Clinical and Genomic Differences Between Advanced Molecular Imaging-detected and Conventional Imaging-detected Metachronous Oligometastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Autor: Sutera P; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Song Y; Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Van der Eecken K; Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium., Shetty AC; Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., English K; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Hodges T; Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Chang J; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Fonteyne V; Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium., Rana Z; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Ren L; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Mendes AA; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Lumen N; Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium., Delrue L; Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium., Verbeke S; Department of Pathology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium., De Man K; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium., Song DY; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Pienta K; Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Feng FY; Departments of Medicine, Urology and Radiation Oncology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA., Joniau S; Department of Radiation Oncology, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium., Lotan T; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Lane B; Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Kiess A; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Rowe S; The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Pomper M; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., DeWeese T; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA., Deek M; Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA., Sweeney C; South Australian Immunogenomics Cancer Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia., Ost P; Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Network, Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: piet.ost@ugent.be., Tran PT; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: phuoc.tran@som.umaryland.edu.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: European urology [Eur Urol] 2023 Dec; Vol. 84 (6), pp. 531-535. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 May 10.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025
Abstrakt: In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), disease volume plays an integral role in guiding treatment recommendations, including selection of docetaxel therapy, metastasis-directed therapy, and radiation to the prostate. Although there are multiple definitions of disease volume, they have commonly been studied in the context of metastases detected via conventional imaging (CIM). One such numeric definition of disease volume, termed oligometastasis, is heavily dependent on the sensitivity of the imaging modality. We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with metachronous oligometastatic CSPC (omCSPC), detected via either advanced molecular imaging alone (AMIM) or CIM. Patients were compared with respect to clinical and genomic features using the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's χ 2 test, and Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) analyses with a log-rank test. A total of 295 patients were included for analysis. Patients with CIM-omCSPC had significantly higher Gleason grade group (p = 0.032), higher prostate-specific antigen at omCSPC diagnosis (8.0 vs 1.7 ng/ml; p < 0.001), more frequent pathogenic TP53 mutations (28% vs 17%; p = 0.030), and worse 10-yr OS (85% vs 100%; p < 0.001). This is the first report of clinical and biological differences between AMIM-detected and CIM-detected omCSPC. Our findings are particularly important for ongoing and planned clinical trials in omCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic prostate cancer with just a few metastases only detected via newer scanning methods (called molecular imaging) is associated with fewer high-risk DNA mutations and better survival in comparison to metastatic cancer detected via conventional scan methods.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: