| 1. |
- Azzouzi, Abdel Rahmène, et al.
(författare)
-
Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301) : An open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 18:2, s. 181-191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. Methods: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with . ClinicalTrials.gov, number . NCT01310894. Findings: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group . vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] . vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] . vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). Interpretation: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. Funding: Steba Biotech.
|
|
| 2. |
- van der Poel, Henk, et al.
(författare)
-
Role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0724-4983 .- 1433-8726. ; 33:7, s. 907-916
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Low-risk prostate cancer is found in about half of newly diagnosed men subjected to PSA screening. Methods: To define the role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, an invited international panel of practicing physicians in the field of localized prostate cancer discussed the available literature in three consecutive meetings to come to a broad interpretation of the available data. Results: The panel (“new prostate cancer management group,” npm) agreed on the following observations. In most men with a low-volume Gleason 6 tumor, initial conservative management is appropriate. In men with a larger unifocal Gleason score 6 or 3 + 4 lesion, focal therapy, although still considered an investigational approach, appears to be a suitable option in early non-randomized comparison studies. Furthermore, in patients with multifocal small satellite Gleason 6 lesions in the presence of a larger index lesion, focal therapy of the index lesion is an option. For patients with high-grade, large-volume disease, or in young men with evidence of high-volume multifocal low-grade prostate cancer, whole-gland treatment should be considered. Conclusion: Active surveillance is a preferred and safe option for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is still under investigation, but the available phase II data are promising. Clinical benefits must be shown in prospective trials. With improved imaging, focal therapy may be an option for patients not choosing active surveillance with low-risk disease, progression upon active surveillance or intermediate-risk cancers with a localizable lesion.
|
|
