Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 12, pp 2545–2547 | Cite as

Developments in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

  • Phuoc T. Tran
  • Piet OstEmail author
Editorial
  • 157 Downloads

“Suddenly a solitary horseman appeared on the horizon, then another, and another, and then six. In a few moments a whole crowd of solitary horsemen swooped down upon him.”

This quote by Stephen Leacock was in included in the Introduction for the first definitive work on low-volume metastatic cancer by Philip Rubin and Jerold Green, entitled Solitary Metastases, and encompasses the fears of all those who endeavor to understand and treat patients with what is now termed oligometastatic disease [1]. Formally hypothesized by Hellman and Weichselbaum, the oligometastatic state is an intermediate state along a spectrum of cancer metastasis whereby local therapies may alter the natural history of patients with metastatic disease [2]. With the recent coalescence of developments in biology, imaging and metastasis-directed therapies (MDT) such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), this state has become an area of growing biologic and clinical interest [3, 4].

It is in this context we are pleased to present a special issue in the Journal on Developments in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Briefly, we preview and highlight the work covered in this issue and place them in a cohesive picture of we believe are key future big picture outstanding biological and clinical questions that will be important in the field of primarily hormone-sensitive oligometastatic prostate cancer. First, what is oligometastatic prostate cancer? Then, how do we best treat this condition?

Taking the lead is Christopher Hovens and his group who produce a cogent review of the multiple molecular and clinical studies in support of this meta-stable metastatic state [5]. They argue as we develop greater understanding of oligometastases in prostate cancer we will be able to molecularly define the oligometastatic state and depart from our current simple clinical numerical definition with hopefully significant clinical benefits [6]. We do include an original investigative report by Dhondt et al. who chronicle the failed validation of a miRNA serum signature as a biomarker for oligometastatic prostate cancer [7]. Preliminary data suggest that tissue microRNAs (miRNAs), small 18–24 nucleotide RNAs that regulate gene expression, may drive metastatic competency by adaptive communication between cancer cells and their local and distant environment [8, 9], but unfortunately this did not hold true in this case for the serum miRNAs profiled in prostate cancer. Consequently, until we have such a molecular definition, work that includes clinical models will be needed. Along this vein, Buelens et al. then describe their development of a pragmatic and prognostic clinical model comprised of tumor burden using the CHAARTED metastatic volume definition (high-volume = visceral metastasis or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 appendicular lesion) and alkaline phosphatase to stratify metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC) [10]. These data support the prognostic significance of the low-volume or oligometastatic state in prostate cancer.

Newer and highly sensitive imaging modalities for prostate cancer cannot be ignored and will be a critical bridge towards a molecular definition of oligometastatic prostate cancer [11]. We have two specific contributions to this imaging work in this special issue, the first by Jurgen J. Futterer and company describe a level setting review of imaging modalities that sheds light on the role of conventional and functional imaging in the setting of synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer [12]. Pasoglou et al. then present some original work using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) to assess the anatomical distribution of oligometastatic and polymetastatic prostate cancer and the impact of the initial treatment on metastatic distribution [13]. They found that oligometastatic men showed different distribution of bone metastases compared to polymetastatic men and that the distribution of disease was not influenced by the primary treatment. An important aspect of the emerging data from these more sensitive imaging modalities is that our current clinical definitions of oligometastatic prostate cancer are based almost entirely on conventional imaging and thus we must proceed carefully in parallel with prospective clinical trials validating these new advanced imaging techniques to eventual incorporate them into better definitions of oligometastatic disease.

Next, what are the best approaches for treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer? In the modern era with conventional imaging, metastatic prostate cancer as a whole is only a minority of newly diagnosed cases making synchronous or de novo oligometastatic prostate cancer an even smaller subset of these men. Nonetheless, this is an exciting and important clinical space where Nicholas Nickols and his group review the existing data evaluating primary tumor therapy for patients with metastatic prostate cancer and describe ongoing clinical trials testing the hypothesis that primary tumor therapy may benefit patients with metastatic prostate cancer [14]. Oligorecurrent or metachronous prostate cancer on the other hand comprises a large number of men [15, 16, 17, 18]. These patients are presumably in a potentially curable state before castration-resistance develops so we need additional studies to examine this potentially large group of patients. We have a trio of reports either reviewing the current landscape of imaging and treatment for prostate cancer nodal oligorecurrence, by Fodor et al. [19], or two original retrospective single-institutional investigations by Patel et al. [20] and Moyer et al. [21] from the Royal Marsden and Johns Hopkins, respectively, that suggest potential benefits of MDT in this population. Lastly, oligoprogressive prostate cancer, in particular, castration-resistant is an area with little clinical evidence for the utility of MDT. Herein, we present a multi-institutional report by Triggiani et al. [22] comprising 86 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with SABR MDT that appears to show a promising clinical outcomes signal.

In closing, we are pleased to present a wonderful collection of reviews and original investigative work to enlighten the Journal reader on the rapidly progressing field of oligometastatic prostate cancer. We are optimistic that with the knowledge gleaned from this special issue future prospective initiatives will be performed to accelerate the knowledge to benefit men with oligometastatic prostate cancer in the near future.

Notes

Acknowledgements

PT Tran was supported by Ronald Rose and Joan Lazar, Movember-PCF and the NIH/NCI (R01CA166348, U01CA212007, U01CA231776 and R21CA223403).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Rubin P, Green J (1968) Solitary metastases. C.C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR (1995) Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol 13(1):8–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palma DA, Salama JK, Lo SS, Senan S, Treasure T, Govindan R et al (2014) The oligometastatic state—separating truth from wishful thinking. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(9):549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tran PT, Antonarakis ES (2017) Altering the natural history of oligometastatic prostate cancer with local therapies: reality versus illusion. J Oncol Pract 13(1):21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chow K, McCoy P, Stuchbery R, Corcoran NM, Hovens CM (2018) Developments in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2542-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tosoian JJ, Gorin MA, Ross AE, Pienta KJ, Tran PT, Schaeffer EM (2017) Oligometastatic prostate cancer: definitions, clinical outcomes, and treatment considerations. Nat Rev Urol 14(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhondt B, De Bleser E, Claeys T, Buelens S, Lumen N, Vandesompele J et al (2018) Discovery and validation of a serum microRNA signature to characterize oligo- and polymetastatic prostate cancer: not ready for prime time. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2609-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lussier YA, Xing HR, Salama JK, Khodarev NN, Huang Y, Zhang Q et al (2011) MicroRNA expression characterizes oligometastasis(es). PLoS One 6(12):e28650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khodarev NN, Pitroda SP, Weichselbaum RR (2015) microRNAs and oligometastasis. Aging (Albany NY) 7(3):146–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buelens S, De Bleser E, Dhondt B, Verla W, Decaestecker K, Ost P et al (2018) Importance of metastatic volume in prognostic models to predict survival in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2449-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Allaf ME, Pienta KJ, Tran PT, Pomper MG et al (2016) PET imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer: current state of the art and future challenges. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19(3):223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Futterer JJ, Surcel C, van den Bergh R, Borgmann H, Briganti A, Gandaglia G et al (2018) Imaging modalities in synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2416-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pasoglou V, Michoux N, Van Damme J, Van Nieuwenhove S, Halut M, Triqueneaux P et al (2019) Pattern of metastatic deposit in recurrent prostate cancer: a whole-body MRI-based assessment of lesion distribution and effect of primary treatment. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02700-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuan Y, Kishan AU, Nickols NG (2018) Treatment of the primary tumor in metastatic prostate cancer. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2552-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soloway MS, Hardeman SW, Hickey D, Raymond J, Todd B, Soloway S et al (1988) Stratification of patients with metastatic prostate cancer based on extent of disease on initial bone scan. Cancer 61(1):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh D, Yi WS, Brasacchio RA, Muhs AG, Smudzin T, Williams JP et al (2004) Is there a favorable subset of patients with prostate cancer who develop oligometastases? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schweizer MT, Zhou XC, Wang H, Yang T, Shaukat F, Partin AW et al (2013) Metastasis-free survival is associated with overall survival in men with PSA-recurrent prostate cancer treated with deferred androgen deprivation therapy. Ann Oncol 24(11):2881–2886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sridharan S, Steigler A, Spry NA, Joseph D, Lamb DS, Matthews JH et al (2016) Oligometastatic bone disease in prostate cancer patients treated on the TROG 03.04 RADAR trial. Radiother Oncol 121(1):98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fodor A, Lancia A, Ceci F, Picchio M, Hoyer M, Jereczek-Fossa BA et al (2018) Oligorecurrent prostate cancer limited to lymph nodes: getting our ducks in a row. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2322-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patel PH, Chaw CL, Tree AC, Sharabiani M, van As NJ (2018) Stereotactic body radiotherapy for bone oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02873-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moyer CL, Phillips R, Deek MP, Radwan N, Ross AE, Antonarakis ES et al (2018) Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer delays time-to-next systemic treatment. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2477-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Triggiani L, Mazzola R, Magrini SM, Ingrosso G, Borghetti P, Trippa F et al (2018) Metastasis-directed stereotactic radiotherapy for oligoprogressive castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicenter study. World J Urol 37(12):1.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02717-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation SciencesOncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations