Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. METHODS This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894. FINDINGS Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). INTERPRETATION Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. FUNDING Steba Biotech.

[1]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Long-term Results of Active Surveillance in the Göteborg Randomized, Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial. , 2016, European urology.

[2]  A. Scherz,et al.  TOOKAD® Soluble focal therapy: pooled analysis of three phase II studies assessing the minimally invasive ablation of localized prostate cancer , 2015, World Journal of Urology.

[3]  P. Scardino,et al.  Partial Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology Public Workshop. , 2016, Urology.

[4]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. , 2011, European urology.

[6]  T. Wilt,et al.  Can we deliver randomized trials of focal therapy in prostate cancer? , 2014, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[7]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Clare Allen,et al.  TOOKAD® Soluble vascular‐targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy: determination of optimal treatment conditions and assessment of effects in patients with localised prostate cancer , 2013, BJU international.

[9]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2014, European urology.

[10]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  Guidelines on Prostate Cancer , 2013 .

[11]  A. D'Amico Personalizing the Use of Active Surveillance As an Initial Approach for Men With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  J. Epstein A new contemporary prostate cancer grading system. , 2015, Annales de pathologie.

[13]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  C. Catalano,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[15]  J. Trachtenberg,et al.  Determination of optimal drug dose and light dose index to achieve minimally invasive focal ablation of localised prostate cancer using WST11‐vascular‐targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy , 2015, BJU international.

[16]  M. Emberton,et al.  Management of low risk prostate cancer: active surveillance and focal therapy , 2014, Current opinion in urology.

[17]  M. Barry,et al.  The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[18]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  V. Laudone,et al.  The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[20]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Nine-year Follow-up for a Study of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Prospective Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. , 2016, European urology.

[21]  Nathan Lawrentschuk,et al.  The Role of Focal Therapy in the Management of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review , 2014, European urology.

[22]  I. Osterloh,et al.  The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. , 1997, Urology.

[23]  C. Stief,et al.  Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy with TOOKAD® Soluble in localized prostate cancer: standardization of the procedure , 2015, World Journal of Urology.