Clinical and Biochemical Outcomes of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients treated with Third Generation Prostate Cryosurgery

Authors

  • Sven Wenske Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 10032, USA
  • Philippa Cheetham Department of Urology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY 11501, USA
  • Aaron E. Katz Department of Urology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY 11501, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-7229.2013.02.02.10

Keywords:

Prostate cancer, high-risk, cryosurgery, biochemical recurrence, overall survival, cancer-specific survival.

Abstract

 Objectives:To report on outcomes after modern-day primary prostate cryosurgery (CS) in D Amico high-risk (PSA >20 ng/ml, Gleason score ¢€°¥8, or tumor stage T2c or T3) localised prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated at a large academic center. Materials and Methods:730 consecutive cases of total gland prostate CS were reviewed, and 80 men with high-risk disease identified. Clinical data was analyzed, with primary and secondary endpoints being overall survival, cancer-specific survival, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and clinical progression. Results:Median age was 75.8 (55.4-88.1) years, median presenting PSA 20.0 (2.6-236.5) ng/ml, and median Gleason score 8 (6-10). Median follow-up was 49.6 (8.9-159.3) months. There were three PCa related deaths (4%); 34 (43%) and 39 (49%) men had BCR as defined by the Phoenix- and Stuttgart-criteria, respectively; 24 of the 39 (64%) men were re-biopsied. 13 of 80 (16%) had biopsy proven recurrent PCa. Nine (11%) subsequently underwent salvage CS. Six of the 39 (15%) men with BCR had metastatic disease on bone scan; 19 of 34 (49%) men with BCR received anti-androgen therapy, 18 (95%) of whom had also received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy. Conclusions:Prostate CS is a controversial treatment for high-risk patients, and our early experience revealed low cancer-specific mortality and morbidity, with encouraging biochemical and local control rates for these high-risk patients. In our series the incidence of metastases was less than that reported by Bolla et al. post-EBRT and hormones, and we therefore believe that prostate CS be strongly considered for these high-risk patients, and mandate that further study of CS for high-risk disease is warranted.

References

Loeb S, Schaeffer EM, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Urology 2010; 76(3): 710-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.014

Saliken JC, Donnelly BJ, Rewcastle JC. The evolution and state of modern technology for prostate cryosurgery. Urology 2002; 60(2 Suppl 1): 26-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01681-3

Lambert EH, Bolte K, Masson P, Katz AE. Focal cryosurgery: encouraging health outcomes for unifocal prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 69(6): 1117-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.047

Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Predicting recurrence after radical prostatectomy for patients with high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169(1): 157-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64058-X

Rioux-Leclercq NC, Chan DY, Epstein JI. Prediction of outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with organ-confined Gleason score 8 to 10 adenocarcinoma. Urology 2002; 60(4): 666-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01816-2

Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177(6): 2106-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.003

Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, Version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 2012; 10(9): 1081-7.

Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 2010; 8(2): 162-200.

Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59(1): 61-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039

Onik GM, Cohen JK, Reyes GD, Rubinsky B, Chang Z, Baust J. Transrectal ultrasound-guided percutaneous radical cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Cancer 1993; 72(4): 1291-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19930815)72:4<1291::AID-CNCR2820720423>3.0.CO;2-I

Roach M, 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H, Jr., Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localised prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65(4): 965-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029

Ripert T, Azemar MD, Menard J, Barbe C, Messaoudi R, Bayoud Y, et al. Six years' experience with high-intensity focused ultrasonography for prostate cancer: oncological outcomes using the new 'Stuttgart' definition for biochemical failure. BJU Int 2011; 107(12): 1899-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09710.x

Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff RO, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 360(9327): 103-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09408-4

Pisters LL, Leibovici D, Blute M, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, Slezak JM, et al. Locally recurrent prostate cancer after initial radiation therapy: a comparison of salvage radical prostatectomy versus cryotherapy. J Urol 2009; 182(2): 517-25; discussion 25-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.006

Wenske S, Quarrier S, Katz AE. Salvage Cryosurgery of the Prostate for Failure After Primary Radiotherapy or Cryosurgery: Long-term Clinical, Functional, and Oncologic Outcomes in a Large Cohort at a Tertiary Referral Centre. Eur Urol 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.008

D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Weinstein M, Tomaszewski JE, Schultz D, et al. Predicting prostate specific antigen outcome preoperatively in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2001; 166(6): 2185-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65531-0

El Hayek OR, Alfer W, Jr., Reggio E, Pompeo AC, Arap S, Lucon AM, et al. Prostate cryoablation: prospective analysis comparing high- and low-risk prostate cancer outcomes. Urol Int 2008; 81(2): 186-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000144058

Long JP, Bahn D, Lee F, Shinohara K, Chinn DO, Macaluso JN, Jr. Five-year retrospective, multi-institutional pooled analysis of cancer-related outcomes after cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Urology 2001; 57(3): 518-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)01060-8

Roach M, 3rd. Hormonal therapy and radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: who, where and how long? J Urol 2003; 170(6 Pt 2): S35-40; discussion S-1.

Pitman M, Shapiro EY, Hruby GW, Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Saad S, et al. Comparison of biochemical failure definitions for predicting local cancer recurrence following cryoablation of the prostate. Prostate 2012; 72(16): 1802-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.22541

Downloads

Published

2013-04-03

How to Cite

Sven Wenske, Philippa Cheetham, & Aaron E. Katz. (2013). Clinical and Biochemical Outcomes of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients treated with Third Generation Prostate Cryosurgery. Journal of Analytical Oncology, 2(2),  120–127. https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-7229.2013.02.02.10

Issue

Section

Articles