Willemien van den Bos1, Berrend G Muller2, Daniel M de Bruin2, Andre Luis de Castro Abreu3, Christian Chaussy4, Jonathan A Coleman5, Antonio Finelli6, Inderbir S Gill7, Mitchell E Gross7, Sjoerd F M Jenniskens8, Frank Kahmann9, M Pilar Laguna-Pes2, Ardeshir R Rastinehad10, Lucy A Simmons11, Tullio Sulser12, Arnauld Villers13, John F Ward14, Jean J M C H de la Rosette2. 1. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: w.vandenbos@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 6. Departmant of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. 8. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 9. Praxis Henkel & Kahmann, Berlin, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Hofstra North Shore-Lij, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. 11. Department of Urology, University College London, London, UK. 12. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 13. Department of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France. 14. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Salvage ablative therapy (SAT) has been developed as a form of localized treatment for localized recurrence of prostate cancers following radiation therapy. To better address the utility of SAT, prospective clinical trials must address the aspects of accepted standards in the initial evaluation, treatment, follow-up, and outcomes in the oncology community. We undertook this study to achieve consensus on uniform standardized trial design for SAT trials. METHODS: A literature search was performed and an international multidisciplinary group of experts was identified. A questionnaire was constructed and sent out to 71 participants in 3 consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which the results were reviewed and conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: Patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy were considered candidates for a SAT trial using any ablation scenario performed with cryotherapy or high-intensity focused ultrasound. It is feasible to compare different sources of energy or to compare with historical data on salvage radical prostatectomy outcomes. The primary objective should be to assess the efficacy of the treatment for negative biopsy rate at 12 months. Secondary objectives should include safety parameters and quality-of-life assessment. Exclusion criteria should include evidence of local or distant metastases. The optimal biopsy strategy is image-guided targeted biopsies. Follow-up includes multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate-specific antigen level, and quality of life for at least 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary board from international experts reached consensus on trial design for SAT in prostate cancer and provides a standard for designing a feasible SAT trial.
INTRODUCTION: Salvage ablative therapy (SAT) has been developed as a form of localized treatment for localized recurrence of prostate cancers following radiation therapy. To better address the utility of SAT, prospective clinical trials must address the aspects of accepted standards in the initial evaluation, treatment, follow-up, and outcomes in the oncology community. We undertook this study to achieve consensus on uniform standardized trial design for SAT trials. METHODS: A literature search was performed and an international multidisciplinary group of experts was identified. A questionnaire was constructed and sent out to 71 participants in 3 consecutive rounds according to the Delphi method. The project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which the results were reviewed and conclusions were formulated. RESULTS: Patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy were considered candidates for a SAT trial using any ablation scenario performed with cryotherapy or high-intensity focused ultrasound. It is feasible to compare different sources of energy or to compare with historical data on salvage radical prostatectomy outcomes. The primary objective should be to assess the efficacy of the treatment for negative biopsy rate at 12 months. Secondary objectives should include safety parameters and quality-of-life assessment. Exclusion criteria should include evidence of local or distant metastases. The optimal biopsy strategy is image-guided targeted biopsies. Follow-up includes multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate-specific antigen level, and quality of life for at least 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary board from international experts reached consensus on trial design for SAT in prostate cancer and provides a standard for designing a feasible SAT trial.
Authors: Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Paul Cathcart; Venu Chalasani; Andrew Williams; Neil McCartan; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; Clare Allen; Joseph Chin; Mark Emberton Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vladimir Yutkin; Hashim U Ahmed; Ian Donaldson; Neil McCartan; Khurram Siddiqui; Mark Emberton; Joseph L Chin Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Michael W Kattan; Michael J Zelefsky; Patrick A Kupelian; Daniel Cho; Peter T Scardino; Zvi Fuks; Steven A Leibel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Howard D Thames; Larry B Levy; Eric M Horwitz; Patrick A Kupelian; Alvaro A Martinez; Jeff M Michalski; Thomas M Pisansky; Howard M Sandler; William U Shipley; Michael J Zelefsky; Anthony L Zietman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Anthony V D'Amico; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Judd W Moul; Howard I Scher; Thorsten Schlomm; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ashesh B Jani; Peter A S Johnstone; Stanley L Liauw; Viraj A Master; Peter J Rossi Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Willemien van den Bos; Maurizio Brausi; Francois Cornud; Paolo Gontero; Alexander Kirkham; Peter A Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Theo M de Reijke; Jean J de la Rosette; Osamu Ukimura; Arnauld Villers; Jochen Walz; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-08-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Willemien van den Bos; Berrend G Muller; Hashim Ahmed; Chris H Bangma; Eric Barret; Sebastien Crouzet; Scott E Eggener; Inderbir S Gill; Steven Joniau; Gyoergy Kovacs; Sascha Pahernik; Jean J de la Rosette; Olivier Rouvière; Georg Salomon; John F Ward; Peter T Scardino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: William P Parker; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Val J Lowe; Timothy J Welch; Jaden D Evans; William S Harmsen; Harras B Zaid; Ilya Sobol; Daniel M Moreira; Rimki Haloi; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Stephen A Boorjian; Lance A Mynderse; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michela Meregaglia; Oriana Ciani; Helen Banks; Maximilian Salcher-Konrad; Caroline Carney; Sahan Jayawardana; Paula Williamson; Giovanni Fattore Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 4.615