery in radio-recurrent patients. In a recent meta-analysis, Matei et al. show that the 5-year biochemical recurrence free survival is about 50%. Incontinence rates among patients of surgeons who reported on 25 or more salvage surgeries was 47%. Erectile dysfunction was most often 100% (range 72-100%). Other serious complications included anastomotic stricture (closing off of the urethra where it was re-joined) in 18%, and rectal injury in 7%.

Salvage surgery sets a low bar.

Salvage Whole Gland Ablation

As another point of comparison, we can briefly look at the outcomes of salvage whole gland ablation. In two meta-analyses, Mouraviev et al. and Finley and Belldegrun looked at outcomes of salvage whole gland cryoablation. Focusing on the most recent trials, which used the most recent technology, biochemical failure-free rates ranged from 50% to 74%. In the study with the longest follow-up, Chin et al. reported biochemical failure free rates of 34% at 10 years and 23% at 15 years. Using up-to-date techniques, incontinence rates average 22% and impotence was mostly in the 60-80% range.

Crouzet et al. reported on 418 radio-recurrent patients treated with salvage HIFU from 1995-2009.
The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival was 58%, 51% and 36% for patients who were low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, before their primary treatment. 42% suffered incontinence requiring pad use, 8% required an artificial urinary sphincter, 18% suffered bladder outlet obstruction or stenosis, 2% suffered a fistula, and 2% suffered pubic bone osteitis. They did not evaluate erectile function, but in primary whole-gland HIFU treatment, about 60% of previously potent men had diminished potency after treatment. We would expect further loss of erectile function after salvage treatment.

Importance of Imaging

Good imaging is critical to the success of any salvage therapy after radiation failure. A full body PET scan with CT or MRI must be used to rule out distant metastases. The newly approved Axumin PET scan, now becoming widely available, has good detection rates (89%) when PSA is above 2.0 ng/ml, as it is at the time of a biochemical recurrence after primary radiotherapy. The biochemical failure-free survival (bFFS) numbers are sure to improve over time due to better selection of salvageable cases.

The other use of imaging is to detect the site of recurrence within the prostate. This may be followed with a multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy or a template-mapping biopsy to precisely localize the cancer for focal ablation.

Caveats

It is only since multiparametric MRIs and better PET scans became prevalent that researchers realized that up to half of post-radiation recurrences are local (see this link). Therefore, it is relatively recently that investigators started to explore salvage therapies beyond salvage surgery and salvage cryoablation. Consequently, the sample size and the length of follow-up in many clinical trials is too small to draw reliable conclusions. The Chin et al. study demonstrates that treatment failures may not show up for 15 years. Whether those late failures are due to occult metastases or incomplete salvage ablation in that early trial is unknown.

We do not yet have a consensus on how to measure success. Researchers often use the Phoenix criterion (nadir+2) that was developed for external beam radiation. Some argue that the Stuttgart criterion (nadir + 1.2) which was developed for primary ablation therapy is a better measure. Because nadir PSA of 0.5 or less after radiotherapy is prognostic for long-term success, many look for that benchmark. Certainly, follow-up mpMRI and targeted biopsy are prudent steps to take 2 years after salvage ablation. However, it is necessary to have a radiologist and pathologist who are practiced at reading an mpMRI and biopsy, respectively, after both radiotherapy and ablation. There are few in the US who meet that qualification.

Another caveat is technological evolution and the learning curve. Cryotherapy is now using third-generation machines that are increasingly precise at forming "ice balls" while protecting nearby healthy tissue. HIFU is in its second generation, and IRE is relatively new. As technologies evolve and as practitioners gain more experience, we expect to see more complete ablation of the cancer and more sparing of the bladder and neurovascular bundles. Studies with longer follow-up may have used machines that are now obsolete. Studies with short follow-up may reflect practitioners on the beginning of their learning curve.

Focal ablation as primary therapy often (20-30% of the time) requires "re-dos." The retreatment may be necessitated by incomplete ablation within the ablation zone or missed bits of recurrent cancer outside of  the ablation zone. Multiple treatments undoubtedly add to cost and toxicity. Follow-up is too short for most studies to know what the eventual "re-do" rate will be.

Summary Table

Below is a table showing some oncological and toxicity outcomes for select studies of various salvage therapies after primary radiation failure. It is meant to be illustrative only - patient selection varied widely. My main purpose is to help patients understand the wide range of salvage therapies, other than salvage surgery and salvage whole gland cryotherapy, that are now becoming available to them.

	Length of follow-up	Number in trial	bFFS	Grade 3 or 4 urinary toxicity	Impotence	Reference
SBRT (whole gland)	2 years	29	82%	6%	60%	1
HDR brachy (whole gland)	3 years	61	60%	2%	NA	2
LDR brachy (whole gland)	3 years	37	60%	NA	NA	2
LDR brachy after LDR brachy (focal)	3 years	15	73%	none	13%	3
HDR brachy (focal)	3 years	15	61%	7%	NA	4
Cryo (focal)	5 years	91	47%	16%	50%	5
HIFU (focal)	3 years	150	48%	NA	NA	6
IRE (focal)	21 months	18	83%	27%	67%	7
Surgery	50 months average	1407 (32-404 in each)	~50%	65%	72%-100%	8
Cryo (whole gland)	45 months average	1385 (12-121 in each)	50%-74%	22%	60%-80%	9
HIFU (whole gland)	5 years	418	58% LR 51% IR 36% HR	62%	> 60%	10

Previous articles on the subject of salvage after primary radiation:
Local recurrence (Mayo)
Local recurrence (MSK)
Salvage SBRT
Salvage HDRBT and LDRBT
Salvage LDRBT after LDRBT
Salvage whole gland cryo

The myth that younger men should not pursue active surveillance

In spite of no evidence to back up their assertion, I continue to hear urologists say things like "If you were older, I'd recommend active surveillance. But because you're young, you should have surgery for your low risk prostate cancer now while your recovery will be better." We saw, in a previous article, that immediate surgery rather than active surveillance only resulted in more years of expected misery from impotence and incontinence: see: "Can a man be too young for active surveillance?"

Now, a new study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center examines the evidence for potency preservation. The authors, who include John Mulhall, the sexual medicine specialist, demonstrate that the expected loss of erectile function is never compensated for by better recovery in younger men and the age-related decline in erectile function over the years while waiting on active surveillance.

They used a standard questionnaire, the International Index of Erectile Function 6 (IIEF6). It is sometimes called the Sexual Health Inventory for men (SHIM). There are six questions, and the best score (excellent erectile function) is 30. The questions are:

1. Over the last month, how often were you able to get an erection during sexual activity?
2. Over the last month, when you had erections with sexual stimulation, how often were your erections hard enough for penetration?
3. Over the last month, when you attempted intercourse, how often were you able to penetrate your partner?
4. Over the last month, during sexual intercourse, how often were you able to maintain your erection after you had penetrated your partner?
5. Over the last month, during sexual intercourse, how difficult was it to maintain your erection to completion of intercourse?
15. Over the last month, how do you rate your confidence that you can get and keep your erection?

All men filled out the questionnaire before surgery and periodically for two years. They excluded high risk patients who wouldn't be eligible for active surveillance, and any men who did not have bilateral nerve-sparing surgery. Men who had hormone therapy or salvage radiation were also excluded. There were 1,103 men in their cohort of men treated with RP at MSKCC between 2009-2013. Needless to say, MSKCC has some of the best, most experienced surgeons in the world.

They first looked at the baseline scores by age to get an understanding of how erectile function declines with age. This defines the expected erectile function if there were no surgery. They also looked at actual scores after surgery for each age. The difference between actual and expected shows the true effect of surgery on erectile function, with compensation for age-related decline and for the time delay caused by active surveillance.

They found that:

• Each year increase in age reduced the IIEF6 score by -0.27
• Erectile function recovery after RP declined by -0.16 for each year older at the age of treatment

While younger men started with a higher erectile function score, and their recovery after RP was better, it was never good enough to be better than the erectile function of an older man who didn't have surgery. At all time points, they would have been better off if they had delayed treatment and stayed on active surveillance. There was no "window of opportunity" where younger age recovery exceeded what would be expected to happen if they waited.

The authors conclude:

Small differences in erectile function recovery in younger men are offset by a longer period of time living with decreased postoperative function. Better erectile recovery in younger men should not be a factor used to recommend immediate surgery in patients suitable for active surveillance, even if crossover to surgery is predicted within a short period of time.

I hope patients whose urologists spout the myth that "early surgery will lead to better long-term erectile function than delaying until he is older" will email this important study to them and ask for comment.

After failure of first-line radiation, both kinds of salvage brachytherapy are equally effective

A group of researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) reported in 2014 (see this link) on the outcomes of 42 patients with radio-recurrent prostate cancer treated with salvage high dose rate brachytherapy (sHDR-BT). The results were quite good - over two thirds had no evidence of further recurrence as of 5 years, and grade 3 toxicity (serious, requiring treatment) was limited to one patient with late-term urinary incontinence. Kollmeier et al. have now updated their results and compared them with outcomes of men treated with salvage low dose rate brachytherapy (sLDR-BT).

All patients were treated between 2003 and 2015, and all salvage treatments were whole gland, not focal or hemi-gland.

• 37 patients received sLDR-BT
• 61 received sHDR-BT
• 45% received adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)
• All patients were screened for distant metastases with a CT or MRI and a bone scan at least
• All patients had biopsy-confirmed cancer in the prostate

After a median follow-up up 31 months:

• 3-year PSA relapse-free survival (RFS) was 60%
• Both therapies were similar
• RFS=39% for those with PSA doubling times (PSADT) less than 1 year vs. 72% for those with PSADTs of a year or more.
• No statistically significant differences in urinary or rectal toxicity between the two therapies: most returned to baseline function.
• sLDR-BT had a higher rate of acute urinary toxicity
• Erectile function was not measured because of high rates of pre-existing impotence and ADT usage

In the Fuller study of salvage SBRT (see this link), bRFS was 82% at 2 years, and ADT was not used. NIH will soon begin recruitment for a clinical trial of salvage SBRT (NCT03253744), which includes detection using the DCFPyL PET/CT - the best of the new generation. Dr. Kollmeier mentioned that MSKCC has treated a few select patients with salvage SBRT as well. They are also looking at using a more tailored approach: adding systemic therapy for higher grade recurrences and focal/hemi-gland treatment for less aggressive cases. MSKCC is on the leading edge of using the new generation of PET/MRI scans which will undoubtedly improve patient selection going forward.

How soon after surgery should salvage radiation begin?

Patients and their doctors often have to make a critical decision soon after surgery – at what point after surgery, if at all, should salvage radiation therapy be started? Immediate treatment is often too early, and waiting can be too late. Two new papers give us much-needed help in finding the “Goldilocks moment.”

 Let’s begin with a shared understanding of the definitions of some commonly used terms and abbreviations:

• Adverse pathology means that the post-op pathology report indicates that cancer was found in one or more of the following places:
  • Outside of the prostate capsule (pathological stage T3a), or
  • In the seminal vesicles (pathological stage T3b), or
  • Locally, but at a distance from the prostate (pathological stage T4), or
  • At the surgical margin, where the surgeon has cut through the cancer — a “positive surgical margin” (PSM).
• Adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) means radiation given after prostatectomy when there is adverse pathology, but before the PSA becomes detectable.
• Salvage radiation therapy (sRT) means radiation given after prostatectomy but also only after a biochemical recurrence (BCR).
• Early salvage radiation therapy (early sRT) means radiation given after the point that aRT would be given, but before sRT would be given.
• Wait-and-see is the strategy of waiting until after a BCR to decide what to do. The wait-and-see decision may be sRT at any time after BCR, or the patient may decide to forgo radiation, use hormone therapy, or do nothing until there is evidence of clinical progression.
• Biochemical recurrence (BCR) post-surgery is now defined as a confirmed PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml. This was chosen in 2007 because it was the most frequently used threshold in published studies. When those studies began, a PSA of 0.1 ng/ml was as low as could reliably be measured. Anything below that was undetectable at the time, and 0.2 ng/ml was arbitrarily deemed a biochemical recurrence.
• An ultrasensitive PSA (uPSA) test is any PSA test that can reliably detect PSAs below 0.1 ng/ml. While the definition of biochemical recurrence has not been changed, detectable levels of PSA are now as low as 0.001 ng/ml on some commercially available ultrasensitive tests.

The above definitions can be illustrated as potential decision points along a line showing uPSA values after prostatectomy and adverse pathology:

Why start sooner than sRT/wait-and-see, but later than aRT?

Three major randomized clinical trials have shown that there is an oncological advantage to aRT over a wait-and-see strategy in patients with adverse pathology after prostatectomy. This is hardly surprising, especially because “wait-and-see” includes patients who never even received salvage radiation, or may have only received palliative hormone therapy. There has never yet been a randomized clinical trial comparing aRT to sRT.

Based on those studies, both the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society of Radiation Oncologists (ASTRO) endorse aRT in their guidelines. However, in spite of those guidelines, only 43 percent of men who get radiation after prostatectomy do so within the first 6 months of their surgery (see Sheets et al.). Why aren’t more patients choosing aRT?

Patients (and many doctors too) worry about over-treatment, and the adverse effects of radiation on recently cut tissues. Immediate aRT may represent over-treatment for many men for whom small, detectable amounts of PSA are leaked into the serum from benign tissue left behind by surgery, or men in whom any tiny amounts of malignant tissue left behind may be indolent or susceptible to scavenging by the immune system. Kang et al.found that, among men with capsular perforation, PSMs, or seminal vesicle invasion after surgery, only 17 percent actually went on to have a true biochemical recurrence. The other advantage to waiting is that it may allow for better recovery of continence and erectile function after surgery in at least some patients.

All three of those above-mentioned clinical trials accrued participants before uPSA tests became routinely available. Although the use of uPSA testing is controversial, its widespread use has led many patients and clinicians to wonder whether waiting for some low PSA value – “early salvage radiation” – might be equivalent in outcomes to aRT.

There are randomized clinical trials underway in Canada and the UK, in Australia and New Zealand, and in France to determine whether early sRT might be equivalent to aRT in terms of survival. The combined results of those trials may have sufficient power to answer the question. Those findings will be definitive, but in the meantime two groups of researchers have retrospectively analyzed their patient outcomes for clues.

Ultrasensitive PSA reliably predicts eventual biochemical recurrence (a UCLA study)

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) looked at available evidence that the uPSA test might afford radiation oncologists the opportunity to treat patients late enough that they are assured to be on a path to clinical recurrence, yet early enough that waiting for treatment does no oncological harm. Kang et al. conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 247 patients treated at UCLA between 1991 and 2013 who were found on post-op pathology to have adverse disease characteristics — stage pT3-4 disease and/or positive surgical margins — and who received uPSA tests. That cohort had the following characteristics:

• Positive margins in 79 percent of patients
• Patients were excluded if
  • They had already received radiation and/or hormone therapy, or
  • They were found to be node-positive at the time of surgery
• Pathological stage T3/T4 in 55 percent of patients
• Gleason score ≥ 7 in 81 percent of patients
• Initial, pre-surgical PSA ≥ 10 in 29 percent of patients
• Time to first post-op PSA, 3 months
• Median number of PSAs post-surgery and before subsequent treatment, 4
• Median follow-up, 44 months

Kang et al. found that a uPSA ≥ 0.03 ng/ml was the optimal threshold value for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR). Other findings included:

• uPSA ≥ 0.03 ng/ml was the most important and reliable predictor of BCR. It predicted all relapses (no false negatives: no one was under-treated), and hardly ever predicted relapses incorrectly. Only 2 percent would be over-treated by waiting for this cut-off.
• It was especially prognostic if found on the first uPSA test after surgery.
• Even if the first uPSA test was undetectable, any subsequent test where uPSA ≥ 0.03 ng/ml predicted BCR.
• Other lesser predictors of recurrence were pathologic Gleason grade, pathologic T stage, initial PSA before surgery, and surgical margin status.
• At 5 years of follow-up, 46 percent of patients had a BCR using the “standard” PSA ≥ 0.2 definition, 76 percent using the PSA ≥ 0.03 definition.
• Treating when an ultrasensitive PSA level reached 0.03 ng/ml gave a median lead time advantage of 18 months over waiting until PSA reached 0.2 ng/ml.
• It was necessary to monitor PSA for at least 5 years post-op, and to test at least every 6 months.

What is not known at this time is whether there is a survival disadvantage from waiting until uPSA reaches 0.03 ng/ml if it is not at that level immediately after surgery. (update 10/2018)  Kang et al. report that there is indeed a survival advantage from treating if the first uPSA level (at 3 months after surgery) reaches 0.03 ng/ml. So the lead-time advantage actually translates to a survival advantage for men with adverse pathology who have a persistent uPSA of at least 0.03 ng/ml.

If the findings of this study by Kang et al. are confirmed by randomized clinical trials, there is certainly a strong argument that all patients with adverse post-op characteristics should be monitored routinely using ultrasensitive PSA tests, and offered treatment with salvage radiation when their PSA level reaches 0.03 ng/ml. It is also arguable that the definition of biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy should then be changed to 0.03 ng/ml, which would be more practical.

Ultrasensitive PSA can reliably predict eventual biochemical recurrence at 2 months after surgery (a Czech study)

A Czech study (Vesely et al. and updated here) looked at a group of 116 patients (205 updated) who had PSMs after surgery. Unlike the UCLA study, staging was not a selection criterion. The two studies’ goals were somewhat different. While the UCLA study didn’t start uPSA testing until 3 months after prostatectomy, in this study uPSA testing was begun at 2 weeks post-surgery. Most urologists wait for 3 months because surgery sheds a lot of PSA into the serum, and it takes a while for that excess to clear out. The goal in this study was to find out just how early in time after prostatectomy they could detect a uPSA prognostic for BCR, whereas the UCLA study sought to find out how late in uPSA progression they could detect a PSA prognostic for progression. The Czech cohort had the following characteristics:

• Only patients with PSMs were included
• Patients who received aRT or hormone therapy were excluded
• Pathological stage T3/T4 in 54 percent of patients
• Gleason score ≥ 7 in 51 percent of patients
• Initial, pre-surgical PSA ≥ 9.2 in 50 percent of patients
• Time to first post-op PSA, 14 days

All patients’ PSA levels were measured on days 14, 30, 60, 90, and 180 post-surgery, and at 3-month intervals thereafter; the median follow-up was 31 months.

Vesely et al. found that the uPSA on day 30 had predictive accuracy of 74 percent for recurrence, and reached a maximum of 84 percent by day 60, when the uPSA was 0.04 ng/ml (increases in accuracy afterwards were not statistically significant). The following table summarizes their findings:

• Applying the uPSA cut-off at day 60 as the indicator for sRT would result in the decrease of over-treatment from 53 to 4 percent. Of the 33 percent who would be under-treated, 86 percent would eventually be discovered at subsequent follow-up at 3 months, and 98 percent by 4 years.
• uPSA at day 14 was not prognostic for recurrence.
• The following were not predictors of recurrence in men with PSMs: pathologic Gleason grade, pathologic T stage, initial PSA before surgery.
• Neither the location nor the extent of PSMs had any significant impact on the frequency of BCR.
• At 5 years of follow-up, 47 percent of patients had a BCR using the “standard” PSA ≥ 0.2 definition.

The main conclusion of this study is that uPSA tracking can begin earlier. Even as early as 30 days post-op, uPSA has good accuracy for predicting BCR in men with PSMs, and at 60 days, the accuracy is even better. If duplicated in larger studies, this implies that uPSA testing ought to begin 1 or 2 months earlier than it usually does at present.

The predictive accuracy of this study is somewhat lower than the UCLA study, perhaps in part because the sample size was half as big. The results in terms of uPSA prognostic threshold values, however, are surprisingly similar. Here, the threshold was 0.04, 0.01, and 0.02 ng/ml at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. In the UCLA study, the threshold was 0.03 ng/ml at any time from 3 months onward. Because the uPSA ≥ 0.03 at 90 days and onwards was 100 percent predictive of BCR in the UCLA study, and led to almost no under-treatment, it may well obviate the need for earlier uPSA testing advocated in the Vesely et al. study.

As in the UCLA study, however, it is not yet known whether early sRT translates to a survival advantage over waiting for BCR.

For the first time, these studies give the patient and doctor new insight into the timing and use of uPSA to predict BCR. If confirmed, setting a uPSA threshold at about 0.03 ng/ml would reduce over-treatment compared to aRT, and would reduce under-treatment compared to sRT. We await the completion of three randomized clinical trials before we have more reliable data.

written 1/4/2015