David Y Lou1, Lawrence Fong2. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 2. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: lawrence.fong@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve the clinical outcome for patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer have led to the development of neoadjuvant systemic therapies. We review the different modalities of neoadjuvant therapies for localized prostate cancer and highlight emerging treatment approaches including immunotherapy and targeted therapy. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search of clinical trials evaluating preoperative systemic therapies for treating high-risk prostate cancer published after 2000, and those studies with the highest clinical relevance to current treatment approaches were selected for review. The database at clinicaltrials.gov was queried for neoadjuvant studies in high-risk prostate cancer, and those evaluating novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies are spotlighted here. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become standard of care for treating some malignancies, including breast and bladder cancers. In prostate cancer, preoperative hormonal therapy or chemotherapy has failed to demonstrate improvements in overall survival. Nevertheless, the emergence of novel treatment modalities such as targeted small molecules and immunotherapy has spawned neoadjuvant clinical trials that provide a unique vantage from which to study mechanism of action and biological potency. Tissue-based biomarkers are being developed to elucidate the biological efficacy of these treatments. With targeted therapy, these can include phospho-proteomic signatures of target pathway activation and deactivation. With immunotherapies, including sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, recruitment of immune cells to the tumor microenvironment can also be used as robust markers of a biological effect. Such studies can provide insight not only into mechanism of action for these therapies but can also provide paths forward to improving clinical efficacy like with rationally designed combinations and dose selection. CONCLUSIONS: The use of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy and chemotherapy either singly or in combination before radical prostatectomy is generally safe and feasible while reducing prostate volume and tumor burden. However, pathologic complete response rates are low and no long-term survival benefit has been observed with the addition of neoadjuvant therapies over surgery alone at present, and therefore preoperative therapy is not the current standard of care in prostate cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve the clinical outcome for patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer have led to the development of neoadjuvant systemic therapies. We review the different modalities of neoadjuvant therapies for localized prostate cancer and highlight emerging treatment approaches including immunotherapy and targeted therapy. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search of clinical trials evaluating preoperative systemic therapies for treating high-risk prostate cancer published after 2000, and those studies with the highest clinical relevance to current treatment approaches were selected for review. The database at clinicaltrials.gov was queried for neoadjuvant studies in high-risk prostate cancer, and those evaluating novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies are spotlighted here. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has become standard of care for treating some malignancies, including breast and bladder cancers. In prostate cancer, preoperative hormonal therapy or chemotherapy has failed to demonstrate improvements in overall survival. Nevertheless, the emergence of novel treatment modalities such as targeted small molecules and immunotherapy has spawned neoadjuvant clinical trials that provide a unique vantage from which to study mechanism of action and biological potency. Tissue-based biomarkers are being developed to elucidate the biological efficacy of these treatments. With targeted therapy, these can include phospho-proteomic signatures of target pathway activation and deactivation. With immunotherapies, including sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, recruitment of immune cells to the tumor microenvironment can also be used as robust markers of a biological effect. Such studies can provide insight not only into mechanism of action for these therapies but can also provide paths forward to improving clinical efficacy like with rationally designed combinations and dose selection. CONCLUSIONS: The use of neoadjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy and chemotherapy either singly or in combination before radical prostatectomy is generally safe and feasible while reducing prostate volume and tumor burden. However, pathologic complete response rates are low and no long-term survival benefit has been observed with the addition of neoadjuvant therapies over surgery alone at present, and therefore preoperative therapy is not the current standard of care in prostate cancer treatment.
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: F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michel Bolla; Geertjan Van Tienhoven; Padraig Warde; Jean Bernard Dubois; René-Olivier Mirimanoff; Guy Storme; Jacques Bernier; Abraham Kuten; Cora Sternberg; Ignace Billiet; José Lopez Torecilla; Raphael Pfeffer; Carmel Lino Cutajar; Theodore Van der Kwast; Laurence Collette Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David S Yee; William T Lowrance; James A Eastham; Alexandra C Maschino; Angel M Cronin; Farhang Rabbani Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John R Bright; Rosina T Lis; Anson T Ku; Nicholas T Terrigino; Nichelle C Whitlock; Shana Y Trostel; Nicole V Carrabba; Stephanie A Harmon; Baris Turkbey; Scott Wilkinson; Adam G Sowalsky Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Gaëtan Devos; Wout Devlies; Gert De Meerleer; Marcella Baldewijns; Thomas Gevaert; Lisa Moris; Daimantas Milonas; Hendrik Van Poppel; Charlien Berghen; Wouter Everaerts; Frank Claessens; Steven Joniau Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Sung Han Kim; Weon Seo Park; Sun Ho Kim; Boram Park; Jungnam Joo; Geon Kook Lee; Jae Young Joung; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristin N Gabriel; Anna C Jones; Julie P T Nguyen; Kresta S Antillon; Sara N Janos; Heidi N Overton; Shannon M Jenkins; Emily H Frisch; Kristina A Trujillo; Marco Bisoffi Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 5.650