Search Results

Since its introduction more than 70 years ago, the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer has evolved to become part of a multimodal management approach. In this presentation from the NCCN 21st Annual Conference, James L. Mohler, MD, reviewed data that inform these strategies and gave his bottom-line recommendations on issues such as ADT plus radiotherapy, continuous versus intermittent ADT, ADT for positive nodes, and ADT plus docetaxel. He suggested that ADT plus radiation therapy should be used in patients at high risk, intermittent ADT is more appropriate for most patients than continuous ADT, and docetaxel should be given with ADT for high-volume metastatic disease.

Rapid progress was recently made in the treatment of prostate cancer, especially metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. At the NCCN 18th Annual Conference, Dr. Philip W. Kantoff reviewed the data supporting the use of abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, and radium-223 (pending approval), and offered recommendations for their sequential use in different settings. Dr. James L. Mohler described factors that dictate who should receive treatment, when they should receive it, and how to treat in the setting of prostate-specific antigen elevation. He explained how better treatment decisions will result from individualized estimation of threat-to-life posed by prostate cancer, chance of cure by treatment, and treatment risks.

Peter H. Carroll, MD, MPH, and James L. Mohler, MD, updated attendees on what is new in the 2018 NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection and for Prostate Cancer, respectively. Their presentations touched on new screening recommendations, shared decision-making, risk stratification, the role of genomic and molecular testing, active surveillance, and newer systemic treatments.

Updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include further refinements in taking a family history, new recommendations for germline and somatic testing, use of androgen receptor blockers for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, advice regarding intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation therapy, and consideration of whether to treat the primary tumor in men diagnosed with de novo metastatic prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer can have a long and indolent course, and management without curative therapy should be considered in select patients. When counseling patients, a useful way to convey the risk for death from competing causes is to estimate their lifetime risk for dying from prostate cancer. Double-decrement life tables were constructed to calculate age-specific death rates using the death probabilities from the Social Security Administration life tables and Gleason score–specific mortality rates reported from pre-PSA cohort study. The lifetime risk for prostate cancer death was calculated. Life tables provided life expectancy and risk for prostate cancer death based on age at diagnosis. For example, 60-year-old patient with a Gleason score 6, 7, or 8 tumor had an overall life expectancy of 14.4, 10.2, or 6.6 years, respectively. The risk for prostate cancer death during the expected years of life was 33%, 49%, or 57%, respectively. If a 10-year lead-time bias was assumed for PSA detection, the risks for death from prostate cancer decreased to 16%, 26%, or 37%, respectively. If the patient was in the bottom quartile for overall health and disease was detected by prostate examination, the risk for death from prostate cancer was 21%, 32%, or 40%, respectively. A Web-based tool for performing these calculations is available at http://www.roswellpark.org/Patient_Care/Specialized_Services/Prostate_Cancer_Estimator.html. Life tables can be created to estimate overall life expectancy and risk for prostate cancer death, and to assist with decision-making when considering management without curative therapy.