834 844
subsequent reduced screening measures, we might expect a
stable or even increasing fraction of PCa patients with lymph
node–positive disease
[1]
. In 2015, 12% of newly diagnosed
patients in the USA presented with regional lymph node
metastasis
[2]
. The ECOG 3886 trial represents the only trial
conducted and published to date with level 1 evidence for
patients with any pT pN1M0 disease after RP
[3]
. In this
multicenter study, 98 patients with pN1 disease after RP
(treatment period 1988–1993) were randomized either to
receive immediate ADT (
n
= 47) or to be observed (
n
= 51),
with ADT provided when symptomatic recurrence or distant
metastasis occurred. After median follow-up of approximately
12 yr, men assigned to immediate ADT had a significant
improvement in OS (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.01–3.35). It is ques-
tionable whether this patient pool randomized on average
25 yr ago reflects the tumor characteristics of patients diag-
nosed nowadays with lymph node–positive disease (partly
with just marginal lymph node involvement) and whether the
results reported can be transferred to current times consider-
ing the targeted treatment options now available. Besides the
study by Jegadeesh et al, there are further retrospective stud-
ies providing evidence of a survival benefit when patients are
treated with aggressive multimodal therapy including ART
[4–6]
. Despite these optimistic data, several questions remain:
(1) What target volume should be defined for ART and what
benefit results from additional radiation of lymphatic
drainage paths?
(2) What is the role of ART of the prostate bed for stage
pT2–3pN1R0?
(3) Can we—on the basis of postoperative PSA nadirs,
histopathologic and surgical criteria, and genomic
markers (which still need to be defined)—identify
pN1 patients for whom we can avoid any adjuvant
treatment?
(4) To what extent can modern radiation techniques
and regimes involving image guidance, volumetric
modulated arc therapy, or intensity-modulated radia-
tion therapy improve oncologic safety and reduce
treatment-associated side effects?
(5) Is there an optimal systemic treatment partner for
combination with ART, and for what time periods
should medical treatment be administered?
The study by Jegadeesh et al represents a proper
retrospective evaluation that may guide clinical decision-
making, and it suggests that ART should be seriously
considered in this patient population. However, relevant
level 1 evidence is still lacking. In due consideration of
the questions above, increased efforts are required to design
a randomized controlled trial evaluating adjuvant locor-
egional treatment for lymph node–positive PCa after RP.
Conflicts of interest:
Sabine Brookman-May is employee of Janssen
Pharma Research and Development Oncology. There is no conflict of
interest with regard to the topic of this article. The remaining authors
have nothing to disclose.
References
[1]
Reese AC, Wessel SR, Fisher SG, Mydlo JH. Evidence of prostate cancer ‘‘reverse stage migration’’ toward more advanced disease at diagnosis: data from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry. Urol Oncol 2016;34, 335.e21–e28.[2]
Baker BR, Mohiuddin JJ, Chen RC. The role of radiotherapy in node- positive prostate cancer. Oncology 2015;29:108–14.[3]
Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive pros- tate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:472–9.
[4]
Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiother- apy on survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3939–47.[5] Tilki D, Preisser F, Tennstedt P, et al. Adjuvant radiation therapy is
associated with better oncological outcome compared with salvage
radiation therapy in patients with pN1 prostate cancer treated with
radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. In press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ bju.13679 .[6]
Crehange G, Weinberg VK, Izaguirre A, et al. Disease-specific survival outcomes in lymph node-positive patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(7 Suppl):182.
Matthias May
a
, Christian G. Stief
b
, Sabine D. Brookman-May
b,c,
*
a
Department of Urology, Klinikum St. Elisabeth, Straubing, Germany
b
Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich,
Munich, Germany
c
Janssen Research and Development, Los Angeles, CA, USA
*Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians
University Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistraße 15,
81377 Munich, Germany.
E-mail address:
sabine.brookman-may@email.de(S.D. Brookman-May).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.006#
2017 European Association of Urology.
Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Re: The Detection of Androgen Receptor Splice Variant
7 in Plasma-derived Exosomal RNA Strongly Predicts
Resistance to Hormonal Therapy in Metastatic Prostate
Cancer Patients
Del Re M, Biasco E, Crucitta S, et al
Eur Urol 2017;71:680–7
Expert’s summary:
A splice variant of the androgen receptor (AR-V7) lacks the
androgen-binding domain. Detection of this splice variant
may be linked to prostate cancer resistance to hormonal
treatment
[1]
. However, previous studies were based on
circulating tumor cells, which are cumbersome to collect
and may yield false-negative results. Del Re et al have estab-
lished a plasma-based
[1_TD$DIFF]
method for the detection of AR-V7.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 3 1 – 8 3 6
834