Genitourinary Cancers

HAMBURG-Patients with poor-prognosis M1 prostate cancer who undergo orchidectomy have little to gain and much to lose from adjuvant mitomycin (Mutamycin) therapy, according to the findings of a phase III study from the EORTC’s Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group.

Using a series of 421 patients with localized prostate cancer who were treated with radiation, six predictive models were analyzed to determine which model correlates most closely to actual clinical outcome data in regard to biochemical freedom from failure. Multivariate analysis was performed using the following covariates: prostate specific antigen; Gleason score; stage; dose; PSA density; and perineural invasion. Initially, the Pisansky model appeared to be the most predictive.

A Scandinavian study challenges the efficacy of endocrine treatment alone, compared to endocrine treatment plus radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. All patients in the study receive neoadjuvant total androgen blockade for 3 months and then continue with antiandrogens alone. After 3 months, radiotherapy will be started in one arm of the study. The primary end point of the study is survival, with secondary end points of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, clinical progression, and quality of life. [Oncol News Int 6(Suppl 3):18-19, 1997]

To investigate the potential use of adjuvant hormonal therapy, a randomized, prospective trial was conducted among patients with locally advanced prostate cancer, comparing irradiation alone, with irradiation plus hormonal treatment with goserelin, an agonist anologue of gonadotropin-releasing hormone that reduces testosterone secretion. A total of 415 men under 80 years old with locally advanced disease and no previous treatment for prostate cancer were initially recruited, with data available for analysis on 401 of these patients. Preliminary results at 33-months’ follow-up suggested that goserelin started at the onset of external irradiation improved both local control and 5-year survival. Updated results at 45 months confirm these data. The overall 5-year survival rate for those treated with goserelin in addition to radiotherapy was 79%, compared to 62% in the radiotherapy only group. The localized control rate was 97% in the combined treatment group compared to 77% in the radiotherapy only group. [Oncol News Int 6(Suppl 3):21-22, 1997]

Outcomes beyond tumor response and patient survival have increasingly gained in importance over the past two decades. Quality of life (QOL) and cost-effectiveness of therapy have emerged as additional end points of interest. Conflicting results can and have been reported, however, depending on the measures used to report QOL and cost-effectiveness. Examples of QOL and cost-effectiveness issues and measures related to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer follow. [Oncol News Int 6(Suppl 3):22-24, 1997]

As health-care costs escalate, health-care planners must determine how the allocation of health-care dollars should be prioritized. One approach is to assess the cost of achieving a quality-adjusted year of life and then allocating the dollars in descending order, from least to most expensive, until all available money has been expended. Of course, calculating the cost per life-year is the real challenge because it is usually determined from mathematical decision models, which include many assumptions that may be subject to criticism.

HAMBURG-The Federation of European Cancer Societies released information on prostate cancer in Europe at its biennial European Cancer Conference (ECCO 9).

Waselenko and Dawson provide a summary of the extensive experience in the management of metastatic prostate cancer. Their article follows a traditional descriptive format and is quite informative. The part that is missing is a general discussion of the various biological aspects involved in the complex process of prostate cancer progression, which has been the focus of major research over the past few years.[1] Undoubtedly, this emerging body of knowledge will provide the background for the design and development of new treatments. There are a few issues, however, that deserve more emphasis.

Drs. Benoit and Naslund venture into the complex arena of medical economics and cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate cancer screening-a task that is made all the more difficult because of the dual paucity of data on costs and effectiveness. Their underlying premises are that cost control is a dominant concern in the prostate cancer screening debate and that cost-effectiveness analyses have been used to “justify denial of prostate cancer screening.” Both of these assumptions bear scrutiny.

Metastatic prostate cancer is a growing health problem and is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. While the response of patients with metastatic prostate cancer to initial hormonal manipulation is excellent, the

The introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for use in the early detection of prostate cancer has led to controversy regarding the appropriateness of prostate cancer screening and any subsequent treatment. Much

This review succinctly summarizes a relatively large body of literature surrounding the treatment of advanced, stage D2 (M+) prostate cancer. However, the patient with classic stage D2 prostate cancer, presenting de novo with multiple sites of bony metastasis, pain, and other systemic symptoms, is becoming less common in clinical practice. In 1997, prostate cancer is most commonly diagnosed in a locally advanced form, either clinically or pathologically stage C (T3), and accounts for approximately 60% of all newly diagnosed cases in the United States.[1] The reasons for this “stage migration” undoubtedly lie in the widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer while still organ-confined, and in the use of PSA to monitor patients who have undergone definitive local treatment.

NEW YORK-Researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center have developed a method of quantifying bone involvement in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer and have found that the resulting bone scan index (BSI) correlates with patient survival. In contrast, simply counting the number of bone lesions present did not provide useful prognostic information.

BALTIMORE, Md-The American Foundation for Urologic Disease (AFUD) has developed and published a comprehensive resource guide for prostate cancer patients, their families and friends, and health care professionals. The publication contains detailed information about prostate cancer, as well as compilations of organizations, publications, and other resources related to the disease.

NEW ORLEANS-Emerging strategies for treatment of advanced prostate cancer rest on precise classification of the hormone status of the disease and a range of developing techniques and agents aimed at increasing survival, according to experts at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association.

Radical cystectomy remains standard management for patients with locally advanced T2 through T4, N0, M0 transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder.

MENLO PARK, Calif-In preclin-ical studies, an attenuated adenovirus engineered to incorporate the regulatory region of the PSA gene has been shown to selectively infect and destroy human prostate cancer cells expressing PSA. The engineered virus, named CN706, was developed by scientists from Calydon, Inc., a California-based biopharmaceutical firm, and the Brady Urological Institute at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center.

As described by Wilt et al in their review, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) is asking very important questions about the effect of surgical treatment vs observation, with delayed androgen deprivation available to both groups, in patients with localized prostate cancer. Clinicians who have suffered with the old Uro-Oncology Trial comparison of prostatectomy vs radiation hope that PIVOT provides answers rather than confusion.

CHICAGO--Prostate cancer experts continue to seek other forms of therapy because the two major treatments--radiotherapy and radical pros-tatectomy--do not always reliably eradicate malignant cells.

Long recognized as standard treatment of gynecologic cancer and some other malignancies, brachytherapy may also play a role in the treatment of prostate cancer, said Dr. John C. Blasko of the University of Washington in Seattle.

NEW ORLEANS--The inheritance pattern for prostate cancer is becoming better understood by linkage analysis, and it appears that the inherited form may be more aggressive than sporadic cancer, according to reports at the American Urological Association meeting.

NEW ORLEANS--Progression-free survival rates after surgery for locally advanced prostate cancer were significantly improved by adjuvant therapy with the antiandrogen flutamide (Eulexin) in a randomized European trial.

CHICAGO--When physicians squared off on the issue of brachytherapy (interstitial radioactive seed placement) for prostate cancer at the Prostate Cancer Shootout II conference, the lines could not have been drawn more clearly.

The Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Committee of the Southwestern Oncology Group (SWOG) has achieved repeated successes in conducting prospective studies of prostate cancer. This article is a summary of recently completed and current trials in prostate cancer and, as such, represents an intriguing snapshot of priorities in prostate cancer clinical trials in 1997.

In 1941, Charles Huggins, Clarence Hodges, and R. E. Stevens reported on the beneficial effects of orchiectomy in 21 men with advanced prostate cancer.[1] Fifty-five years later, Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) investigators were able to confirm, in a 1,387-patient intergroup comparative trial of bilateral orchiectomy with or without flutamide (Eulexin), that we still have nothing better to offer these men. This fact alone should underscore the critical need for well-planned, well-executed clinical trials in prostate cancer. The incidence and death rates continue to rise, and even today too few men are being enrolled in studies designed to alter these statistics.

The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) should prove interesting in that the study design will permit observation of the natural history of a potentially lethal malignant disease, influenced only by palliative treatments. My comments will focus on the concerns raised by this study design. I will not address possible biases of the trial introduced by: (1) enrollment of less than 20% of the eligible population; (2) an enrollment rate per participating center of less than 3 patients per year; (3) a 7-year enrollment period; and (4) a 12-year follow-up (for a total trial duration of 19 years).

The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) is a randomized trial designed to determine whether radical prostatectomy or expectant management provides superior length and quality of life for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Conducted at Department of Veterans Affairs and National Cancer Institute medical centers, PIVOT will enroll over 1,000 individuals less than 75 years of age. The primary study end point is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include prostate cancer- and treatment-specific morbidity and mortality, health status, predictors of disease-specific outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Within the first 3 years of enrollment, over 400 men have been randomized. Early analysis of participants' baseline characteristics indicate that enrollees are representative of men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer throughout the United States. Therefore, results of PIVOT will be generalizable. These results are necessary in order to determine the preferred therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. [ONCOLOGY 11(8):1133-1143, 1997]

The changing clinical dynamics of prostate cancer have resulted in a broadening of the research focus of the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Committee of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG). Beginning with an emphasis on hormone-refractory disease in its early years, SWOG prostate cancer trials now cover the entire spectrum of the disease: localized, locally advanced, metastatic and hormone-refractory disease. As the world's largest GU cancer research group, the GU committee of SWOG has pioneered studies in combined androgen therapy for metastatic disease, quality-of-life (QOL) assessments for patients with localized and advanced disease, adjuvant therapy models, and prostate cancer chemoprevention. The committee has also formed the GU Global Group, whose purpose is to convene the chairs of the GU committees of all the major national and international oncology cooperative groups. Meeting semiannually, this group discusses activities within their respective organizations, plans collaborative strategies and protocols, and establishes global strategy in prostate cancer clinical research. The future directions of national and international prostate cancer trials will build on this broad foundation of well-conceived, logically sequenced studies. [ONCOLOGY 11(8):1155-1170, 1997]

A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir level of up to 1 ng/mL after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer is a powerful prognostic variable, according to Dr. Michael Zelefsky of the Department of

No difference in the rates of biochemical failure was found between patients with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of up to 10 ng/mL treated with radical prostatectomy and those treated with radiation