
Photodynamic Therapy Can Preserve Tissue in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy with padeliporfin was significantly better than active surveillance over a 2-year period in men with low-risk localized prostate cancer.
Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy with padeliporfin was significantly better than active surveillance over a 2-year period in men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, according to a new study. The treatment could allow men to avoid more radical therapy.
“Focal therapy and active surveillance are both tissue-preserving strategies,” wrote study authors led by Mark Emberton, MD, of University College London in the United Kingdom. “However, focal therapy differs from active surveillance in that it treats disease-by the process of selective tissue ablation-above a certain risk threshold and monitors disease below that threshold, because the latter is deemed to be clinically significant.”
The two therapies have not previously been compared directly in a prospective study. The new study randomized 207 men with low-risk localized prostate cancer to active surveillance, and 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy. Those patients had optical fibers inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone, and received 4 mg/kg padeliporfin infusion; activation of the therapy was done by laser light. The results were
The median follow-up period was 24 months. At month 24, 58 patients in the photodynamic therapy group (28%) had disease progression, compared with 120 patients (58%) in the active surveillance group. This yielded an adjusted hazard ratio for progression of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24–0.46; P < .0001).
Among the photodynamic therapy patients, 101 patients (49%) had a negative biopsy result at 24 months. In the active surveillance patients, only 28 patients (14%) had such a biopsy at that point, yielding an HR of 3.67 (95% CI, 2.53–5.33; P < .0001).
The therapy was generally well tolerated; the most common grade 3/4 adverse events included prostatitis in three patients (2%), acute urinary retention in three patients (2%), and erectile dysfunction in two patients (1%). Fifteen patients had serious retention of urine, including three patients deemed severe, but this resolved within 2 months in all patients.
“More research is needed to address unanswered questions, the principal one being the long-term effect of tissue-preserving treatment on control rates of prostate cancer,” the authors wrote. Still, “men who have low-risk, localized disease can now choose, on the basis of the evidence that our study has generated, how to approach tissue preservation.”
In an accompanying






















