Inderbir S Gill1, Abdel-Rahmene Azzouzi2, Mark Emberton3, Jonathan A Coleman4, Emmanuel Coeytaux5, Avigdor Scherz6, Peter T Scardino7. 1. Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Urology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France; STEBA Biotech, Paris, France. 3. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. STEBA Biotech, Paris, France. 6. Department of Plants and Environmental Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. 7. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: scardinp@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prospective PCM301 trial randomized 413 men with low risk prostate cancer to partial gland ablation with vascular targeted photodynamic therapy in 207 and active surveillance in 206. Two-year outcomes were reported previously. We report 4-year rates of intervention with radical therapy and further assess efficacy with biopsy results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate biopsies were mandated at 12 and 24 months. Thereafter patients were monitored for radical therapy with periodic biopsies performed according to the standard of care at each institution. Ablation efficacy was assessed by biopsy results overall and in field in the treated lobe or the lobe with index cancer. RESULTS:Conversion to radical therapy was less likely in the ablation cohort than in the surveillance cohort, including 7% vs 32% at 2 years, 15% vs 44% at 3 years and 24% vs 53% at 4 years (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46). Radical therapy triggers were similar in the 2 arms. Cancer progression rates overall and by grade were significantly lower in the ablation cohort (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.59). End of study biopsy results were negative throughout the prostate in 50% of patients after ablation vs 14% after surveillance (risk difference 36%, 95% CI 28-44). Gleason 7 or higher cancer was less likely for ablation than for surveillance (16% vs 41%). Of the in field biopsies 10% contained Gleason 7 cancer after ablation vs 34% after surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial of partial ablation of low risk prostate cancer photodynamic therapy significantly reduced the subsequent finding of higher grade cancer on biopsy. Consequently fewer cases were converted to radical therapy, a clinically meaningful benefit that lowered treatment related morbidity.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The prospective PCM301 trial randomized 413 men with low risk prostate cancer to partial gland ablation with vascular targeted photodynamic therapy in 207 and active surveillance in 206. Two-year outcomes were reported previously. We report 4-year rates of intervention with radical therapy and further assess efficacy with biopsy results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate biopsies were mandated at 12 and 24 months. Thereafter patients were monitored for radical therapy with periodic biopsies performed according to the standard of care at each institution. Ablation efficacy was assessed by biopsy results overall and in field in the treated lobe or the lobe with index cancer. RESULTS: Conversion to radical therapy was less likely in the ablation cohort than in the surveillance cohort, including 7% vs 32% at 2 years, 15% vs 44% at 3 years and 24% vs 53% at 4 years (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46). Radical therapy triggers were similar in the 2 arms. Cancer progression rates overall and by grade were significantly lower in the ablation cohort (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.59). End of study biopsy results were negative throughout the prostate in 50% of patients after ablation vs 14% after surveillance (risk difference 36%, 95% CI 28-44). Gleason 7 or higher cancer was less likely for ablation than for surveillance (16% vs 41%). Of the in field biopsies 10% contained Gleason 7 cancer after ablation vs 34% after surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial of partial ablation of low risk prostate cancer photodynamic therapy significantly reduced the subsequent finding of higher grade cancer on biopsy. Consequently fewer cases were converted to radical therapy, a clinically meaningful benefit that lowered treatment related morbidity.
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Abel-Rahmene Azzouzi; Eric Barret; Arnauld Villers; Gordon H Muir; Neil J Barber; Simon Bott; John Trachtenberg; Nimalan Arumainayagam; Bertrand Gaillac; Clare Allen; Avigdor Schertz; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Samir S Taneja; James Bennett; Jonathan Coleman; Robert Grubb; Gerald Andriole; Robert E Reiter; Leonard Marks; Abdel-Rahmene Azzouzi; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Amir H Lebastchi; Luke P O'Connor; Michael Ahdoot; Sherif Mehralivand; Nitin Yerram; Samir S Taneja; Arvin K George; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; John F Ward; Pilar Laguna; Jean de la Rosette; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Rebeca Lara; Gonzalo Millán; M Teresa Moreno; Elena Lalinde; Elvira Alfaro-Arnedo; Icíar P López; Ignacio M Larráyoz; José G Pichel Journal: Chemistry Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 5.020
Authors: John R Heard; Aurash Naser-Tavakolian; Michael Nazmifar; Michael Ahdoot Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Angelika Borkowetz; Andreas Blana; Dirk Böhmer; Hannes Cash; Udo Ehrmann; Tobias Franiel; Thomas-Oliver Henkel; Stefan Höcht; Glen Kristiansen; Stefan Machtens; Peter Niehoff; Tobias Penzkofer; Michael Pinkawa; Jan Philipp Radtke; Wilfried Roth; Ullrich Witzsch; Roman Ganzer; Heinz Peter Schlemmer; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Oliver W Hakenberg; Martin Schostak Journal: Urol Int Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 1.934
Authors: Aaron J Sorrin; Mustafa Kemal Ruhi; Nathaniel A Ferlic; Vida Karimnia; William J Polacheck; Jonathan P Celli; Huang-Chiao Huang; Imran Rizvi Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Masakatsu Oishi; Inderbir S Gill; Alessandro Tafuri; Aliasger Shakir; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Tsuyoshi Iwata; Atsuko Iwata; Akbar Ashrafi; Daniel Park; Jie Cai; Mihir Desai; Osamu Ukimura; Duke K Bahn; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Giuseppe Fallara; Paolo Capogrosso; Paolo Maggio; Alessandro Taborelli; Francesco Montorsi; Federico Dehò; Andrea Salonia Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 2.896