Igor Tsaur1, Roman A Blaheta1, Robert Dotzauer1, Cristian Mirvald2,3, Jonathan Olivier4,5,6, Cristian Surcel7,8, Maximilian P Brandt1, Giorgio Gandaglia9, Ioanel Sinescu2,3. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. 2. Center of Urologic Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 00238, Bucharest, Romania. 3. University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania. 4. Department of Urology, Hospital Claude Huriez, CHU Lille, Lille, France. 5. Université de Lille Faculté de Médecine Henri Warembourg, Lille, France. 6. CNRS, INSERM, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, UMR9020-U1277-CANTHER-Cancer Heterogeneity Plasticity and Resistance to Therapies, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. 7. Center of Urologic Surgery, Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 00238, Bucharest, Romania. drsurcel@gmail.com. 8. University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania. drsurcel@gmail.com. 9. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Focal therapy (FT) is gaining increasing acceptance in the management of localized prostate cancer particularly due to its favorable safety. Preliminary evidence suggests advantageous utilization of local treatment in the field of oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). Since data on the utilization of FT in OMPC are scarce, we sought to summarize available evidence. METHODS: For this narrative comprehensive review, we employed PubMed®, Web of Science™, Embase®, Scopus®, and clinicaltrial.gov databases and Google web search engine to seek peer-reviewed articles, published abstracts from international congresses, and ongoing trials in the English language using the terms "prostate cancer", "oligometastatic", "hormone-sensitive", "focal therapy", "focal treatment", "cryotherapy", "ablation", "cancer" as well as "metastasis-directed therapy. We focused on relevant publications on FT utilized in OMPC targeting the primary or metastatic sites as well as completed and ongoing clinical trials. RESULTS: Growing evidence points to distinct differences in the biologic behavior and molecular signaling processes of OMPC as compared to polymetastatic disease (PMPC). No established biomarkers are available to accurately identify OMPC yet, while several candidates are currently under investigation. The evolution of molecular imaging is set to aid in selecting patients benefitting most from local management. Differences between OMPC and PMPC should be considered when designing the optimal therapeutic strategy. While efficacy data for FT in comparison to standard care in OMPC are scarce, longer progression-free survival and time to castration resistance have been demonstrated for bone metastatic prostate cancer with the primary tumor treated by cryosurgery followed by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone. CONCLUSION: Ongoing research efforts are eagerly awaited to better characterize OMPC and establish customized strategies for patients with this condition.
PURPOSE: Focal therapy (FT) is gaining increasing acceptance in the management of localized prostate cancer particularly due to its favorable safety. Preliminary evidence suggests advantageous utilization of local treatment in the field of oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). Since data on the utilization of FT in OMPC are scarce, we sought to summarize available evidence. METHODS: For this narrative comprehensive review, we employed PubMed®, Web of Science™, Embase®, Scopus®, and clinicaltrial.gov databases and Google web search engine to seek peer-reviewed articles, published abstracts from international congresses, and ongoing trials in the English language using the terms "prostate cancer", "oligometastatic", "hormone-sensitive", "focal therapy", "focal treatment", "cryotherapy", "ablation", "cancer" as well as "metastasis-directed therapy. We focused on relevant publications on FT utilized in OMPC targeting the primary or metastatic sites as well as completed and ongoing clinical trials. RESULTS: Growing evidence points to distinct differences in the biologic behavior and molecular signaling processes of OMPC as compared to polymetastatic disease (PMPC). No established biomarkers are available to accurately identify OMPC yet, while several candidates are currently under investigation. The evolution of molecular imaging is set to aid in selecting patients benefitting most from local management. Differences between OMPC and PMPC should be considered when designing the optimal therapeutic strategy. While efficacy data for FT in comparison to standard care in OMPC are scarce, longer progression-free survival and time to castration resistance have been demonstrated for bone metastatic prostate cancer with the primary tumor treated by cryosurgery followed by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone. CONCLUSION: Ongoing research efforts are eagerly awaited to better characterize OMPC and establish customized strategies for patients with this condition.
Authors: Liselotte M S Boevé; Maarten C C M Hulshof; André N Vis; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jos W R Twisk; Wim P J Witjes; Karl P J Delaere; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Paul C M S Verhagen; George van Andel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sophie Knipper; Burkhard Beyer; Philipp Mandel; Pierre Tennstedt; Derya Tilki; Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sham Mailankody; Sean M Devlin; Jonathan Landa; Karthik Nath; Claudia Diamonte; Elizabeth J Carstens; Douglas Russo; Romany Auclair; Lisa Fitzgerald; Briana Cadzin; Xiuyan Wang; Devanjan Sikder; Brigitte Senechal; Vladimir P Bermudez; Terence J Purdon; Kinga Hosszu; Devin P McAvoy; Tasmin Farzana; Elena Mead; Jessica A Wilcox; Bianca D Santomasso; Gunjan L Shah; Urvi A Shah; Neha Korde; Alexander Lesokhin; Carlyn R Tan; Malin Hultcrantz; Hani Hassoun; Mikhail Roshal; Filiz Sen; Ahmet Dogan; Ola Landgren; Sergio A Giralt; Jae H Park; Saad Z Usmani; Isabelle Rivière; Renier J Brentjens; Eric L Smith Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Henk G van der Poel; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Philip Cornford; Alex Govorov; Ann M Henry; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Olivier Rouvière; Maria De Santis; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Hendrik van Poppel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Adnan Ali; Alex Hoyle; Áine M Haran; Christopher D Brawley; Adrian Cook; Claire Amos; Joanna Calvert; Hassan Douis; Malcolm D Mason; David Dearnaley; Gerhardt Attard; Silke Gillessen; Mahesh K B Parmar; Christopher C Parker; Matthew R Sydes; Nicholas D James; Noel W Clarke Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Christopher C Parker; Nicholas D James; Christopher D Brawley; Noel W Clarke; Alex P Hoyle; Adnan Ali; Alastair W S Ritchie; Gerhardt Attard; Simon Chowdhury; William Cross; David P Dearnaley; Silke Gillessen; Clare Gilson; Robert J Jones; Ruth E Langley; Zafar I Malik; Malcolm D Mason; David Matheson; Robin Millman; J Martin Russell; George N Thalmann; Claire L Amos; Roberto Alonzi; Amit Bahl; Alison Birtle; Omar Din; Hassan Douis; Chinnamani Eswar; Joanna Gale; Melissa R Gannon; Sai Jonnada; Sara Khaksar; Jason F Lester; Joe M O'Sullivan; Omi A Parikh; Ian D Pedley; Delia M Pudney; Denise J Sheehan; Narayanan Nair Srihari; Anna T H Tran; Mahesh K B Parmar; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ryan Phillips; William Yue Shi; Matthew Deek; Noura Radwan; Su Jin Lim; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Steven P Rowe; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Curtiland Deville; Stephen C Greco; Hailun Wang; Samuel R Denmeade; Channing J Paller; Shirl Dipasquale; Theodore L DeWeese; Daniel Y Song; Hao Wang; Michael A Carducci; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Adam P Dicker; Mario A Eisenberger; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn; Phuoc T Tran Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777