Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiation and Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: How Good Is the Evidence?

PURPOSE: The optimal treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer is controversial. Most studies focus on biochemical (PSA) failure when comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) with radiation therapy (RT), but this endpoint has not been validated as predictive of overall survival (OS) or cause-specific survival (CSS). We analyzed the available literature to determine whether reliable conclusions could be made concerning the effectiveness of RP compared with RT with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), assuming current treatment standards. METHODS: Articles published between February 29, 2004, and March 1, 2015, that compared OS and CSS after RP or RT with or without ADT were included. Because the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system emphasis is on randomized controlled clinical trials, a reliability score (RS) was explored to further understand the issues associated with the study quality of observational studies, including appropriateness of treatment, source of data, clinical characteristics, and comorbidity. Lower RS values indicated lower reliability. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified, and 13 were completely evaluable. Thirteen of the 14 studies (93%) were observational studies with low-quality evidence. The median RS was 12 (range, 5-18); the median difference in 10-year OS and CSS favored RP over RT: 10% and 4%, respectively. In studies with a RS ≤12 (average RS 9) the 10-year OS and CSS median differences were 17% and 6%, respectively. For studies with a RS >12 (average RS 15.5), the 10-year OS and CSS median differences were 5.5% and 1%, respectively. Thus, we observed an association between low RS and a higher percentage difference in OS and CSS. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable evidence that RP provides a superior CSS to RT with ADT is lacking. The most reliable studies suggest that the differences in 10-year CSS between RP and RT are small, possibly <1%.

Randomized phase II trial of All-trans-retinoic acid with chemotherapy based on paclitaxel and cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase II trial evaluated whether the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel (PC) plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) increases response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an acceptable toxicity profile and its association with the expression of retinoic acid receptor beta 2 (RAR-beta2) as a response biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stages IIIB with pleural effusion and IV NSCLC were included to receive PC, and randomly assigned to receive ATRA 20 mg/m(2)/d (RA/PC) or placebo (P/PC) 1 week before treatment until two cycles were completed. RAR-beta2 expression was analyzed in tumor and adjacent lung tissue. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were included, 55 in the P/PC group and 52 in the RA/PC group. RR for RA/PC was 55.8% (95% CI, 46.6% to 64.9%) and for P/PC, 25.4% (95% CI, 21.3 to 29.5%; P = .001). The RA/PC group had a longer median PFS (8.9 v 6.0 months; P = .008). Multivariate analysis of PFS showed significant differences for the RA/PC group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.95). No significant differences in toxicity grade 3/4 were found between groups, except for hypertriglyceridemia (10% v 0%) in RA/PC (P = .05). Immunohistochemistry and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays showed expression of RAR-beta2 in normal tissues of all tumor samples, but only 10% of samples in the tumor tissue. CONCLUSION: Adding ATRA to chemotherapy could increase RR and PFS in patients with advanced NSCLC with an acceptable toxicity profile. A phase III clinical trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

Importance of the preoperative evaluation of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense parenchyma.

BACKGROUND: The presence and detection of multifocal and multicentric disease significantly increases the risk of recurrence and changes the best therapeutic approach in patients with breast cancer. Mammography has low sensitivity to detect multiple malignant foci in patients with dense breast parenchyma. We prospectively evaluated Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as part of preoperative assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Women with clinical and radiological suspicion of breast cancer and dense breast parenchyma (> 75% dense tissue) were included. All patients underwent mammography, ultrasonogram and MRI prior to surgery. Surgical specimens were used for the detection of multifocal and multicentric disease. Patients who required neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were evaluated. Histological diagnosis was confirmed in 14 patients, multifocal and multicentric disease was found in five and two patients, respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy to detect multiple malignant foci were 42 and 64%, respectively, for mammography plus ultrasound and 100 and 92% for MRI (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is more sensible and has a better accuracy than mammography plus ultrasound to detect both multicentric and multifocal breast cancer in women with dense breast parenchyma. MRI can improve preoperative assessment of breast cancer in this group of patients.

Response of negative estrogen-receptor hepatocarcinoma to tamoxifen, and survival of non-resectable patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common malignant neoplasm worldwide. Most patients are not candidates to surgical treatment. The prognosis of this neoplasm is poor, with an overall survival rate of 8 weeks in unresectable tumors. Estrogen receptors have been found in up to 33% of this tumors, reason why treatment with tamoxifen or progesterone compounds have been tried to diminish this neoplasm's progression but its use remains controversial. In our institution, thirteen patients were treated with tamoxifen (20- 40 mg/day) and 26 received supportive measures only. The clinical and tumoral characteristics were similar in both groups. Survival in the Tamoxifen group was of 5.5 +/- 1.7 months while in the supportive measures group was of 2.1 +/- 0.5 months (p = 0.018). Other factors related to an increased survival were: female gender and the Okuda score; age, TNM and alphaFP were not related to survival. The multivariate analysis showed that treatment with tamoxifen duplicates survival independently of the tumoral stage and functional hepatic reserve. It seems that the benefit of treatment with tamoxifen is limited and is not associated to the presence of estrogen receptors. In our study a 69 year-old man with diagnosis of non-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma and negative estrogen receptors, was treated with tamoxifen with a partial response and an overall survival of 4 years until November 2005. Despite some case reports that have shown tumoral regression, while other studies do not report any survival benefits. It is important to identify patients that would benefit from treatment with tamoxifen.