Nicola Fossati1, Gianluca Giannarini2, Steven Joniau3, Michiel Sedelaar4, Prasanna Sooriakumaran5, Martin Spahn6, Morgan Rouprêt7. 1. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: fossati.nicola@hsr.it. 2. Urology Unit, Academic Medical Centre, Santa Maria Della Misericordia Hospital, Udine, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Uro-oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. Urology Center Boxler and Spahn, Lindenhofspital, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. Sorbonne Université, Urology Department, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Abstract
This report presents a 56-yr-old man in good general health status, newly diagnosed with a cT3b, cN1, cM1b, International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 3, low-volume (CHAARTED criteria), low-risk (LATITUDE criteria) metastatic prostate cancer. Staging was performed with conventional imaging: a computed tomography (CT) scan showed the presence of two enlarged lymph nodes on the left, close to the external iliac vessels. In addition, a suspicious 15-mm metastatic lesion was detected in the left pubic bone. This lesion was confirmed on the bone scan, without further metastatic lesions. In the context of a clinical trial, after an initial course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), the patient was treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (histopathological examination: ypT3b pN1 R1). Postprostatectomy radiation therapy was delivered on prostatic bed (70Gy), pelvic lymph node area (54Gy), and pubic bone (51Gy). ADT was scheduled for a total period of 36 mo. Currently, the patient is still receiving ADT, which will be completed within 6 mo. The last prostate-specific antigen level was undetectable. The discussion is focused on the following three open questions: (1) Would molecular imaging (eg, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/CT) change the therapeutic approach to the patient? (2) Is there a role for local treatment in the metastatic setting? (iii) Should metastasis-directed therapy be considered for this patient? PATIENT SUMMARY: The optimal management of patients newly diagnosed with oligometastatic prostate cancer remains challenging. The fields of staging with modern imaging and therapy with novel treatment options are evolving rapidly. In particular, the role of a prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging, the impact of a local treatment on the prostate, and the effect of direct therapies on the metastases represent important open questions in this intriguing field.
This report presents a 56-yr-old man in good general health status, newly diagnosed with a cT3b, cN1, cM1b, International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 3, low-volume (CHAARTED criteria), low-risk (LATITUDE criteria) metastatic prostate cancer. Staging was performed with conventional imaging: a computed tomography (CT) scan showed the presence of two enlarged lymph nodes on the left, close to the external iliac vessels. In addition, a suspicious 15-mm metastatic lesion was detected in the left pubic bone. This lesion was confirmed on the bone scan, without further metastatic lesions. In the context of a clinical trial, after an initial course of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), the patient was treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (histopathological examination: ypT3b pN1 R1). Postprostatectomy radiation therapy was delivered on prostatic bed (70Gy), pelvic lymph node area (54Gy), and pubic bone (51Gy). ADT was scheduled for a total period of 36 mo. Currently, the patient is still receiving ADT, which will be completed within 6 mo. The last prostate-specific antigen level was undetectable. The discussion is focused on the following three open questions: (1) Would molecular imaging (eg, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/CT) change the therapeutic approach to the patient? (2) Is there a role for local treatment in the metastatic setting? (iii) Should metastasis-directed therapy be considered for this patient? PATIENT SUMMARY: The optimal management of patients newly diagnosed with oligometastatic prostate cancer remains challenging. The fields of staging with modern imaging and therapy with novel treatment options are evolving rapidly. In particular, the role of a prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging, the impact of a local treatment on the prostate, and the effect of direct therapies on the metastases represent important open questions in this intriguing field.