BACKGROUND: Intermediate end points are desirable to expedite the integration of neoadjuvant systemic therapy into the treatment strategy for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla (1.5T erMRI) response has been utilized as an end point in neoadjuvant trials but has not been correlated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data were pooled from two trials exploring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer. Trial 1 explored docetaxel for 6 months and Trial 2 explored docetaxel plus bevacizumab for 4.5 months, both before radical prostatectomy. erMRI was done at baseline and end of chemotherapy. 1.5T erMRI response, based upon T2W sequences, was recorded. Multivariable Cox regression was undertaken to evaluate the association between clinical parameters and biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: There were 53 evaluable patients in the combined analysis: 20 (33%) achieved a PSA response, 16 (27%) achieved an erMRI partial response and 24 (40%) achieved an erMRI minor response. Median follow-up was 4.2 years, and 33 of 53 evaluable (62%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. On multivariable analysis, PSA response did not correlate with biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.33) and paradoxically erMRI response was associated with a significantly shorter time to biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio=2.47, 95% CI 1.00-6.13). CONCLUSIONS: Response by 1.5T erMRI does not correlate with a decreased likelihood of biochemical recurrence in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and may be associated with inferior outcomes. These data do not support the use of 1.5T erMRI response as a primary end point in neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials.
BACKGROUND: Intermediate end points are desirable to expedite the integration of neoadjuvant systemic therapy into the treatment strategy for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla (1.5T erMRI) response has been utilized as an end point in neoadjuvant trials but has not been correlated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data were pooled from two trials exploring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk localized prostate cancer. Trial 1 explored docetaxel for 6 months and Trial 2 explored docetaxel plus bevacizumab for 4.5 months, both before radical prostatectomy. erMRI was done at baseline and end of chemotherapy. 1.5T erMRI response, based upon T2W sequences, was recorded. Multivariable Cox regression was undertaken to evaluate the association between clinical parameters and biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: There were 53 evaluable patients in the combined analysis: 20 (33%) achieved a PSA response, 16 (27%) achieved an erMRI partial response and 24 (40%) achieved an erMRI minor response. Median follow-up was 4.2 years, and 33 of 53 evaluable (62%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. On multivariable analysis, PSA response did not correlate with biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.33) and paradoxically erMRI response was associated with a significantly shorter time to biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio=2.47, 95% CI 1.00-6.13). CONCLUSIONS: Response by 1.5T erMRI does not correlate with a decreased likelihood of biochemical recurrence in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and may be associated with inferior outcomes. These data do not support the use of 1.5T erMRI response as a primary end point in neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials.
Authors: Robert Dreicer; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Ming Zhou; Jason Rothaermel; Alwyn Reuther; James Ulchaker; Craig Zippe; Amr Fergany; Eric A Klein Journal: Urology Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Robert W Ross; Matthew D Galsky; Phil Febbo; Marc Barry; Jerome P Richie; Wanling Xie; Fiona M Fennessy; Rupal S Bhatt; Julia Hayes; Toni K Choueiri; Clare M Tempany; Philip W Kantoff; Mary E Taplin; William K Oh Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A W Partin; M W Kattan; E N Subong; P C Walsh; K J Wojno; J E Oesterling; P T Scardino; J D Pearson Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Phillip G Febbo; Jerome P Richie; Daniel J George; Massimo Loda; Judith Manola; Sridhar Shankar; Agnieska Szot Barnes; Clare Tempany; William Catalona; Philip W Kantoff; William K Oh Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nicholas J van As; Nandita M de Souza; Sophie F Riches; Veronica A Morgan; Sayid A Sohaib; David P Dearnaley; Chris C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-12-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Ofer Yossepowitch; Andrew J Vickers; Eric A Klein; David P Wood; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rosanne Cv Van der Roest; Petra J van Houdt; Stijn Wtpj Heijmink; Jeroen de Jong; André M Bergman; Wilbert Zwart; Uulke A van der Heide; Henk G van der Poel Journal: Urol Case Rep Date: 2016-05-26