As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer
. 2023 Aug 21;55(5):775–780. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.05.002
  • Search in PMC
  • Search in PubMed
  • View in NLM Catalog
  • Add to search
  • 前列腺癌新辅助治疗与辅助治疗的现状及进展

    1 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院泌尿外科, 上海 200127
    Find articles by 薛 蔚 1, * , 董 樑
    Find articles by 董 樑 1 , 钱 宏阳
    Find articles by 钱 宏阳 1 , 费 笑晨
    Find articles by 费 笑晨
  • PMCID: PMC10560912

    前列腺癌是全球男性最常见的恶性肿瘤,其发病率在我国呈明显上升趋势且增长迅速 [ 1 ] 。在我国,约20%~35%的初诊患者处于高危局部进展期,即便接受根治性治疗后仍易出现肿瘤复发,尤其对于极高危局部进展性前列腺癌,术后3年内生化复发率可达到50% [ 2 ] 。因此,根治性治疗联合新辅助治疗或辅助治疗成为改善局部晚期前列腺癌患者预后的重要探索方向。前列腺癌的辅助治疗是前列腺癌根治术后的补充,主要包括术区放疗和内分泌治疗,其目的在于消灭术后盆腔残留的前列腺肿瘤病灶,通过配合内分泌治疗或者放疗,来杀灭残余病灶、残余阳性淋巴结以及其他部位的微小转移灶,从而提高患者的长期生存率。目前,前列腺癌的新辅助治疗方案主要包括新辅助内分泌治疗、新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗等,其他新辅助治疗方案, 如新辅助放疗以及免疫治疗或靶向治疗等仍处于探索阶段。术前应用新辅助内分泌治疗被认为能够改善局部肿瘤控制,包括降低肿瘤分期、降低切缘阳性率等,但无法延长患者无进展生存期或总生存期 [ 3 ] 。尽管如此,目前针对局部晚期前列腺癌新辅助治疗的探索正在不断深入,尤其随着近年来诸多新型内分泌治疗药物的不断涌现,新辅助治疗方案有了更多探索与尝试,为改善局部晚期前列腺癌预后提供了更多选择。

    1. 新辅助内分泌治疗

    雄激素剥夺疗法(androgen deprivation therapy,ADT)是最早应用于前列腺癌术前新辅助治疗的方案。尽管ADT作为新辅助治疗方案可以降低肿瘤分期并改善不良病理结局(如手术切缘阳性、淋巴结转移以及包膜外侵犯等) [ 4 ] ,但其在改善肿瘤特异性生存和总生存方面并无显著获益 [ 3 - 4 ] 。目前,以新型内分泌药物作为新辅助治疗的方案已得到诸多探索,同时也有多项临床试验正在进行,有望为高危局部进展性前列腺癌提供更多选择与获益。

    阿比特龙是CYP17的一种选择性不可逆抑制剂,可抑制雄激素合成通路中关键酶CYP17的活性,从而阻断睾丸、肾上腺乃至前列腺癌细胞的雄激素合成 [ 5 ] 。阿比特龙是最早被尝试应用于前列腺癌新辅助治疗的新型内分泌治疗药物。一项纳入58例中高危前列腺癌患者的随机对照试验研究对比了阿比特龙联合黄体生成激素释放激素类似物(luteinizing hormone releasing hormone analogues,LHRH-a)与单独使用LHRH-a的两种新辅助治疗方案对预后的影响,结果表明阿比特龙联合治疗组可更显著抑制肿瘤组织内雄激素的合成和肾上腺雄激素产生,同时,接受阿比特龙治疗的患者术后有更高比例的病理完全缓解(pathological complete response,pCR)和更低的微小残留病变(minimal residual disease,MRD) [ 6 ] 。另一项随机对照试验将65例中高危前列腺癌患者术前随机分配至亮丙瑞林联合阿比特龙治疗组或亮丙瑞林单药治疗组,分别接受3个月的新辅助内分泌治疗,结果表明,联合治疗组术后肿瘤残余负荷更低且病理T2分期肿瘤所占比例更高 [ 7 ] ;术后4年中位随访时间内,联合治疗组较单药治疗组生化复发率更低(44% vs. 59%)。作为新一代雄激素受体拮抗剂,恩杂鲁胺可显著改善包括转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌、非转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌与转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌的生存和预后。在新辅助内分泌治疗中,诸多以恩杂鲁胺为基础的联合治疗方案的临床研究正在进行。一项纳入52例中高危前列腺癌患者的随机对照试验研究对比了6个月的恩杂鲁胺单药与恩杂鲁胺联合亮丙瑞林和度他雄胺的疗效,结果表明恩杂鲁胺联合用药组可显著降低组织内雄激素水平,并具有更低的淋巴结累及率和MRD率 [ 8 ] 。类似地,以阿帕他胺作为单药或者联合方案的新辅助治疗也已进行了一系列的探索。NEAR研究初步探索了阿帕他胺作为术前新辅助治疗方案在局限性前列腺癌的疗效,研究纳入了30例中高危前列腺癌患者,在根治术前予以3个月的阿帕他胺治疗,结果表明阿帕他胺治疗后手术切缘阳性率仅为12%,明显低于既往直接根治术患者42.9%的比例,说明阿帕他胺作为新辅助治疗方案安全可靠且有良好的肿瘤控制作用 [ 9 ] 。针对高危前列腺癌患者,ARNEO研究比较了LHRH拮抗剂地加瑞克(degarelix)联合阿帕他胺与地加瑞克单药治疗后行根治术的疗效差异,发现联合治疗组患者达到主要终点,即MRD的比例显著高于对照组(38.0% vs. 9.1%, P =0.002) [ 10 ]

    除了新型内分泌药物单药联合ADT治疗外,为了最大化阻断雄激素途径,新型内分泌药物组合的联合治疗方案的探索也在不断地深入开展中。一项纳入75例高危前列腺癌患者的研究将患者随机分配至接受6个月的恩杂鲁胺联合亮丙瑞林治疗组( n =25)或恩杂鲁胺联合亮丙瑞林及阿比特龙治疗组( n =50),得出两组在治疗耐受性方面均良好且差异无统计学意义;尽管恩杂鲁胺联合亮丙瑞林及阿比特龙治疗组的pCR+MRD率较恩杂鲁胺联合亮丙瑞林治疗组等有所改善,但并未达到显著差异(30% vs. 16%, P =0.263) [ 11 ] 。另一项随机对照研究将65例高危前列腺癌症患者随机分为接受6个月ADT联合阿帕他胺治疗组或ADT联合阿帕他胺及阿比特龙治疗组,结果表明,尽管ADT联合阿帕他胺及阿比特龙治疗组采用了强化治疗方案,但术后pCR率(9.7%)和MRD率(15.6%)均未见显著改善 [ 12 ] 。此外,一项随机对照研究纳入119例高危前列腺癌患者,随机分为接受LHRH激动剂联合阿比特龙治疗组( n =59)或LHRH激动剂联合阿帕他胺及阿比特龙治疗组( n =60),两组在pCR+MRD率方面差异均无统计学意义(20% vs. 22%, P =0.85) [ 13 ] 。多种新型内分泌药物联合ADT的新辅助治疗方案可以达到强化抑制雄激素途径的作用,然而现有研究结果表明,相比于单一新型内分泌药物联合ADT,多种新型内分泌药物组合联合ADT的方案在改善pCR或MRD等方面并未显示出令人期待的疗效,这也提示关于如何选择强化治疗方案与获益人群,还需要进一步探索。

    2. 新辅助化疗

    自2004年多西他赛首次应用于转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌的治疗后,不断有新的研究将多西他赛治疗前移至转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌、高危局限性前列腺癌等阶段 [ 14 - 15 ] 。在转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌中,多西他赛联合ADT已被证明对高负荷肿瘤患者的总生存期有显著益处 [ 14 ] ,同时,多西他赛联合ADT放疗也被报道可以提高非转移性局部晚期前列腺癌的无复发生存率 [ 15 ] 。因此,以多西他赛为基础的新辅助治疗联合根治性手术被认为可能对改善肿瘤预后有潜在价值。既往研究已经证明,多西他赛联合ADT的新辅助治疗方案在高危局限性前列腺癌中取得了一定疗效 [ 16 - 19 ] 。一项多中心Ⅱ期临床试验纳入了64例高危局限性前列腺癌患者,接受基于多西他赛的新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗方案,结果有2例患者达到pCR,16例患者的根治样本达到MRD;在42.7个月的中位随访时间里,19例患者(30%)出现复发 [ 18 ] 。另一项多中心随机对照Ⅲ期临床试验(GETUG-12)纳入了413例高危局限性前列腺癌患者,在放疗前被随机分配至接受ADT联合多西紫杉醇和雌莫司汀治疗组或ADT单药治疗组,结果表明接受联合治疗的患者无复发生存期平均为11.6个月,显著高于单药治疗组的8.1个月( P =0.010 9);联合治疗组与单药治疗组的8年无复发生存率分别为62%和50%( P =0.017) [ 19 ] 。GETUG-12研究中具备高危肿瘤特征[如淋巴结转移、前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen,PSA)>20 μg/L等]的患者可能从联合治疗中获益更大;值得注意的是,该研究中87%的患者接受了新辅助治疗联合放疗而非手术治疗,因此,对于新辅助治疗作为前列腺癌根治术前的治疗方案仍需更多证据。

    上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院的一项回顾性研究将177例高危局部进展性前列腺癌患者分为新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗(neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy,NCHT)组和直接手术组,尽管前者在治疗前的基线肿瘤恶性程度更高,但其术后却获得了比直接手术组更长的无生化复发生存期(biochemical progression-free survival,BPFS) [ 16 ] 。此外,潘家骅等 [ 20 ] 基于国内多中心数据回顾性分析了极高危局部进展性前列腺癌患者应用NCHT的疗效,研究共纳入327例患者,通过比较NCHT(化疗药物为多西他赛)后行根治手术与直接行根治手术患者的术后病理特征及预后,得出NCHT可显著改善极高危局限性前列腺癌患者的肿瘤分期与高危病理特征,并延长BPFS,降低生化复发风险。尽管目前已有诸多研究探索了NCHT在高危局限性前列腺癌的疗效与安全性,但多数研究受到回顾性设计、样本量小或随访时间短等限制。一项纳入788例高危前列腺癌患者的Ⅲ期多中心随机试验(CALGB 90203)将患者随机分为直接手术组或NCHT联合手术组,后者接受ADT联合多西紫杉醇(75 mg/m 2 ,每3周治疗6个周期)及根治手术 [ 15 ] ,研究结果表明,NCHT联合手术组术后切缘阳性率、淋巴结转移率与病理T分期均有显著下降。在6.1年的中位随访时间里,两组均未见pCR病例,且两组之间的主要终点,即3年无生化复发生存率差异没有统计学意义(0.89 vs. 0.84, P =0.11),但NCHT联合手术组有总体BPFS、无转移生存期(metastasis-free survival,MFS)及总生存期改善的趋势。另外值得注意的是,该研究中有48%的患者接受了挽救性放疗与ADT等治疗,而且以生化复发作为研究终点难以代替肿瘤特异性生存等更重要的结局。因此,诸多限制因素使得NCHT在高危前列腺癌中的疗效定论仍需进一步探索与验证。

    3. 新辅助放疗与核素治疗

    局部进展性前列腺癌患者术后复发风险较高,这与术后不良病理特征包括切缘阳性、包膜外侵犯等密切相关,术后放疗可降低前列腺癌复发风险。新辅助放疗则是通过术前局部放疗以降低肿瘤负荷,减少术中播散以及术后活性肿瘤残余,从而改善肿瘤预后的治疗方法。Glicksman等 [ 21 ] 纳入15例高危前列腺癌患者进行新辅助放疗联合根治手术,放疗靶区为前列腺,放疗方案为25 Gy, 每日5次, 每次5 Gy;在长达12.2年的中位随访时间内,晚期泌尿生殖系统毒性发生率较高,且分别有8例(53.3%)和6例(40.0%)患者出现生化复发和转移灶复发。尽管新辅助放疗已广泛应用于直肠癌等肿瘤的治疗中,但对于前列腺癌,仍因缺少有力证据及可能导致的手术难度与毒副反应增加而使其实际应用受限。因此,更多高质量临床研究与证据对探索新辅助放疗疗效是十分必要的。

    前列腺癌放射性配体疗法是晚期前列腺癌的重要治疗手段。其中,靶向前列腺特异性膜抗原(prostate specific membrane antigen,PSMA)的 177 Lu-PSMA-617已被美国食品药品监督管理局批准应用于转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌的治疗,具有里程碑式的意义 [ 22 ] 。由于 177 Lu-PSMA耐受性相对较好,且可靶向结合PSMA高表达的前列腺癌转移灶,因此,其临床应用已进一步扩大到寡转移前列腺癌与局部晚期前列腺癌等阶段。一项最新的研究报道了 177 Lu-PSMA作为新辅助治疗应用于高危局限性前列腺癌的安全性 [ 23 ] 。该项单中心Ⅰ期临床研究招募了14例高危局限性前列腺癌患者,予以术前2~3个疗程的 177 Lu-PSMA-I & T新辅助治疗,研究结果提示 177 Lu-PSMA-I & T新辅助治疗的安全性与功能保留等方面相对较好。其中,13例接受手术治疗的患者无术中并发症,4例(30%)患者出现术后并发症,包括肺炎、肺栓塞、尿失禁伴尿路感染;12例患者(92%)术后3个月尿控恢复良好,且接受保留性神经手术的患者性功能未受到明显影响 [ 23 ] 。相比于新辅助放疗可能带来的泌尿生殖系统毒性以及组织粘连导致的手术难度增加, 177 Lu-PSMA可能为新辅助治疗提供了更安全的选择。尽管该研究样本量较小、随访时间较短,但为 177 Lu-PSMA新辅助治疗应用提供了重要证据。

    4. 新辅助治疗的展望

    在局部进展性前列腺癌的治疗中,新辅助治疗已被证明可以降低肿瘤病理分期、减少手术切缘阳性率与淋巴结累及率等,并可能延长肿瘤无复发生存期。随着诸多新型药物的问世,新辅助治疗方案也在不断革新,包括新型内分泌治疗药物以及联合治疗方案等, 并取得了一定的临床效果。新型内分泌治疗有望进一步在术前降低肿瘤负荷,并提高肿瘤病理缓解率和肿瘤特异性生存等结局。目前,新型内分泌治疗药物(阿比特龙、恩杂鲁胺、阿帕他胺等)联合ADT治疗相比于传统ADT治疗,可显著缩小肿瘤体积,改善术后不良病理特征、MRD及pCR。在此基础上,多种新型内分泌药物联合使用有望进一步抑制雄激素途径,取得更加良好的治疗效果。现有证据表明,多种新型内分泌治疗联合使用可提高pCR率,但相比于单一新型内分泌治疗方案的获益程度仍有限,提示肿瘤可能存在较大异质性以及潜在非雄激素受体(androgen receptor,AR)相关信号通路的激活,同时也要求临床上选择合适的患者以获得最大收益。此外,针对局部进展性尤其是极高危局部进展性前列腺癌患者,可能因为携带基因突变导致疗效欠佳,如存在AR基因扩增、AR-V7剪接变体以及DNA损伤修复基因突变的患者可能对阿比特龙、恩杂鲁胺等原发性耐药。因此,对于局部晚期前列腺癌患者,在新辅助治疗方案的选择上应综合考虑肿瘤负荷、突变特征、患者状态等情况,选择最佳治疗方案。目前,多项相关临床研究正在进行中,如一项大型Ⅲ期随机对照的PROTEUS研究( NCT03767244 )纳入了2 000例高危前列腺癌患者,比较根治术前后6个月阿帕他胺联合ADT治疗与单纯ADT治疗在pCR与MFS等方面的差异。未来更多的研究结果将为新辅助治疗提供更有力的证据。

    新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗同样可以显著改善局部进展性前列腺癌患者的肿瘤分期与术后不良病理特征。CALGB 90203研究是新辅助化疗方案中证据等级较高的临床研究之一,该研究对比了高危前列腺癌患者被随机分配接受新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗与直接手术的疗效,尽管新辅助治疗组在改善局部肿瘤控制与术后病理方面均有显著疗效,但两组的总生存期、MFS及3年BPFS等主要终点差异并无统计学意义。除了相当一部分比例患者术后接受挽救性放疗及辅助ADT治疗等影响因素外,该研究与既往研究相比所纳入的高危前列腺癌患者的肿瘤特征同样存在一定差异,新辅助治疗组患者中位PSA为9.5 μg/L,仅17%的患者为T3a期,未包含T3b~T4或N1期患者。相比之下,国内相关研究纳入的极高危前列腺癌患者的肿瘤基线特征相较于国外明显更差(T3b~T4或N1期患者比例高),而新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗则展现出了更显著的BPFS获益。此外,作为新辅助治疗领域重要的大型Ⅲ期随机对照研究,CALGB 90203研究中接受新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗的患者未见pCR,而其他以新型内分泌药物单用或联合使用的新辅助治疗研究中所报道的pCR率约为10%,这些数据的差异也提示新辅助化疗与新型内分泌治疗的疗效差异尚需更高质量的临床研究以进一步探索。尽管基于多西他赛的新辅助化疗方案的安全性得到了证实,但仍当谨慎应用于临床并尽可能减少化疗带来的严重副反应。因此,如何选择合适人群应用新辅助化疗联合内分泌治疗可能是未来探索的重要方向。

    近年来,以 177 Lu-PSMA和 68 Ga-PSMA等为代表的前列腺癌核素诊断与治疗取得了里程碑式的进步。随着Ⅲ期临床试验VISION研究结果的公布,PSMA靶向放射性配体治疗已成为转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌的重要治疗手段之一。由于 177 Lu-PSMA治疗具有毒副反应可控且可以靶向作用于病灶等特点,其未来在局部晚期前列腺癌的应用具备一定优势:一方面, 177 Lu-PSMA有望在新辅助治疗阶段应用以早期控制局部晚期前列腺癌病灶与微转移灶,通过联合根治手术达到最佳治疗效果;另一方面, 177 Lu-PSMA可与新型内分泌治疗等药物联合应用,达到强化治疗效果。目前,已有Ⅰ期临床研究结果表明 177 Lu-PSMA可以作为新辅助治疗单药安全、有效地应用于局部进展性前列腺癌中,但其远期疗效仍需开展进一步研究。

    此外,随着前列腺癌分子生物学研究的深入,涌现了诸多新兴治疗药物与方法,为前列腺癌治疗开创了新思路与新方法。常见的新型药物包括免疫治疗药物和靶向治疗药物等,为高危前列腺癌新辅助治疗提供了除内分泌治疗外的新路径。尽管目前多数研究仍处于Ⅰ、Ⅱ期,但未来更多高质量的临床研究将会更好地指导临床实践。

    5. 前列腺癌术后辅助治疗的决策

    对于局部进展性前列腺癌,辅助治疗的主要目的是降低复发风险。通常我们将前列腺癌国际泌尿病理学会(International Society of Urological Pathology,ISUP)分级>2并伴有包膜外侵犯(pT3),特别是精囊侵犯(pT3b),或者手术切缘阳性的患者定义为复发高风险患者,其5年内的疾病复发率高达50% [ 24 ] 。此外,无论病理T分期如何,切除的淋巴结数量、淋巴结内的肿瘤体积、肿瘤是否突破淋巴结包膜等都是pN1患者术后早期复发的预测因素 [ 25 - 26 ] 。淋巴结密度(阳性淋巴结数/切除淋巴结总数)超过20%与预后不良有关 [ 27 ]

    四项前瞻性随机对照试验(ARO 96-02、SWOG 8794、EORTC和FinnProstate Group 2019)评估了术后辅助放疗(adjuvant radiotherapy,ART)的作用,证明了其可以显著延长高危前列腺癌患者进展至生化复发的时间 [ 28 - 31 ] 。其中,ARO 96-02研究纳入了术后PSA无法测得的pT3患者,在接受随访观察的患者中有80%在10年内进展至生化复发阶段,而接受ART显著降低了生化复发的风险 [ 28 ] 。因此,对于局部进展性前列腺癌患者,术后是否采取辅助治疗主要取决于肿瘤的临床病理特征,包括Gleason评分、肿瘤的局部侵犯情况和手术切缘情况。在临床诊疗中,对于存在上述高危因素的患者,推荐在排尿功能恢复后进行手术区域的ART。

    对于区域淋巴结阳性(pN1)的患者,根治术后即刻联合内分泌治疗可以显著提升患者的肿瘤特异性生存率和总生存率,其10年的肿瘤特异性生存率可以达到80% [ 32 - 33 ] 。然而,此类患者是否能从辅助放疗中获益目前仍存在争议。一项回顾性研究结果显示,pN1患者根治术后接受辅助放疗,总生存时间有提高的趋势,但并无统计学意义。其中,阳性淋巴结个数≤4个的患者更倾向于从术后辅助放疗中获益 [ 34 ] 。对于有1~2个淋巴结转移、PSA无法测得且无结外受侵的患者,可暂时观察。综上,应在根据患者的肿瘤临床病理特征进行危险分层的基础上,对不伴有危险因素的患者进行密切的临床随访,对高危患者依据其病理特点选择放疗或内分泌治疗,并在治疗过程中进行定期的随访评估。

    6. 系统性评估是决定治疗方案的核心

    尽管对高危局部进展性前列腺癌患者进行新辅助治疗和辅助治疗尚需更多前瞻性临床试验的验证,但对此类患者采取更严密的随访和更全面的评估已经成为目前公认的手段。PSA的检测是预测患者疾病状态的基石,在此基础上,周期性的分期评估是必不可少的。其中,PSMA-PET/CT成像相比于传统的影像学检查(CT、MRI和骨扫描)更敏感、更特异,有利于发现早期复发或转移的征象,从而辅助治疗决策 [ 35 ] 。一项前瞻性多中心研究评估了中高危前列腺癌患者在接受PSMA-PET/CT检查前后诊疗计划的改变情况,与传统检查相比,PSMA-PET/CT分别额外检出了25%的淋巴结转移和6%的骨/内脏转移,从而使得21%的患者发生了治疗方案的变更 [ 36 ] 。此外,一项回顾性综述结果显示,PSMA-PET/CT可以在PSA水平低的条件下检出微小的转移病灶,特别是能够在一些PSA < 10 μg/L的患者中检出骨盆外淋巴结转移和骨转移 [ 37 ]

    前列腺癌患者的无创TNM分期研究领域正在迅速发展。多项研究证据表明,PSMA-PET/CT对淋巴结和骨/内脏转移的检测比传统的骨扫描和腹部/骨盆CT检查更灵敏,因此,对于高危前列腺癌患者的分级和分期,可以考虑用PSMA-PET/CT代替骨扫描和腹部/骨盆CT [ 38 ] 。但此项高敏检查会使患者的肿瘤分期升级,导致治疗方案产生变更,并可能带来额外的治疗,目前,尚缺乏前瞻性研究证明PSMA-PET/CT对分期的重新定义是否能使患者的生存获益,尤其是通过其诊断为局部或远处转移的前列腺癌患者的预后和理想治疗尚不清楚,因此,在做出或变更治疗决策时务必谨慎。PSMA-PET/CT成像技术正在改变前列腺癌的治疗模式,我们还需要更多、更高级的循证学证据来评估其对患者长期生存结局的影响,从而制定更细化的分层治疗方案。

    References

    1. Chen R, Ren S, Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium, et al. Prostate cancer in Asia: A collaborative report. Asian J Urol. 2014;1(1):15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2014.08.007. [Chen R, Ren S, Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium, et al. Prostate cancer in Asia: A collaborative report [J]. Asian J Urol, 2014, 1(1): 15-29.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Mano R, Eastham J, Yossepowitch O. The very-high-risk prostate cancer: A contemporary update. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(4):340–348. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.40. [Mano R, Eastham J, Yossepowitch O. The very-high-risk prostate cancer: A contemporary update [J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2016, 19(4): 340-348.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Shelley MD, Kumar S, Wilt T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(1):9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.08.002. [Shelley MD, Kumar S, Wilt T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neo-adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma [J]. Cancer Treat Rev, 2009, 35(1): 9-17.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Kumar S, Shelley M, Harrison C, et al. Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD006019. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006019.pub2. [Kumar S, Shelley M, Harrison C, et al. Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006(4): CD006019.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. O'Donnell A, Judson I, Dowsett M, et al. Hormonal impact of the 17alpha-hydroxylase/C(17, 20)-lyase inhibitor abiraterone acetate (CB7630) in patients with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(12):2317–2325. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601879. [O'Donnell A, Judson I, Dowsett M, et al. Hormonal impact of the 17alpha-hydroxylase/C(17, 20)-lyase inhibitor abiraterone acetate (CB7630) in patients with prostate cancer [J]. Br J Cancer, 2004, 90(12): 2317-2325.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Taplin ME, Montgomery B, Logothetis CJ, et al. Intense androgen-deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate plus leuprolide acetate in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer: Results of a randomized phase Ⅱ neoadjuvant study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(33):3705–3715. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4578. [Taplin ME, Montgomery B, Logothetis CJ, et al. Intense androgen-deprivation therapy with abiraterone acetate plus leuprolide acetate in patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer: Results of a randomized phase Ⅱ neoadjuvant study [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2014, 32(33): 3705-3715.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Efstathiou E, Davis JW, Pisters L, et al. Clinical and biological characterisation of localised high-risk prostate cancer: Results of a randomised preoperative study of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone. Eur Urol. 2019;76(4):418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.010. [Efstathiou E, Davis JW, Pisters L, et al. Clinical and biological characterisation of localised high-risk prostate cancer: Results of a randomised preoperative study of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone [J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(4): 418-424.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Montgomery B, Tretiakova MS, Joshua AM, et al. Neoadjuvant enzalutamide prior to prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(9):2169–2176. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1357. [Montgomery B, Tretiakova MS, Joshua AM, et al. Neoadjuvant enzalutamide prior to prostatectomy [J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2017, 23(9): 2169-2176.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Yang X, Allen JC, Aslim EJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of a phase Ⅱ neoadjuvant apalutamide (ARN-509) and radical prostatectomy in treatment of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (NEAR) trial. Int J Urol. 2022;29(11):1322–1330. doi: 10.1111/iju.14994. [Yang X, Allen JC, Aslim EJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of a phase Ⅱ neoadjuvant apalutamide (ARN-509) and radical prostatectomy in treatment of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer (NEAR) trial [J]. Int J Urol, 2022, 29(11): 1322-1330.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Devos G, Tosco L, Baldewijns M, et al. ARNEO: A randomized phase Ⅱ trial of neoadjuvant degarelix with or without apalutamide prior to radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2023;83(6):508–518. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.09.009. [Devos G, Tosco L, Baldewijns M, et al. ARNEO: A randomized phase Ⅱ trial of neoadjuvant degarelix with or without apalutamide prior to radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer [J]. Eur Urol, 2023, 83(6): 508-518.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Mckay RR, Ye H, Xie W, et al. Evaluation of intense androgen deprivation before prostatectomy: A randomized phase Ⅱ trial of enzalutamide and leuprolide with or without abiraterone. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(11):923–931. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01777. [Mckay RR, Ye H, Xie W, et al. Evaluation of intense androgen deprivation before prostatectomy: A randomized phase Ⅱ trial of enzalutamide and leuprolide with or without abiraterone [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2019, 37(11): 923-931.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Efstathiou E, Boukovala M, Spetsieris N, et al. Neoadjuvant apalutamide (APA) plus leuprolide (LHRHa) with or without abiraterone (AA) in localized high-risk prostate cancer (LHRPC) J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:5504. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.5504. [Efstathiou E, Boukovala M, Spetsieris N, et al. Neoadjuvant apalutamide (APA) plus leuprolide (LHRHa) with or without abiraterone (AA) in localized high-risk prostate cancer (LHRPC) [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2020, 38: 5504.] [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Mckay RR, Xie W, Ye H, et al. Results of a randomized phase Ⅱ trial of intense androgen deprivation therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2021;206(1):80–87. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001702. [Mckay RR, Xie W, Ye H, et al. Results of a randomized phase Ⅱ trial of intense androgen deprivation therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer [J]. J Urol, 2021, 206(1): 80-87.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Sweeney CJ, Chen YH, Carducci M, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):737–746. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503747. [Sweeney CJ, Chen YH, Carducci M, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer [J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 373(8): 737-746.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1163–1177. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01037-5. [James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet, 2016, 387(10024): 1163-1177.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Pan J, Chi C, Qian H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy combined with radical prostatectomy and extended PLND for very high risk locally advanced prostate cancer: A retrospective comparative study. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(12):991–998. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.07.009. [Pan J, Chi C, Qian H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy combined with radical prostatectomy and extended PLND for very high risk locally advanced prostate cancer: A retrospective comparative study [J]. Urol Oncol, 2019, 37(12): 991-998.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Dreicer R, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M, et al. Phase Ⅱ trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel before radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate can-cer. Urology. 2004;63(6):1138–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.040. [Dreicer R, Magi-Galluzzi C, Zhou M, et al. Phase Ⅱ trial of neoadjuvant docetaxel before radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate can-cer [J]. Urology, 2004, 63(6): 1138-1142.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Mikkilineni N, Hyams ES. Neoadjuvant therapies for surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer. Transl Cancer Res. 2018;7(Suppl 6):S662–S675. [Mikkilineni N, Hyams ES. Neoadjuvant therapies for surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer [J]. Transl Cancer Res, 2018, 7(Suppl 6): S662-S675.] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Fizazi K, Faivre L, Lesaunier F, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): A phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):787–794. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00011-X. [Fizazi K, Faivre L, Lesaunier F, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): A phase 3 randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet Oncol, 2015, 16(7): 787-794.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. 潘 家骅, 刘 家舟, 王 勇, et al. 新辅助内分泌治疗联合化疗对极高危局部进展期前列腺癌疗效的多中心临床分析. 中华泌尿外科杂志. 2021;42(9):685–690. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210819-00436. [潘家骅, 刘家舟, 王勇, 等. 新辅助内分泌治疗联合化疗对极高危局部进展期前列腺癌疗效的多中心临床分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2021, 42(9): 685-690.] [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Glicksman R, Sanmamed N, Thoms J, et al. A phase 1 pilot study of preoperative radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Long-term toxicity and oncologic outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;104(1):61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.12.054. [Glicksman R, Sanmamed N, Thoms J, et al. A phase 1 pilot study of preoperative radiation therapy for prostate cancer: Long-term toxicity and oncologic outcomes [J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2019, 104(1): 61-66.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):1091–1103. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107322. [Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [J]. N Engl J Med, 2021, 385(12): 1091-1103.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Golan S, Frumer M, Zohar Y, et al. Neoadjuvant 177Lu-PSMA-I&T radionuclide treatment in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy: A single-arm phase 1 trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;6(2):151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.09.002. [Golan S, Frumer M, Zohar Y, et al. Neoadjuvant 177Lu-PSMA-I&T radionuclide treatment in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy: A single-arm phase 1 trial [J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2023, 6(2): 151-159.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Hanks GE. External-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Patterns of care studies in the United States. NCI Monogr. 1988;(7):75–84. [Hanks GE. External-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Patterns of care studies in the United States [J]. NCI Monogr, 1988(7): 75-84.] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Aus G, Nordenskjold K, Robinson D, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in node-positive (N1) prostate cancer: A prospective study based on data from a Swedish population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2003;43(6):627–631. doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00156-8. [Aus G, Nordenskjold K, Robinson D, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in node-positive (N1) prostate cancer: A prospective study based on data from a Swedish population-based cohort [J]. Eur Urol, 2003, 43(6): 627-631.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Passoni NM, Fajkovic H, Xylinas E, et al. Prognosis of patients with pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis after radical prostatectomy: Value of extranodal extension and size of the largest LN metastasis. BJU Int. 2014;114(4):503–510. doi: 10.1111/bju.12342. [Passoni NM, Fajkovic H, Xylinas E, et al. Prognosis of patients with pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis after radical prostatectomy: Value of extranodal extension and size of the largest LN metastasis [J]. BJU Int, 2014, 114(4): 503-510.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: Long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2252–2255. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000143448.04161.cc. [Daneshmand S, Quek ML, Stein JP, et al. Prognosis of patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: Long-term results [J]. J Urol, 2004, 172(6 Pt 1): 2252-2255.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Wiegel T, Bartkowiak D, Bottke D, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait-and-see after radical prostatectomy: 10-year follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):243–250. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.011. [Wiegel T, Bartkowiak D, Bottke D, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy versus wait-and-see after radical prostatectomy: 10-year follow-up of the ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95 trial [J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66(2): 243-250.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: Long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2009;181(3):956–962. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.032. [Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: Long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial [J]. J Urol, 2009, 181(3): 956-962.] [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: Long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911) Lancet. 2012;380(9858):2018–2027. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61253-7. [Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: Long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911) [J]. Lancet, 2012, 380(9858): 2018-2027.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Hackman G, Taari K, Tammela TL, et al. Randomised trial of adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy versus radical prostatectomy alone in prostate cancer patients with positive margins or extracapsular extension. Eur Urol. 2019;76(5):586–595. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.001. [Hackman G, Taari K, Tammela TL, et al. Randomised trial of adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy versus radical prostatectomy alone in prostate cancer patients with positive margins or extracapsular extension [J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(5): 586-595.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Ghavamian R, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy plus orchiectomy versus orchiectomy alone for pTxN+ prostate cancer: A matched comparison. J Urol. 1999;161(4):1223–1227. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61640-9. [Ghavamian R, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy plus orchiectomy versus orchiectomy alone for pTxN+ prostate cancer: A matched comparison [J]. J Urol, 1999, 161(4): 1223-1227.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(6):472–479. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70700-8. [Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy [J]. Lancet Oncol, 2006, 7(6): 472-479.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(35):3939–3947. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.7893. [Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N, et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2014, 32(35): 3939-3947.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Lowrance W, Dreicer R, Jarrard DF, et al. Updates to advanced prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline (2023) J Urol. 2023;209(6):1082–1090. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003452. [Lowrance W, Dreicer R, Jarrard DF, et al. Updates to advanced prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline (2023) [J]. J Urol, 2023, 209(6): 1082-1090.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, et al. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: Results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):82–88. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.197160. [Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, et al. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: Results of an Australian prospective multicenter study [J]. J Nucl Med, 2018, 59(1): 82-88.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud F X, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1 253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;124(3):401–407. doi: 10.1111/bju.14828. [Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud F X, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1 253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer [J]. BJU Int, 2019, 124(3): 401-407.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1208–1216. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7. [Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study [J]. Lancet, 2020, 395(10231): 1208-1216.] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

    Articles from Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) are provided here courtesy of Editorial Office of Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, Peking University Health Science Center