Dataset Information

Modulation of Premetastatic Niche by the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Pazopanib in Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer Followed by Radical Prostatectomy: A Phase II Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: LESSONS LEARNED:Pazopanib was not effective in altering the premetastatic niche in the neoadjuvant setting.Pazopanib was safe and well tolerated without any new safety signals. BACKGROUND:Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) expressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells (VEGFR1+ MDSCs) potentially foster metastases by establishing a premetastatic niche. In a preclinical study, VEGFR1+ clustering in lymph nodes (LNs) independently predicted time to biochemical recurrence (TTBR) in localized prostate cancer [1]. The hypothesis was that neoadjuvant pazopanib therapy will decrease VEGFR1+ clusters in pelvic lymph nodes and improve outcomes. METHODS:This is a phase II trial (NCT01832259) of neoadjuvant pazopanib 800 mg versus placebo daily for 4 weeks in high-risk localized prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was a decrease in VEGFR1+ MDSC clustering assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis. Secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, and TTBR. RESULTS:Thirty patients were randomized to pazopanib versus placebo, with 15 patients randomized to each arm. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar in both arms. There was no difference in the VEGFR1+ clustering between the treatment arms (p = .345). Neoadjuvant therapy with pazopanib was well tolerated, and surgical complications were similar in both arms. CONCLUSION:Neoadjuvant pazopanib therapy did not alter the premetastatic niche; however, treatment targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the preoperative period was safe and feasible, which may open up the avenue to investigate novel combinatorial regimens, including a VEGF inhibitor in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Maughan BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6292560 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known.MethodsFrom November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality.ResultsDuring the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death.ConclusionsAmong men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.).

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer (PC) is the most commonly diagnosed noncutaneous malignancy in American men. PC, which exhibits a slow growth rate and multiple potential target epitopes, is an ideal candidate for immunotherapy. GVAX for prostate cancer is a cellular immunotherapy, composed of PC-3 cells (CG1940) and LNCaP cells (CG8711). Each of the components is a prostate adenocarcinoma cell line that has been genetically modified to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Hypothesizing that GVAX for prostate cancer could be effective in a neoadjuvant setting in patients with locally advanced disease, we initiated a phase II trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel and GVAX. For the trial, the clinical effects of GVAX were assessed in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).MethodsPatients received docetaxel administered at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. GVAX was administered 2-3 days after chemotherapy preoperatively for four courses of immunotherapy. The first dose of GVAX was a prime immunotherapy of 5×10(8) cells. The subsequent boost immunotherapies consisted of 3×10(8) cells. After RP, patients received an additional six courses of immunotherapy. Pathologic complete response, toxicity, and clinical response were assessed. The primary endpoint of the trial was a pathologic state of pT0, which is defined as no evidence of cancer in the prostate.ResultsSix patients completed neoadjuvant docetaxel and GVAX therapy. No serious drug-related adverse events were observed. Median change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following neoadjuvant therapy was 1.47 ng/ml. One patient did not undergo RP due to the discovery of positive lymph nodes during exploration. Of the five patients completing RP, four had a downstaging of their Gleason score. Undetectable PSA was achieved in three patients at 2 months after RP and in two patients at 3 years after RP.ConclusionsNeoadjuvant docetaxel/GVAX is safe and well tolerated in patients with high-risk locally advanced PC. No evidence of increased intraoperative hemorrhage or increased length of hospital stay postoperatively was noted. These results justify further study of neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Project description:Accurate estimation of recurrence risk is needed for optimal treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We combined classical clinicopathological predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and molecular markers into a new risk score for predicting BCR after radical prostatectomy (RP). A retrospective study which included 122 PCa patients who attended our department between 2000 and 2007 was conducted. Total RNA was isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded PCa tissue. Gene expression patterns were analyzed in 21 selected samples from 7 localized, 6 locally advanced, and 8 metastatic PCa patients using Illumina microarrays. Expression levels of 41 genes were validated by quantitative PCR in an independent retrospective series of 101 patients with ≥ 10 years follow-up who underwent RP for clinically localized PCa. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to identify individual predictors of BCR. A risk score (RS) for predicting BCR including clinicopathological and gene expression data was developed and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated. Interaction networks between the genes of the model were built by GeneMANIA Cytoscape plugin. In a median follow-up of 120 months (range 3-190), 37 patients developed BCR (36.6%). Expression levels of 7,930 transcripts differed between clinically localized and locally advanced-metastatic PCa groups (FDR<0.1). A set of 41 genes were validated by quantitative PCR. Regression analysis showed that expression of ASF1B and MCL1 as well as Gleason score, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and positive margins were independent prognostic factors of BCR. A RS generated using these gene expression and clinicopathological variables was able to discriminate between two groups of patients with a significantly different probability of BCR (HR 6.24; CI 3.23-12.4, p<0.01), improving the individual discriminative performance of each of these variables on their own. Direct interactions between the two genes of the model were not found. In conclusion, identification of new gene expression patterns associated with a high probability of BCR in clinically localized PCa patients treated with RP, and their combination with clinicopathological variables in a robust, easy-to-use and reliable classifier may contribute to improve PCa risk stratification and, consequently, to tailor treatment and surveillance strategies in these patients.

Project description:ImportanceThe cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS).ObjectiveTo compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021.ExposuresRobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP.Main outcomes and measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsCompared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Dataset Information

Modulation of Premetastatic Niche by the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Pazopanib in Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer Followed by Radical Prostatectomy: A Phase II Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets