-
European Urology Aug 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.
Topics: Male; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Risk Factors; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 37202314
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.021 -
European Urology Feb 2021To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy...
OBJECTIVE
To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33172724
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
European Urology Jul 2023Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Head-to-head Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography and Conventional Imaging Modalities for Initial Staging of Intermediate- to High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) requires definitive evidence on their relative diagnostic abilities.
OBJECTIVE
To perform head-to-head comparisons of PSMA-PET and CIM including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) for upfront staging of tumour, nodal, and bone metastasis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to December 2021. Only studies in which patients underwent both PSMA-PET and CIM and imaging was referenced against histopathology or composite reference standards were included. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist and its extension for comparative reviews (QUADAS-C). Pairwise comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA-PET versus CIM were performed by adding imaging modality as a covariate to bivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. The likelihood ratio test was applied to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 31 studies (2431 patients) were included. PSMA-PET/MRI was more sensitive than mpMRI for detection of extra-prostatic extension (78.7% versus 52.9%) and seminal vesicle invasion (66.7% versus 51.0%). For nodal staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than mpMRI (73.7% versus 38.9%, 97.5% versus 82.6%) and CT (73.2% versus 38.5%, 97.8% versus 83.6%). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than BS with or without single-photon emission computerised tomography (98.0% versus 73.0%, 96.2% versus 79.1%). A time interval between imaging modalities >1 month was identified as a source of heterogeneity across all nodal staging analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Direct comparisons revealed that PSMA-PET significantly outperforms CIM, which suggests that PSMA-PET should be used as a first-line approach for the initial staging of PCa.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed direct comparisons of the ability of a scan method called PSMA-PET (prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography) and current imaging methods to detect the spread of prostate cancer outside the prostate gland. We found that PSMA-PET is more accurate for detection of the spread of prostate cancer to adjacent tissue, nearby lymph nodes, and bones.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostate; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Gallium Radioisotopes; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 37032189
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.03.001 -
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine... Mar 2021In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
In recent years, the clinical availability of scanners for integrated positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled the practical potential of multimodal, combined metabolic-receptor, anatomical, and functional imaging to be explored. The present systematic review and meta-analysis summarize the diagnostic information provided by PET/MRI in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted in three different databases. The terms used were "choline" or "prostate-specific membrane antigen - PSMA" AND "prostate cancer" or "prostate" AND "PET/MRI" or "PET MRI" or "PET-MRI" or "positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging." All relevant records identified were combined, and the full texts were retrieved. Reports were excluded if (1) they did not consider hybrid PET/MRI; or (2) the sample size was < 10 patients; or (3) the raw data were not enough to enable the completion of a 2 × 2 contingency table.
RESULTS
Fifty articles were eligible for systematic review, and 23 for meta-analysis. The pooled data concerned 2104 patients. Initial disease staging was the main indication for PET/MRI in 24 studies. Radiolabeled PSMA was the tracer most frequently used. In primary tumors, the pooled sensitivity for the patient-based analysis was 94.9%. At restaging, the pooled detection rate was 80.9% and was higher for radiolabeled PSMA than for choline (81.8% and 77.3%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
PET/MRI proved highly sensitive in detecting primary PCa, with a high detection rate for recurrent disease, particularly when radiolabeled PSMA was used.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiopharmaceuticals; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 32901351
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0 -
Cureus Feb 2023The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet... (Review)
Review
The prognosis in the setting of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC) remains limited. Therefore, novel treatment strategies remain an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) emerged as a new drug concept with the potential to deliver a cytotoxic payload with limited off-target toxicity and potentially bystander effect. Following the success of ADCs in breast cancer and urothelial tumours, their activity in prostate cancer is now under investigation. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to identify published and ongoing prospective clinical trials regarding ADC treatment in prostate cancer. A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines to identify prospective clinical trials of ADCin prostate cancer. Trials are currently ongoing on ClinicalTrials.gov and in the EU. The Clinical Trials Register was also identified. Abstracts, publications in languages other than English, review articles, retrospective analyses, and phase I trials were excluded. A total of six phase I/II prospective clinical trials already published were included. Seven ongoing trials were also identified. All studies were in the refractory/advanced tumour setting, and two included only mCRPC patients. The ADC targets were prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), trophoblast cell surface antigen-2 (TROP-2), six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of prostate-1 (STEAP-1), tissue factor (TF), delta-like protein 3 (DLL-3), B7-H3 family of proteins (B7-H3), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Regarding the efficacy of PSMA ADC treatment in the second-line or beyond mCRPC setting, a PSA ≥ 50% decline rate in 14% of all treated patients was reported. One patient achieved a complete response with TROP-2 ADC. Overall, a wide range of safety issues were raised, particularly in connection with neuropathy and hematologic toxicity. Novel therapies have been changing the scope of treatment in mCRPC. ADCs seem to provide efficacy benefits, even with potential toxicity. The results of most prospective ongoing studies are still awaited, and a longer follow-up time is warranted to evaluate the real impact of ADCs in PCa.
PubMed: 36874351
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34490 -
European Urology Feb 2021To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy &...
OBJECTIVE
To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.
CONCLUSIONS
The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).
PATIENT SUMMARY
This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.
Topics: Humans; Male; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33039206
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046 -
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2020It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches.
METHODS
We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
FINDINGS
We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I=42%).
INTERPRETATION
This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Grading; Prospective Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 33002431
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31952-8 -
European Urology Oncology Jun 2022In the past 10 yr, several agents based on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for positron emission tomography imaging have been introduced in clinical practice... (Review)
Review
[Ga]Ga-PSMA Versus [F]PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Staging of Primary and Recurrent Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review of the Literature.
CONTEXT
In the past 10 yr, several agents based on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for positron emission tomography imaging have been introduced in clinical practice for the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE
To analyse the available data in the literature to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of [Ga]Ga-PSMA and [F]PSMA in different settings of PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search was made by using two main databases. Only studies published in the past 5 yr (2016-2021) in the English language with >20 enrolled patients were selected. Two reviewers independently appraised each article using a standard protocol. All the studies were analysed using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for diagnostic test studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The systematic evaluation was made in 12 papers. Based on the quality assessment, the analysed studies demonstrated different methodologies. Three papers focused on the head-to-head comparison between F- and [Ga]Ga-PSMA (n = 123 patients). A matched-pair comparison between F- and [Ga]Ga-PSMA was reported in three papers, including 715 patients. The remaining papers used indiscriminately either Ga-PSMA or [F]PSMA (n = 1.157 patients). [F]PSMA-1007 is superior to [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 for the identification of local recurrence (less activity close to the bladder for [F]PSMA-1007). Nonspecific/equivocal bone lesions are often recognised at [F]PSMA-1007. [F]DCFPyL is more reproducible for the identification of lymph nodes, and it shows fewer equivocal skeletal lesions and higher inter-reader agreement on skeletal lesions.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a large body of literature on PSMA radiopharmaceutical agents labelled with Ga or F, there are limited head-to-head or matched-pair comparative data. Certain clinical indications could trigger a preference, whilst caution is needed in interpreting potential false-positive findings, especially with [F]PSMA-1007. Given the excellent performance of all accessible radiopharmaceuticals, the availability of specific tracers will likely guide choice.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this systematic review, we analysed the currently available literature focused on [Ga] and [F]-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen. Our purpose is to identify which tracers would be correctly employed for the management of patients with prostate cancer.
Topics: Gallium Isotopes; Gallium Radioisotopes; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiopharmaceuticals
PubMed: 35367165
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.03.004 -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Jul 2023Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) remains an aggressive form of prostate cancer that no longer responds to traditional hormonal treatment alone.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) remains an aggressive form of prostate cancer that no longer responds to traditional hormonal treatment alone. Despite the advent of novel anti-androgen medications, many patients continue to progress, and as a result, there is a growing need for additional treatment options.
AREAS COVERED
Lutetium-177 (Lu) - PSMA-617 has become one of the new frontline treatment options for refractory metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer after the failure of novel anti-androgen therapy and chemotherapy. Lu-177 has been used in real-world prospective trials and is now becoming utilized in newer phase III clinical trials. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of the current literature, covering retrospective studies, prospective studies, and clinical trials that established Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 (Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of mCRPC.
EXPERT OPINION
Lu - PSMA-617 has been approved for treatment of mCRPC based on positive phase III studies. While this treatment is tolerable and effective, biomarkers are necessary to determine which patients will benefit. In the future, radioligand treatments will likely be utilized in earlier lines of therapy and potentially in combination with other prostate cancer treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Retrospective Studies; Radioisotopes; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37194261
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2213892