Abstract
The prostate gland is part of the male reproductive system and resides in the male pelvis. The prostate is an androgen-driven organ and can transform to develop prostate adenocarcinoma. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. There is tremendous diversity in the natural history of prostate cancer. The majority of men with prostate cancer will die from other causes. For this reason, more indolent tumors can safely be monitored without immediate radical therapy, termed active surveillance. However, given the immense heterogeneity and high prevalence of this disease, prostate cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death. This heterogeneity in outcomes is predicted clinically from a patient’s prostate-specific antigen, stage, and grade. Newer imaging and molecular gene expression tests aim to further improve risk stratification. Patients who have more aggressive prostate cancer require definitive treatment, which most often consists of a backbone of radiotherapy or surgery and may require multi-modality therapy in the form of radiotherapy with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or surgery with radiotherapy ± ADT. For patients with metastatic disease, the backbone of systemic therapy is ADT, and more recently is often combined with next-generation androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors or chemotherapy. Furthermore, radiotherapy to the primary is now a standard of care component of treatment for patients with limited metastatic disease, and a growing body of evidence supports the potential role for metastasis-directed radiotherapy. However, across all disease states, patients commonly live for multiple years, if not decades, after their diagnosis. Thus, an increased focus has been placed on optimizing patient health-related quality of life and survivorship care.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Epidemiology
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in men in the United States with over 165,000 new cases per year [1]. Worldwide over 1.2 million men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. Although the majority of men will not die from their disease, prostate cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States [1]. In 2015, there were an estimated 3,120,000 men alive in the United States with prostate cancer [2]. Furthermore, given the high incidence, long natural history, and frequent treatment-related morbidity, prostate cancer remains the most common cause of cancer associated years lived with disability worldwide [3].
The median age of diagnosis is 66 years old, and the largest risk factor is age. Autopsy studies have shown that ~10% of men in their 20s and >25% of men in their 40s can harbor prostate cancer [4, 5]. With increasing age, beyond 80 years, the majority of men will harbor some form of prostate cancer, most commonly indolent low grade disease [5]. In contrast, men under 45 years old rarely are diagnosed with prostate cancer, comprising only 0.5% of all new cases [1]. The majority of men who die from prostate cancer are >75 years old, with only approximately 10% of deaths from prostate cancer occurring in men under 65 years old.
Prostate cancer is diagnosed 1.7-fold more often in black than white men in the United States [1]. This is despite the known social disparities that exist in the United States between black and white men, where black men undergo less PSA screening, have less insurance, and are less likely to have a primary care physician [6]. Thus, the difference in new cases would likely be even larger if these social disparities were minimized. Additionally, black men have a 2.2-fold greater likelihood of dying of prostate cancer than white men [1]. The difference in mortality appears to largely be driven by social factors as well, including being diagnosed at a later stage of disease, receiving less guideline concordant treatment, and receipt of heterogeneous follow-up and monitoring. In contrast, Asian-Americans are nearly half as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as white men and are more than twofold less likely to die from prostate cancer [7].
Other risk factors beyond age and race include a Western diet and obesity [8]. There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of diabetes on the development of prostate cancer, as well as the impact of diabetic medications on prostate cancer aggressiveness [9, 10]. By reducing circulating dihydrotestosterone (DHT), 5-alpha reductase inhibitors decrease the development and diagnosis of prostate cancer, but there is debate whether men who take these medications develop more aggressive prostate cancer [11, 12]. Approximately one in ten men with prostate cancer have a hereditary or underlying genetic risk for the development of prostate cancer [13]. Similar to breast cancer, mutations in multiple DNA damage repair genes, such as BRCA2, are associated with an increased predisposition for the development of prostate cancer [14]. There are now established recommendations for germline screening in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer that are predominately guided based on family history and stage of their prostate cancer (Table 1.1) [15].
2 Anatomy and Physiology
The prostate, which is part of the male reproductive system, is a small exocrine gland of approximately 30 cc in size located within the true pelvis. The primary function of the prostate gland is to secrete fluid that is combined with the spermatozoa from the seminal vesicles to constitute the majority of the semen contents. This secretion is known to facilitate sperm motility and survival. The prostate is regulated by testosterone and DHT.
The urethra passes through the prostate. The bladder sits superior to the prostate with the prostatic base approximating the bladder neck. The rectum is posterior to the prostate and seminal vesicles. The pubic symphysis is anterior to the prostate. The gland is responsible for production of the majority of the contents of the male ejaculate, which is stored in the connecting seminal vesicles.
The prostate is commonly divided based on zonal anatomy into three zones: peripheral zone, central zone, and the transitional zone. Additionally, although rarely a site of prostate cancer, the anterior aspect of the prospect is comprised by fibromuscular stroma. Prostate cancer mostly commonly resides within the peripheral zone, which makes up ~70% of the prostate gland. The peripheral zone abuts the anterior rectal wall and is most easily accessible via trans-rectal ultrasound guided biopsy and digital rectal examination.
The central zone covers 25% of the prostate gland and contains approximately one-third of the ducts that secrete fluid that helps create semen. It is cone-shaped and is located at the base of the prostate adjacent to the seminal vesicles. The transition zone comprises the remaining 5% of the prostate and surrounds the urethra. The prostate gland is enclosed by a fibrous tissue layer and is named as the prostate capsule. Although most cancer resides in the peripheral zone, other prostatic zones may harbor prostate cancer at a lesser frequency and are not routinely sampled with a standard templated biopsy.
3 Pathology
3.1 Histology
Based on the 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the prostate, there are over ten types of prostate cancer, with multiple histologic variants of each tumor type [16]. The most common histologic type of prostate cancer is acinar adenocarcinoma. Other types include ductal adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, squamous neoplasms, basal cell carcinoma, mesenchymal tumors, hematopoetic tumors, and neuroendrocrine tumors. Acinar adenocarcinomas, as most prostate adenocarcinomas do, typically express PSA and PSMA and have a functional androgen receptor (AR) present. There are numerous acinar variants of unclear significance, including atrophic, pseudohyperplastic, microcystic, foamy, mucinous, signet-ring, pleomorphic giant cell, and sarcomatoid.
Another common type of prostate cancer is intraductal carcinoma, a distinct entity from ductal adenocarcinoma [17], which is present in ~17% of radical prostatectomy cases but only 3% of needle biopsies. It is associated with a worse prognosis, BRCA2 mutations, PTEN loss, loss of heterozygosity of TP53 or RB1, and SChLAP1 dysregulation.
Neuroendocrine tumors are a rare type of prostate cancers that are binned into four groups: adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation, well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid tumor), small cell, and large cell neuroendocrine tumors [16, 18]. Pure small cell or neuroendocrine prostate cancers are uncommon and are associated with very poor outcomes [19]. This entity should be distinguished from treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer after years of androgen-deprivation therapy. Pure small cell prostate cancer often has lost either or both PSA and PSMA expression and has over expressed neuroendocrine markers, such as chromogranin and synaptophysin.
3.2 Prostate Adenocarcinoma Grading
Prostate adenocarcinoma is graded conventionally using the Gleason grading system, which most recently has been converted into the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grade groupings (grade 1–5) shown in Table 1.1 [20, 21]. Grade groups are based on the histologic architectural pattern observed and are assigned based on the most common and second most common pattern seen. The higher the grade group, the worse the prognosis and higher risk for the development of metastatic disease.
4 Diagnosis
The diagnosis of prostate cancer must be made by tissue confirmation. The most common reason for undergoing a prostate biopsy is due to a rising PSA. Although there are age adjusted PSA thresholds, simplified National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines typically recommend that if a man has a PSA ≥3 ng/mL this should prompt further testing based on a patients age [22]. This includes ruling out benign causes of a PSA rise such as infection. This also should prompt a digital rectal exam to determine if a palpable abnormality can be felt or if there is increased pain on prostate exam indicative of prostatitis.
The PSA should be repeated to determine if it remains elevated. Based on the PSA, DRE findings, and estimated PSA density, one should determine the patient’s pretest probability of harboring clinically significant cancer. There are multiple available blood and urine-based assays that can help improve the pretest probability of detecting clinically significant cancer [23]. While not recommended for routine use for the detection of prostate cancer by the NCCN, these tests can be useful for increasing the specificity of cancer detection or aiding in decision making regarding the need for additional biopsies in men with an initial negative biopsy. There are several commercially available assays. The Prostate Health Index combines total PSA, free PSA, and p2PSA to improve the sensitivity of detecting prostate cancer and is FDA-approved for use in men with serum PSA values between 4 and 10 ng/mL [24]. The Progensa PCA3 test which combines PCA3 and PSA mRNA has FDA approval for use in men with an elevated PSA and a previously negative biopsy [25]. Tests available to predict the likelihood of observing a Gleason score of 7 or higher on biopsy include the 4Kscore [26], which measures free PSA, total PSA, human kallikrein 2, and intact PSA, as well as the Mi-Prostate score [27], which combines serum PSA and post-DRE urine expression of PCA3 and the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion mRNA.
In addition to blood and urine-based biomarkers, recently multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that multiparametic MRI can significantly improve the detection of clinically significant cancer while reducing unnecessary biopsies and the detection of low grade cancers [28, 29]. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the inter-reader reliability using the current PI-RADS version 2, even among experts [30]. Other factors that increase the likelihood of harboring cancer are PSA density, strong family history, African-American race, or known familial cancer mutation (e.g., BRCA2).
Once a patient has a sufficiently high pretest probability, they should undergo a transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsy with at least 12 templated cores. If an MRI were already performed, several systems are available to enhance the yield and accuracy of the biopsy by performing MRI-targeted biopsies to any regions of interest. Importantly, the templated and targeted biopsies should both be performed as MRI-targeted biopsy alone may miss 10% of clinically significant cancers when the templated systematic biopsies are omitted [31].
Other methods for the diagnosis of prostate cancer are incidental. These most commonly include detection of prostate cancer during a trans-urethral resection of the prostate or cystoprostatectomy.
5 Staging and Risk Groupings
Once a histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer is made, a full staging workup is appropriate based on the patient’s stage and NCCN risk group [32]. Nearly all cancers of the human body are staged using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition. However, for prostate cancer, these stage groupings are rarely utilized for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the prostate cancer stage grouping system is one of the few that is based not from specific outcomes data but rather expert consensus. Second, national guidelines and most clinical trials use NCCN risk groups [33] to bin patients into similar prognostic groups. However, the basic TNM staging used in the AJCC staging system is a critical component to determining a patient’s NCCN risk group.
The three most important clinicopathologic prognostic factors that comprise both the AJCC stage groupings and NCCN risk groups are a patient’s pre-treatment PSA, ISUP Grade group, and TNM stage. Cancers can be first divided into localized, locally advanced, node positive, and metastatic [32]. Within localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, NCCN subdivides them into six risk groups: very low, low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, high, and very high. This expanded NCCN classification has evolved from the original D’Amico risk groups of low, intermediate, and high [34], which are still used by many today. The current AJCC 8th edition staging and the 2018 NCCN risk groups are shown in Tables 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
Other risk grouping systems include CAPRA, which similar to recent expansions of NCCN, includes percent positive cores, which is one of the most prognostic variables in addition to grade [35]. CAPRA also includes age in their model, as older age is consistently shown to correlate with more aggressive disease [35].
For patients that have chosen to undergo radical prostatectomy as their definitive treatment, there are also pathologic staging systems. The AJCC clinical and pathologic staging systems are essentially identical, with the main exception being that patients must have at least pT2 disease if they undergo surgery, where clinically many patients are cT1c. CAPRA also has a commonly used post-operative risk grouping system termed CAPRA-S [36]. Other frequently used nomograms to predict prognosis are the widely used Memorial Sloan Kettering nomograms available online (www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate).
Recently, Medicare began covering select genomic classifiers (e.g., Decipher) for the use in the pre-treatment and post-operative setting to improve risk stratification [32]. These tests have been shown to independently improve the discriminatory capability of identifying which patients within each NCCN risk group are more or less likely to recur, develop metastatic disease, or die from prostate cancer [37, 38]. Prospective studies of these tests are ongoing (NCT02783950, NCT03070886).
6 Management of Intact Prostate Cancer
The initial management of newly diagnosed intact prostate cancer depends principally on two factors. The first is life expectancy. This can be estimated using actuarial tables such as those provided by the Social Security Administration which can be adjusted upward or downward by clinical judgment (e.g., patient comorbidities). For men with a life expectancy of 5 years or less, observation is the preferred strategy. Prostate cancer in elderly or frail men is unlikely to cause disease-specific mortality or significant morbidity. Local treatment is therefore deferred and reserved for only those who develop symptomatic disease. The second factor that helps determine the appropriate initial management strategy is NCCN clinical risk assessment (Table 1.3). Recommended curative local treatment options vary by risk group. For those with very low- and low-risk disease, disease monitoring (active surveillance) is the preferred strategy. For those with favorable intermediate-risk disease, a range of options are appropriate including radical prostatectomy (RP), external-beam-radiation therapy (EBRT), or brachytherapy. For those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, or very high-risk disease, multimodality treatment is most often the treatment of choice.
EBRT for localized prostate cancer is commonly delivered in three dose/fractionation schemes: (1) conventional fractionation (1.8–2 Gy per fraction to ~80 Gy), (2) moderate hypofractionation (2.5–3 Gy per fraction to 60–70 Gy), or (3) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) (7–9.5 Gy per fraction to 36–40 Gy in 4–5 fractions).
6.1 Low Risk
For men with very-low risk or low risk prostate cancer, deferring upfront initial treatment is a safe, effective strategy [39, 40]. The intensity of active surveillance varies by institution and individual but generally involves following PSA levels no more frequent than every 6 months and repeat biopsies no more frequent than every 12 months. Most men with very-low or low risk disease classification harbor indolent cancer that is unlikely to ever spread outside the prostate; distant metastatic rates at 10–15 years are 1–3%, and even fewer have died from prostate cancer [41]. Disease monitoring spares men the side effects of immediate treatment and preserves baseline quality of life. Approximately 50% of men can avoid radical treatment at 10–15 years with this strategy [39, 42]. At disease progression, often defined by an upgrade Gleason score to Grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) or above, definitive treatment is offered and the opportunity for cure is not lost. The ProtecT trial, a randomized comparison of PSA monitoring to immediate treatment with RP or EBRT with 3–6 months of androgen deprivation (ADT), demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years in all three arms [42]. Approximately 80% of men had low risk disease. Immediate treatment with RP or EBRT was associated with a small benefit in distant metastasis, but most of those events were in those who had intermediate risk disease.
For those who are felt to warrant treatment with EBRT, SBRT, or moderate hypofractionation are preferred for this population given the reduced costs and increased convenience over conventional fractionation and are endorsed by national guidelines [32, 43].
Low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy is also a treatment option for men with low risk prostate cancer. LDR brachytherapy involves transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) based interstitial permanent implantation of radioactive seeds [iodine-125 (125I), palladium-103 (103Pd), or cesium-131] into the prostate via the perineum. Supplementary EBRT added to brachytherapy is unnecessary in this population [44, 45]. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, first reported in the early 1990s, is also a treatment option [46, 47]. HDR similarly involves TRUS-guided interstitial implantation. Temporary catheters are placed instead of radioactive seeds, and treatment is delivered with iridium-192 via an afterloader.
6.2 Favorable Intermediate Risk
For men with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer and a life expectancy beyond 10 years, definite treatment is typically recommended. The two most common treatment options for these men are RP and EBRT. RP involves surgical removal of the prostate and seminal vesicles with or without sampling of the pelvic lymph nodes. EBRT involves external treatment most often with high-energy X-rays generated from a linear accelerator. The ProtecT randomized trial demonstrated no difference in efficacy of radical treatment between these two modalities in men with low and intermediate risk disease.
For those who are felt to warrant treatment with EBRT, SBRT, or moderate hypofractionation are preferred for this population given the reduced costs and increased convenience over conventional fractionation and are endorsed by national guidelines [32, 43].
Low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy is also a treatment option for men with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer. LDR brachytherapy involves transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) based interstitial permanent implantation of radioactive seeds [iodine-125 (125I), palladium-103 (103Pd), or cesium-131] into the prostate via the perineum. Supplementary EBRT added to brachytherapy is unnecessary in this population [44, 45]. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, first reported in the early 1990s, is also a treatment option [46, 47]. HDR similarly involves TRUS-guided interstitial implantation. Temporary catheters are placed instead of radioactive seeds, and treatment is delivered with iridium-192 via an afterloader.
6.3 Unfavorable Risk (Unfavorable Intermediate to Very High Risk)
For men with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, and very-high risk prostate cancer (collectively unfavorable risk disease), multimodality treatment is often required. No randomized trials have directly compared RP to EBRT (with or without ADT) in this population. However, many retrospective studies have shown mixed results—some report better outcomes with RT [48, 49] and some showed RP is better [50, 51]. Historically, RP was the most common treatment modality for those with low and favorable intermediate risk disease, and EBRT was the dominant treatment modality for men with unfavorable risk disease. Recent estimates suggest, however, that RP is the most common treatment even in men with unfavorable risk disease [52]. For these men with higher risk disease, up to 50% or more will have biochemical recurrence even at high volume surgical centers [53, 54]. Thus, many require adjuvant or salvage radiation treatment at time of PSA recurrence. For those with unfavorable risk disease, the addition of EBRT to ADT has improved overall survival in several trials [55, 56]. The converse is also true. The addition of ADT to EBRT improved OS in multiple trials. In the unfavorable intermediate-risk group, 6 months of ADT is recommended [57, 58], and in those with high or very-high risk disease, 18–36 months is recommended [59,60,61]. ADT is given concurrently with EBRT and as adjuvant treatment. Prolonged neoadjuvant ADT has not improved outcomes [62]. Dose escalation with EBRT plus a brachytherapy boost improves biochemical control in those treated without ADT [63] and with ADT [64, 65] but has not been demonstrated to lower distant metastasis or improve survival endpoints. To date, no randomized evidence demonstrates reduction in metastasis or improvement in survival when the pelvic lymph nodes are added to the radiation field [66, 67]. The ongoing study, RTOG 0924, aims to answer this question in the modern era.
For those who are felt to warrant treatment with EBRT without brachytherapy for unfavorable intermediate risk disease, SBRT or moderate hypofractionation are preferred for this population given the reduced costs and increased convenience over conventional fractionation and are endorsed by national guidelines [32, 43]. For patients with high or very high risk, there is less data for SBRT, and thus use of moderate hypofractionation should be the preferred strategy, with ongoing studies assessing nodal irradiation in the setting of moderate hypofractionation [43].
7 Post-prostatectomy Radiation Therapy
As mentioned, prostatectomy is an initial local treatment option for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer [52, 68]. While many men are cured with this approach, some will ultimately develop a rising PSA after prostatectomy, known as biochemical recurrence, signaling recurrent prostate cancer [69]. For men with high-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy, the risk of future recurrence often exceeds 50% [54]. Pathologic features associated with an increased risk of post-prostatectomy biochemical failure include a positive surgical margin, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and involvement of lymph nodes, among others [70].
Four randomized trials have demonstrated that for men with any or multiple of these three pathologic features (positive surgical margin, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) reduces the risk of future biochemical recurrence by approximately 50% [71,72,73]. One trial additionally demonstrated a reduction in development of metastatic disease and improved overall survival in men receiving adjuvant radiation therapy [73]. Based on the findings of these randomized trials, national guidelines endorse offering ART to men with a positive surgical margin, extracapsular extension, and/or seminal vesicle invasion following prostatectomy [74, 75]. Despite this recommendation and the known benefits of ART for these men, <10% of men with any of these adverse pathologic features receive adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiation therapy [76, 77]. The cause of this low utilization is multifactorial in nature, but likely driven by concerns of overtreatment, additive treatment-related toxicity, and the lack of a clear survival benefit when looking at the findings from all three adjuvant radiation trials in whole.
An alternative to planned adjuvant radiation therapy following prostatectomy is for a selective treatment approach with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for men who develop biochemical recurrence following prostatectomy. While no randomized trial has ever compared SRT to observation for men who develop post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence, well-performed retrospective analyses suggest that salvage radiation therapy improves outcomes over observation for men with biochemical recurrence [78, 79]. For men receiving SRT, early SRT, most commonly defined as initiation of treatment with a PSA level <0.5 ng/mL, has been associated with improved outcomes, with no apparent lower threshold [80, 81]. A large multi-institutional study suggests that SRT given when PSA is ≤0.2 ng/mL results in the best long-term oncologic outcomes [82]. Ongoing trials are directly comparing the effectiveness early SRT to ART, with preliminary results recently presented in abstract [83, 84]. Early combined results of the Radiotherapy-Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial, Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation in Combination After Local Surgery (RADICALS) trial, and GETUG-AFU 17 trial, all which compared adjuvant and early salvage radiation therapy, were presented in the ARTISTIC meta-analysis [85]. This analysis included 1074 men randomized to ART and 1077 randomized to SRT. With a median follow-up ranging from 47 to 61 months, there was no difference in event free survival between these two treatment approaches [85].
While the role of ADT with external beam radiation therapy is well established, it is less clear which men receiving post-prostatectomy benefit from the addition of ADT. RTOG 9601 randomized men receiving SRT to 2 years of high-dose bicalutamide versus placebo and demonstrated an improvement in overall survival 12 years post-treatment, with the benefit driven by receipt of ADT in men with a pre-SRT PSA level >0.7 ng/mL [86]. GETUG-AFU 16 assessed adding 6 months of ADT to SRT, and with 5-years follow-up, demonstrated improved biochemical control only [87]. Overall, the men in GETUG-AFU 16 had lower PSA values than those enrolled on RTOG 9601. As the survival benefit achieved with ADT was in men with PSA values >0.7 ng/mL, future studies will attempt to assess whether select men with lower PSA values may benefit from ADT, and what the appropriate duration of ADT is in this setting. The use of ADT with ART is even less clear with no reported randomized trial in this setting.
An exciting development moving forward is the incorporation of genomic biomarkers and novel molecular imaging techniques to aid in risk stratification and treatment selection for men receiving post-prostatectomy radiation therapy. Predictive genomic biomarkers have been proposed that can discriminate which men are most likely to benefit from post-prostatectomy radiation therapy, as well as identify men that may benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy over salvage radiation therapy [88, 89]. It is probable that genomic classifiers such as these will dramatically alter the way in which treatment decisions are made for men potentially eligible for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy. Similarly, new molecular imaging techniques, such as prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET), 11C-choline PET, and fluciclovine F18 PET (Axumin®), may allow for identification of men with distant metastatic disease near the time of initial biochemical recurrence. Indeed, even with PSA values <0.5 ng/mL, approximately 50% of men will have a positive finding on PSMA-PET [90], and incorporation of imaging modalities such as this into routine clinical practice could prevent delivering potentially futile local-only therapy in men found to have distant metastatic disease.
8 Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
For men with newly diagnosed castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the backbone of treatment. Historically, androgen deprivation has been achieved through orchiectomy or treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, and these treatment approaches improved survival for men with clinically evident metastatic disease. ADT is commonly supplemented with anti-androgen therapy, and these two forms of treatment given together are referred to as combined androgen blockade. The treatment landscape of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is rapidly evolving, with multiple new standard of care first-line treatment options available. Docetaxel in addition to ADT has been demonstrated to improve survival for at least a subset of men with newly diagnosed metastatic disease in three randomized trials [91,92,93]. Similarly, two randomized trials have demonstrated improved overall survival in men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer when adding abiraterone to ADT [94, 95]. New forms of anti-androgen therapy and systemic therapies continue to emerge at a rapid pace, and it is likely that available first-line treatment options for men with metastatic prostate cancer will continue to expand in the near future.
While the current treatment paradigm of metastatic prostate cancer relies on systemic therapies, radiation therapy also plays an important role in the treatment of these men as a palliative or preventative therapy. Radiation in this setting is commonly used to treat painful bony lesions, locally advanced disease resulting in lower urinary tract symptoms, bleeding, or pain; in the treatment of spinal cord compression, and to reduce fracture risk, among others, and is quite effective. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that radiation therapy may have a role in improving outcomes for men with oligometastatic prostate cancer. The STOMP trial demonstrated that in men with three or fewer metastases that metastasis directed therapy with surgery or radiation therapy improved the primary outcome of ADT-free survival by an absolute difference of 8 months at 3-years [96]. Conversely, the STAMPEDE trial demonstrated that in men with low burden metastatic disease that radiation therapy to the prostate improved overall survival [97]. Ongoing and future trials will hopefully better define which men with limited volume metastatic disease truly derive benefit from radiation therapy to local and/or distant sites of disease.
9 Technological Advancements in Radiotherapy
Over the past few decades, several technical advances have improved the delivery of EBRT. Mega-voltage-based EBRT was developed in the 1960s and treatment was based on two-dimensional imaging with limited, if any, soft tissue delineation [98]. Smaller fraction sizes of 1.8–2 Gy per fraction per day were used and cumulative doses were limited based on normal tissue toxicity. The first major technological advance involved the incorporation of 3D-dimensional imaging into treatment planning [99]. This was followed by the development of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a technology that allows for more conformal treatment of the prostate while better sparing normal tissue [100]. The development of daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), such as implanted fiducials, electromagnetic tracking, and cone-beam computed-tomography, has further allowed for increased reproducibility and target margin reduction [101]. Investigators have taken advantage of these collective advances to deliver higher daily doses of EBRT more precisely. Dose-escalated treatment above 70 Gy in conventional fractionation is now standardly used [102]. In addition, several large-scale trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of shorter hypofractionated 4–6 week regimens delivering 2.5–3 Gy per fraction compared to conventionally fractionated treatment [103,104,105]. Hypofractionated treatment is now endorsed by ASTRO guidelines [43]. Ultrahypofractionation, most commonly using stereotactic-body-radiation therapy (SBRT) technology, further shortens the treatment course, often delivered in just 4–5 fractions. SBRT is a growing treatment option with several randomized clinical trials underway [106,107,108].
10 Focus on Patient Reported Quality of Life
Patient reported health quality of life instruments are the main tool used to compare the side effects of local curative treatment options. Questionnaires such as the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) interrogate patient function and bother post-treatment and are organized by urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal domains [109]. The ProtecT trial is the only major randomized trial with long-term follow-up that compared active monitoring, RP, and 3D conformal EBRT with 3–6 months of ADT [110]. Surgery had the greatest negative effect on urinary continence and sexual function both short-term and long-term to 6 years of follow-up. Sexual function also declined with EBRT, but improved as patients recovered testosterone function after ADT. EBRT patients also had a decrease in bowel function which recovered after 6 months, except for bloody stools which persisted in approximately 7% of patients [110]. Several groups have also created large-scale prospective population-based cohorts which provide additional comparative toxicity profiles. The CAESAR study highlights several differences between men undergoing active surveillance or treated with surgery or EBRT [111]. Men treated with EBRT were older and had lower baseline sexual function. Similar to ProtecT, men treated with RP had larger declines in urinary incontinence and sexual function but had improved urinary irritative symptoms. Bowel function was similar across modalities after 12 months. A similar study from North Carolina reported quality of life outcomes after radical prostatectomy, EBRT, brachytherapy, and active surveillance [112]. A different validated instrument was used (Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices) [113], but it contained similar domains (sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems). At 3 months, compared to active surveillance, sexual function was worse with RT, EBRT, and brachytherapy; urinary incontinence was worse with surgery; urinary irritation was worse with EBRT and brachytherapy; and bowel symptoms were worse with EBRT. By 2 years, scores were similar between EBRT and brachytherapy with active surveillance.
11 Follow-Up and Survivorship
The vast majority of men treated with definitive or post-prostatectomy radiation therapy will die from something other than prostate cancer. As such, while surveillance for disease recurrence is important, maximizing post-treatment quality of life becomes essential. Men are commonly followed post-treatment every 6–12 months for the first 5 years post-treatment, and then annually each year thereafter, with PSA values checked at each visit. A digital rectal exam is usually performed annually as another method by which to monitor for recurrent disease. PSA values and kinetics vary by the modality of radiation therapy utilized for treatment, and definitions of biochemical recurrence differ between definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy. These differences are discussed in Chaps. 4 and 9.
Potential radiation-related long-term side effects associated with the treatment of prostate cancer include lower urinary tract symptoms, hematuria, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction, fecal urgency/frequency/incontinence, and rectal bleeding. The expected side effects vary based on treatment delivery method and timing. Detailed discussion of expected long-term toxicities will be discussed in the pertinent chapters. Additional considerations must be made in men receiving ADT as a component of their treatment as ADT can have long-term effects on cognition, metabolism, cardiovascular disease risk, bone health, and muscle mass. [114, 115] Overall, men receiving modern radiation therapy do quite well following treatment for prostate cancer, with most men having bowel and urinary quality of life similar to their pre-treatment baseline by 2-years post-treatment [116]. The radiation oncologist plays a critical role in assessing and managing the late physical and psychosocial effects of prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy.
Finally, as most men will not die from prostate cancer, it is important to encourage general health promotion, such as partaking in physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, avoiding tobacco, limiting alcohol consumption, and eating a well-balanced diet [117].
References
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 68(1):7–30
Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer (2019) https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM et al (2017) Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 3(4):524–548
Sakr W, Haas G, Cassin B, Pontes J, Crissman J (1993) The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 150(2):379–385
Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G (2008) The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 15(1):3866
Ward E, Jemal A, Cokkinides V et al (2004) Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J Clin 54(2):78–93
Torre LA, Sauer AMG, Chen MS Jr, Kagawa-Singer M, Jemal A, Siegel RL (2016) Cancer statistics for Asian Americans, native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, 2016: converging incidence in males and females. CA Cancer J Clin 66(3):182–202
Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC (2007) Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer 121(7):1571–1578
Spratt DE, Zhang C, Zumsteg ZS, Pei X, Zhang Z, Zelefsky MJ (2013) Metformin and prostate cancer: reduced development of castration-resistant disease and prostate cancer mortality. Eur Urol 63(4):709–716
Kasper JS, Liu Y, Giovannucci E (2009) Diabetes mellitus and risk of prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer 124(6):1398–1403
Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM et al (2003) The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349(3):215–224
Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW et al (2010) Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 362(13):1192–1202
Grönberg H (2003) Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet 361(9360):859–864
Cooney KA (2017) Inherited predisposition to prostate cancer: from gene discovery to clinical impact. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 128:14
Giri VN, Knudsen KE, Kelly WK et al (2018) Role of genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017. J Clin Oncol 36(4):414
Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE (2016) The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—Part B: Prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol 70(1):106–119
Guo CC, Epstein JI (2006) Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: histologic features and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 19(12):1528–1535
Priemer DS, Montironi R, Wang L, Williamson SR, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L (2016) Neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate: emerging insights from molecular data and updates to the 2016 World Health Organization classification. Endocr Pathol 27(2):123–135
Nadal R, Schweizer M, Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI, Eisenberger MA (2014) Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Nat Rev Urol 11(4):213–219
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 69(3):428–435
Spratt DE, Cole AI, Palapattu GS et al (2016) Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system. BJU Int 118(5):763–769
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G et al (2016) NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14(5):509–519
Hendriks RJ, van Oort IM, Schalken JA (2017) Blood-based and urinary prostate cancer biomarkers: a review and comparison of novel biomarkers for detection and treatment decisions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(1):12–19
Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG et al (2011) A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 185(5):1650–1655
Groskopf J, Aubin SM, Deras IL et al (2006) APTIMA PCA3 molecular urine test: development of a method to aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Chem 52(6):1089–1095
Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Aus G et al (2008) A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Goteborg, Sweden. BMC Med 6:19
Hessels D, Smit FP, Verhaegh GW, Witjes JA, Cornel EB, Schalken JA (2007) Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcripts and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urinary sediments may improve diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13(17):5103–5108
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804
Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF et al (2019) Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open 2(8):e198427
Mohler J, Lee R, Antonarakis E (2018) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer, version 3.2018. Fort Washington, PA, National Comprehensive Clinical Trials Network
Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR et al (2016) Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14(1):19–30
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974
Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP et al (2005) The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173(6):1938–1942
Cooperberg MR, Hilton JF, Carroll PR (2011) The CAPRA-S score: a straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 117(22):5039–5046
Spratt DE, Yousefi K, Deheshi S et al (2017) Individual patient-level meta-analysis of the performance of the Decipher genomic classifier in high-risk men after prostatectomy to predict development of metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 35(18):1991–1998
Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jimenez M et al (2018) Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 36(6):581–590
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2009) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(30):3379
Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C et al (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62(6):976–983
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424
Morgan SC, Hoffman K, Loblaw DA et al (2019) Hypofractionated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA evidence-based guideline. J Urol 201(3):528–534
Merrick GS, Wallner KE, Galbreath RW et al (2015) Is supplemental external beam radiation therapy necessary for patients with higher risk prostate cancer treated with 103Pd? Results of two prospective randomized trials. Brachytherapy 14(5):677–685
Prestidge B, Winter K, Sanda M et al (2016) Initial Report of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0232: a phase III study comparing combined external beam radiation and transperineal interstitial permanent brachytherapy with brachytherapy alone for selected patients with intermediate risk prostatic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(Suppl 4):4
Martinez A, Gonzalez J, Stromberg J et al (1995) Conformal prostate brachytherapy: initial experience of a phase I/II dose-escalating trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33(5):1019–1027
Mate TP, Gottesman JE, Hatton J, Gribble M, Van Hollebeke L (1998) High dose-rate afterloading 192Iridium prostate brachytherapy: feasibility report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41(3):525–533
Kishan AU, Cook RR, Ciezki JP et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or external beam radiotherapy with brachytherapy boost and disease progression and mortality in patients with Gleason score 9–10 prostate cancer. JAMA 319(9):896–905
Markovina S, Meeks MW, Badiyan S et al (2018) Superior metastasis-free survival for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Adv Radiat Oncol 3(2):190–196
Williams SB, Huo J, Chamie K et al (2017) Discerning the survival advantage among patients with prostate cancer who undergo radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy: the limitations of cancer registry data. Cancer 123(9):1617–1624
Kibel AS, Ciezki JP, Klein EA et al (2012) Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 187(4):1259–1265
Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR (2015) Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 314(1):80–82
Briganti A, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G et al (2015) Natural history of surgically treated high-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33:163.e7–163.13
Abdollah F, Sood A, Sammon JD et al (2015) Long-term cancer control outcomes in patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a multi-institutional study of 1100 patients. Eur Urol 68(3):497–505
Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A et al (2009) Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised phase III trial. Lancet 373(9660):301–308
Warde P, Mason M, Ding K et al (2011) Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 378(9809):2104–2111
Jones CU, Hunt D, McGowan DG et al (2011) Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 365(2):107–118
D’Amico AV, Chen M-H, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Kantoff PW (2008) Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 299(3):289–295
Lawton CA, Lin X, Hanks GE et al (2017) Duration of androgen deprivation in locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term update of NRG oncology RTOG 9202. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 98(2):296–303
Bolla M, De Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G et al (2009) Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 360(24):2516–2527
Nabid A, Carrier N, Martin A-G et al (2018) Duration of androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Eur Urol 74(4):432–441
Pisansky TM, Hunt D, Gomella LG et al (2015) Duration of androgen suppression before radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: radiation therapy oncology group randomized clinical trial 9910. J Clin Oncol 33(4):332
Sathya JR, Davis IR, Julian JA et al (2005) Randomized trial comparing iridium implant plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 23(6):1192–1199
Hoskin PJ, Rojas AM, Bownes PJ et al (2012) Randomised trial of external beam radiotherapy alone or combined with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localised prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 103(2):217–222
Morris WJ, Tyldesley S, Rodda S et al (2017) Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost for high-and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 98(2):275–285
Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M III et al (2007) An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(3):646–655
Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL et al (2007) Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 25(34):5366–5373
DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB et al (2014) Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64(4):252–271
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62(3):382–404
Swanson GP, Riggs M, Hermans M (2007) Pathologic findings at radical prostatectomy: risk factors for failure and death. Urol Oncol 25(2):110–114
Wiegel T, Bartkowiak D, Bottke D et al (2014) Adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait-and-see after radical prostatectomy: 10-year follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 trial. Eur Urol 66(2):243–250
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B et al (2012) Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet (London, England) 380(9858):2018–2027
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J et al (2009) Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 181(3):956–962
Valicenti RK, Thompson I Jr, Albertsen P et al (2013) Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy: American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association Guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86(5):822–828
Freedland SJ, Rumble RB, Finelli A et al (2014) Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 32(34):3892–3898
Kalbasi A, Swisher-McClure S, Mitra N et al (2014) Low rates of adjuvant radiation in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer with high-risk pathologic features. Cancer 120(19):3089–3096
Morgan TM, Hawken SR, Ghani KR et al (2016) Variation in the use of postoperative radiotherapy among high-risk patients following radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19:216
Cotter SE, Chen MH, Moul JW et al (2011) Salvage radiation in men after prostate-specific antigen failure and the risk of death. Cancer 117(17):3925–3932
Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ et al (2008) Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 299(23):2760–2769
Abugharib A, Jackson William C, Tumati V et al (2017) Very early salvage radiotherapy improves distant metastasis-free survival. J Urol 197(3 Part 1):662–668
Stish BJ, Pisansky TM, Harmsen WS et al (2016) Improved metastasis-free and survival outcomes with early salvage radiotherapy in men with detectable prostate-specific antigen after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(32):3864–3871
Tendulkar RD, Agrawal S, Gao T et al (2016) Contemporary update of a multi-institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 34(30):3648–3654
Pearse M, Fraser-Browne C, Davis ID et al (2014) A phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the Radiotherapy—Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial. BJU Int 113(Suppl 2):7–12
Parker C, Sydes MR, Catton C et al (2007) Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation in combination after local surgery (RADICALS): a new Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada phase III trial of adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 99(6):1376–1379
Vale CL, Brihoum M, Chabaud S et al (2019) LBA48_PRAdjuvant or salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer? A prospectively planned aggregate data meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 30(Suppl_5)
Shipley WU, Seiferheld W, Lukka HR et al (2017) Radiation with or without antiandrogen therapy in recurrent prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 376(5):417–428
Carrie C, Hasbini A, de Laroche G et al (2016) Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17(6):747–756
Den RB, Yousefi K, Trabulsi EJ et al (2015) Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 33(8):944–951
Zhao SG, Chang SL, Spratt DE et al (2016) Development and validation of a 24-gene predictor of response to postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a matched, retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 17(11):1612–1620
Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D et al (2016) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(6):926–937
Sweeney CJ, Chen Y-H, Carducci M et al (2015) Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 373(8):737–746
James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW et al (2016) Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387(10024):1163–1177
Gravis G, Fizazi K, Joly F et al (2013) Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(2):149–158
James ND, de Bono JS, Spears MR et al (2017) Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N Engl J Med 377(4):338–351
Fizazi K, Tran N, Fein L et al (2017) Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 377(4):352–360
Ost P, Reynders D, Decaestecker K et al (2018) Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 36(5):446–453
Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD et al (2018) Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 392(10162):2353–2366
Ward MC, Tendulkar RD, Ciezki JP, Klein EA (2014) Future directions from past experience: a century of prostate radiotherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 12(1):13–20
Dearnaley DP, Khoo VS, Norman AR et al (1999) Comparison of radiation side-effects of conformal and conventional radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 353(9149):267–272
Michalski JM, Yan Y, Watkins-Bruner D et al (2013) Preliminary toxicity analysis of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 prostate cancer trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 87(5):932–938
de Crevoisier R, Bayar MA, Pommier P et al (2018) Daily versus weekly prostate cancer image-guided radiotherapy: phase 3 multicenter randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102(5):1420–1429
Michalski JM, Moughan J, Purdy J et al (2018) Effect of standard vs dose-escalated radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the nrg oncology rtog 0126 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 4(6):e180039
Lee WR, Dignam JJ, Amin MB et al (2016) Randomized phase III noninferiority study comparing two radiotherapy fractionation schedules in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(20):2325
Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H et al (2016) Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1047–1060
Catton CN, Lukka H, Gu C-S et al (2017) Randomized trial of a hypofractionated radiation regimen for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(17):1884–1890
Widmark A, Gunnlaugsson A, Beckman L et al (2018) OC-0599: ultrahypofractionation for prostate cancer: outcome from the Scandinavian phase 3 HYPO-RT-PC trial. Radiother Oncol 127:S314
Morrison K, Tree A, Khoo V, As NJV (2018) The PACE trial: international randomised study of laparoscopic prostatectomy vs. stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and standard radiotherapy vs. SBRT for early stage organ-confined prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 36(6_suppl):TPS153
Lukka HR, Pugh SL, Bruner DW et al (2018) Patient reported outcomes in NRG oncology RTOG 0938, evaluating two ultrahypofractionated regimens for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102(2):287–295
Chang P, Szymanski KM, Dunn RL et al (2011) Expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice: development and validation of a practical health related quality of life instrument for use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 186(3):865–872
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1425–1437
Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ et al (2017) Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA 317(11):1126–1140
Chen RC, Basak R, Meyer A et al (2017) Association between choice of radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance and patient-reported quality of life among men with localized prostate cancer. JAMA 317(11):1141–1150
Clark JA, Talcott JA (2001) Symptom indexes to assess outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Med Care 39(10):1118–1130
Nguyen C, Lairson DR, Swartz MD, Du XL (2018) Risks of major long-term side effects associated with androgen-deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Pharmacotherapy 38(10):999–1009
Alibhai SMH, Gogov S, Allibhai Z (2006) Long-term side effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic literature review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 60(3):201–215
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358(12):1250–1261
Skolarus TA, Wolf AMD, Erb NL et al (2014) American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 64(4):225–249
Conflicts of Interest
Daniel E Spratt: Advisory board for Blue Earth and Janssen.
All others have no COI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dess, R.T., Jackson, W.C., Spratt, D.E. (2021). The Management of Prostate Cancer. In: Solanki, A.A., Chen, R.C. (eds) Radiation Therapy for Genitourinary Malignancies . Practical Guides in Radiation Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65137-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65137-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65136-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65137-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)