Medium-term Follow-up of Vascular-targeted Photodynamic Therapy of Localized Prostate Cancer Using TOOKAD Soluble WST-11 (Phase II Trials).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To assess the medium-term tumor control in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with vascular-targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy with TOOKAD Soluble WST11 (VTP) and to assess the medium-term tolerability of the treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTION During the clinical phase II studies, 68 patients were treated with VTP under optimal treatment conditions (WST11 at 4mg/kg, light energy at 200J/cm, and a light density index ≥1) and have been included in a 3.5-yr follow-up. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Post-interventional visits were scheduled every 6 mo and conducted as per local standard practice in each study center. Cancer-free status was assessed by means of prostate-specific antigen kinetics, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and/or prostate biopsies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS At the end of the 3.5-yr follow-up, overall successful focal ablation was achieved for 51 patients (75%). Cancer was identified in the untreated lobe in 17 patients (25%). In total, 34 patients (50%) were cancer-free in both the prostate lobes. In case of recurrent/persistent malignancy, the Gleason score remained consistent or changed at the maximum by one point (upgrading by 1 Gleason point to 3+4 for eight patients and 4+3 for two patients). There were 64 related adverse events (AEs): 48% were Clavien grade I, 47% were grade II, and 5% were grade III. There were no Clavien grade IV and V AEs. Limitations included small sample size and heterogeneity in the follow-up for some centers. CONCLUSIONS VTP is a safe and efficient treatment and represents an alternative option for localized low-risk PCa management over the medium term. Precise diagnostic methods and imaging tools are thereby essential requirements to ensure safe and complete targeted therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, we looked at the medium-term outcomes of focal photodynamic therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. We found that this form of treatment is efficient and might have the potential to become a therapeutic option for low-risk cancer. Effectiveness depends on precise diagnostic methods, such as magnetic resonance imaging and accurate biopsy.

[1]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[2]  Christopher D. Brown,et al.  Low-grade prostate cancer diverges early from high grade and metastatic disease , 2014, Cancer science.

[3]  Hugh J. Lavery,et al.  Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease states? , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M Emberton,et al.  Prostatic cancer surveillance following whole-gland high-intensity focused ultrasound: comparison of MRI and prostate-specific antigen for detection of residual or recurrent disease. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  C. Moore,et al.  Photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer—an emerging approach for organ‐confined disease , 2011, Lasers in surgery and medicine.

[6]  Yipeng Hu,et al.  The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy , 2017, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  Yipeng Hu,et al.  Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[8]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Understanding the pathological features of focality, grade and tumour volume of early‐stage prostate cancer as a foundation for parenchyma‐sparing prostate cancer therapies: active surveillance and focal targeted therapy , 2011, BJU international.

[9]  C. Porter,et al.  Longitudinal regret after treatment for low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer , 2017, Cancer.

[10]  Nacim Betrouni,et al.  A model to estimate the outcome of prostate cancer photodynamic therapy with TOOKAD Soluble WST11 , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Jun Luo,et al.  Copy Number Analysis Indicates Monoclonal Origin of Lethal Metastatic Prostate Cancer , 2009, Nature Medicine.

[12]  Hashim U. Ahmed,et al.  Photodynamic therapy for focal ablation of the prostate , 2010, World Journal of Urology.

[13]  P. Validire,et al.  Morbidity of focal therapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.

[14]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  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.

[16]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[17]  Yipeng Hu,et al.  A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)‐biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy , 2012, BJU international.

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

[19]  Zeike A. Taylor,et al.  MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions , 2012, Medical Image Anal..

[20]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[21]  P. Bigot,et al.  Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of salvage radical prostatectomy after Tookad® Soluble focal treatment for localized prostate cancer , 2015, World Journal of Urology.

[22]  Osamu Ukimura,et al.  Focal cryotherapy for clinically unilateral, low-intermediate risk prostate cancer in 73 men with a median follow-up of 3.7 years. , 2012, European urology.

[23]  Antonio Alcaraz,et al.  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. , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

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

[25]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[26]  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.