Francois Rozet1, Thierry Roumeguère2, Martin Spahn3, Dirk Beyersdorff4, Peter Hammerer5. 1. Department of Urology, L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. francois.rozet@imm.fr. 2. Department of Urology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Urology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the clinical management of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) generally focus on the need to continue androgen deprivation therapy and enrol patients into clinical trials of investigational agents. This guidance reflects the lack of clinical trial data with established agents in the nmCRPC patient population and the need for trials of new agents. AIM: To review the evidence base and consider ways of improving the management of nmCRPC. CONCLUSION: Upon the development of castrate resistance, it is essential to rule out the presence of metastases or micrometastases by optimising the use of bone scans and possibly newer procedures and techniques. When nmCRPC is established, management decisions should be individualised according to risk, but risk stratification in this diverse population is poorly defined. Currently, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSA doubling time remain the best method of assessing the risk of progression and response to treatment in nmCRPC. However, optimising imaging protocols can also help assess the changing metastatic burden in patients with CRPC. Clinical trials of novel agents in nmCRPC are limited and have problems with enrolment, and therefore, improved risk stratification and imaging may be crucial to the improved management. The statements presented in this paper, reflecting the views of the authors, provide a discussion of the most recent evidence in nmCRPC and provide some advice on how to ensure these patients receive the best management available. However, there is an urgent need for more data on the management of nmCRPC.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the clinical management of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) generally focus on the need to continue androgen deprivation therapy and enrol patients into clinical trials of investigational agents. This guidance reflects the lack of clinical trial data with established agents in the nmCRPCpatient population and the need for trials of new agents. AIM: To review the evidence base and consider ways of improving the management of nmCRPC. CONCLUSION: Upon the development of castrate resistance, it is essential to rule out the presence of metastases or micrometastases by optimising the use of bone scans and possibly newer procedures and techniques. When nmCRPC is established, management decisions should be individualised according to risk, but risk stratification in this diverse population is poorly defined. Currently, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSA doubling time remain the best method of assessing the risk of progression and response to treatment in nmCRPC. However, optimising imaging protocols can also help assess the changing metastatic burden in patients with CRPC. Clinical trials of novel agents in nmCRPC are limited and have problems with enrolment, and therefore, improved risk stratification and imaging may be crucial to the improved management. The statements presented in this paper, reflecting the views of the authors, provide a discussion of the most recent evidence in nmCRPC and provide some advice on how to ensure these patients receive the best management available. However, there is an urgent need for more data on the management of nmCRPC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Imaging; Individualised management; Management; Non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E David Crawford; Nelson N Stone; Evan Y Yu; Phillip J Koo; Stephen J Freedland; Susan F Slovin; Leonard G Gomella; E Roy Berger; Thomas E Keane; Paul Sieber; Neal D Shore; Daniel P Petrylak Journal: Urology Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Vasiliki Pasoglou; Nicolas Michoux; Frank Peeters; Ahmed Larbi; Bertrand Tombal; Tom Selleslagh; Patrick Omoumi; Bruno C Vande Berg; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Evan Y Yu; Kurt Miller; Joel Nelson; Martin Gleave; Karim Fizazi; Judd W Moul; Faith E Nathan; Celestia S Higano Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Alejandro Alías-Melgar; Andrés Martínez-Cornelio; Silvia P Neciosup; Juan Pablo Sade; Marcos Santos; Gustavo Martin Villoldo Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2020 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Simon Chowdhury; Stéphane Oudard; Hiroji Uemura; Steven Joniau; Dominic Pilon; Martin Ladouceur; Ajay S Behl; Jinan Liu; Lindsay Dearden; Jan Sermon; Suzy Van Sanden; Joris Diels; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 3.845