Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer

Natural History of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Managed With Watchful Waiting

Importance

It is uncertain to what extent watchful waiting (WW) in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and a life expectancy of less than 10 years is associated with adverse consequences.

Objective

To report transitions to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), death from PCa, or death from other causes in men treated with a WW strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based cohort study included men with nonmetastatic PCa diagnosed since 2007 and registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden with WW as the primary treatment strategy and with life expectancy less than 10 years. Life expectancy was calculated based on age, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and a drug comorbidity index. Observed state transition models complemented observed data to extend follow-up to more than 20 years. Analyses were performed between 2022 and 2023.

Exposure

Nonmetastatic PCa.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Transitions to ADT, CRPC, death from PCa, and death from other causes were measured using state transition modeling.

Results

The sample included 5234 men (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 81 [79-84] years). After 5 years, 954 men with low-risk PCa (66.2%) and 740 with high-risk PCa (36.1%) were still alive and not receiving ADT. At 10 years, the corresponding proportions were 25.5% (n = 367) and 10.4% (n = 213), respectively. After 10 years, 59 men with low-risk PCa (4.1%) and 221 with high-risk PCa (10.8%) had transitioned to CRPC. Ten years after diagnosis, 1330 deaths in the low-risk group (92.3%) and 1724 in the high-risk group (84.1%) were from causes other than PCa.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the WW management strategy is appropriate for minimizing adverse consequences of PCa in men with a baseline life expectancy of less than 10 years.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Gene-expression analysis of gleason grade 3 tumor glands embedded in low- and high-risk prostate cancer

The Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer on diagnostic biopsies is an important parameter for therapeutic decision-making. Biopsy GS under-estimates the actual GS at radical prostatectomy in a significant number of patients due to sampling artifact. The aim of this study was to identify markers that are differentially expressed in Gleason grade 3 (GG3) tumor glands embedded in GS 4 + 3 = 7 and GS 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer using laser capture microdissection and RNA sequencing.

GG3 tumor glands embedded in nine GS 3 + 3 = 6 and nine GS 4 + 3 = 7 prostate cancers were isolated by laser capture microdissection of frozen radical prostatectomy specimens. After RNA amplification and RNA sequencing, differentially expressed genes in both GG3 components were identified by a 2log fold change > 1.0 and p-value < 0.05. We applied immunohistochemistry on a tissue micro-array representing 481 radical prostatectomy samples for further validation on protein level.

A total of 501 genes were up-regulated and 421 down-regulated in GG3 glands embedded in GS 4 + 3 = 7 as compared to GS 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. We selected HELLS, ZIC2 and ZIC5 genes for further validation. ZIC5 mRNA was up-regulated 17 fold (p = 8.4E–07), ZIC2 8 fold (p = 1.3E–05) and HELLS 2 fold (p = 0.006) in GG3 glands derived from GS 4 + 3 = 7. HELLS expression of ≥ 1% occurred in 10% GS < 7, 17% GS 7 and 43% GS >7 prostate cancer (p < 0.001). Using a cut-off of ≥ 1%, protein expression of ZIC5 was present in 28% GS < 7, 43% GS 7 and 57% GS > 7 cancer (p < 0.001). ZIC2 was neither associated with GS nor outcome in our validation set. HELLS was independently predictive for biochemical-recurrence after radical prostatectomy (HR 2.3; CI 1.5–3.6; p < 0.01).

In conclusion, HELLS and ZIC5 might be promising candidate markers for selection of biopsy GS 6 prostate cancer being at risk for up-grading at prostatectomy.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials.

PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients.

RESULTS

The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials.

Predictors of dyadic planning: Perspectives of prostate cancer survivors and their partners

OBJECTIVES

Extending individual planning of health behaviour change to the level of the dyad, dyadic planning refers to a target person and a planning partner jointly planning the target person's health behaviour change. To date, predictors of dyadic planning have not been systematically investigated. Integrating cognitive predictors of individual planning with four established predictor domains of social support provision, we propose a framework of predictors of dyadic planning. Including target persons' and partners' perspectives, we examine these predictor domains in the context of prostate cancer patients' rehabilitative pelvic floor exercise (PFE) following radical prostatectomy.

DESIGN

Longitudinal data from 175 patients and their partners were analysed in a study with four post-surgery assessments across 6 months.

METHODS

PFE-related dyadic planning was assessed from both partners together with indicators from four predictor domains: context, target person, partner, and relationship factors. Individual planning and social support served as covariates.

RESULTS

Findings from two-level models nesting repeated assessments in individuals showed that context (patients' incontinence), target person (i.e., positive affect and self-efficacy), and relationship factors (i.e., relationship satisfaction) were uniquely associated with dyadic planning, whereas partner factors (i.e., positive and negative affects) were not. Factors predicting patients' and partners' accounts of dyadic planning differed.

CONCLUSIONS

Resembling prior findings on antecedents of support provision in this context, partner factors did not prevail as unique predictors of dyadic planning, whereas indicators from all other predictor domains did. To establish predictive direction, future work should use lagged predictions with shorter intermeasurement intervals. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Dyadic planning has been shown to be linked to health behaviour change. However, its role in behaviour regulation frameworks is not well investigated, especially regarding factors that might be predictive of dyadic planning. What does this study add? A framework of predictors of dyadic planning in the health behaviour change process is presented. The framework is investigated accounting for both planning partners' perspectives. Context, target person, and relationship factors were related to dyadic planning.

The forest and the trees: relational and specific factors in addiction treatment

AIMS

Increased expectations for the use of evidence-based methods in addiction treatment have fueled a debate regarding the relative importance of 'specific' versus 'common' factors in treatment outcome. This review explores the influence of these factors on addiction treatment outcome.

METHODS

The authors review and link findings from four decades of research on specific and general factors in addiction treatment outcome research.

FINDINGS

Although few would argue that what one does in addiction treatment is immaterial, outcome studies tend to find small to no difference when specific treatment methods are compared with each other or with treatment as usual. In contrast, there are usually substantial differences among therapists in client outcomes, and relational factors such as therapist empathy and therapeutic alliance can be significant determinants of addiction treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In addiction treatment, relational factors such as empathy, which are often described as common, non-specific factors, should not be dismissed as 'common' because they vary substantially across providers and it is unclear how common they actually are. Similarly they should not be relegated to 'non-specific' status, because such important relational influences can be specified and incorporated into clinical research and training.

Quantitative identification of magnetic resonance imaging features of prostate cancer response following laser ablation and radical prostatectomy

Laser interstitial thermotherapy (LITT) is a relatively new focal therapy technique for the ablation of localized prostate cancer. In this study, for the first time, we are integrating ex vivo pathology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess the imaging characteristics of prostate cancer and treatment changes following LITT. Via a unique clinical trial, which gave us the availability of ex vivo histology and pre- and post-LITT MRIs, (1) we investigated the imaging characteristics of treatment effects and residual disease, and (2) evaluated treatment-induced feature changes in the ablated area relative to the residual disease. First, a pathologist annotated the ablated area and the residual disease on the ex vivo histology. Subsequently, we transferred the annotations to the post-LITT MRI using a semi-automatic elastic registration. The pre- and post-LITT MRIs were registered and features were extracted. A scoring metric based on the change in median pre- and post-LITT feature values was introduced, which allowed us to identify the most treatment responsive features. Our results show that (1) image characteristics for treatment effects and residual disease are different, and (2) the change of feature values between pre- and post-LITT MRIs can be a quantitative biomarker for treatment response. Finally, using feature change improved discrimination between the residual disease and treatment effects.

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis

CONTEXT

There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men).

DATA EXTRACTION

2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5 years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future.

Who does not receive treatment for cancer?

PURPOSE

Little has been published on nontreatment of cancer, yet the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) indicates that 9.2% of patients receive no first course of treatment. Because the NCDB is limited to accredited cancer programs, there is potential for the actual rate to differ. We sought to understand the rate and characteristics of patients with cancer who receive no first course of treatment in a more population-representative data source.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR) strives to capture 100% of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Iowa residents, regardless of where they are diagnosed or treated.

RESULTS

In the ICR from 2004 to 2010, 12.3% of newly diagnosed patients with cancer did not receive a first course of treatment, which is 48% higher than the NCDB data for the state of Iowa (8.3%) during the same time period. Logistic regression indicated that nontreatment was more common in certain cancers (ie, small-cell and non-small-cell lung/bronchial cancers and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma), advanced stages, older patients, those receiving treatment recommendations at nonaccredited cancer programs, and patients who never consulted an oncologist, radiation therapist, or surgeon. Distance to treatment facilities was not related to nontreatment.

CONCLUSION

The rate of nontreatment varies by cancer type and stage and is higher in patients receiving initial treatment recommendations in nonaccredited cancer programs than in accredited cancer programs. This pattern seems to be correlated with patient characteristics but also may be related to provider and facility characteristics available to people locally that influence both patient and provider decision making.

How do patients between the age of 65 and 75 use a web-based decision aid for treatment choice in localized prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the use of a web-based decision aid by a 65plus patient group in their decision-making process for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of particular interest was the use of technology features such as patients' statements, comparative tables, and a values clarification tool.

METHODS

One hundred men from the University Hospital of Leuven campus, Gasthuisberg, were invited to use the web-based decision aid in their decision-making process. Twenty-six men were excluded based on non- or limited use of the decision aid. Of the remaining 74 men, user specifications, decision aid surfing characteristics by means of web-log data, and especially the use of technology features were analyzed.

RESULTS

Men spent on average 30 minutes on the web-based decision aid. Most time was spent on the pages with information on treatment options. These pages were also most frequently accessed. The use of the feature 'comparative tables' was the highest, followed by the 'values clarification tool'. According to age (<70 or >70 years) differences were observed for the time spent on the decision aid, the pages accessed, and the use of the technology features.

CONCLUSION

Despite concerns about the usability of a web-based decision aid for elderly patients, these results indicated that the majority of 65plus persons with good internet skills use a web-based decision aid as well as its incorporated technology features.

Methylation of APC and GSTP1 in non-neoplastic tissue adjacent to prostate tumour and mortality from prostate cancer

Background

Markers that can discriminate between indolent and aggressive prostate tumours are needed. We studied gene methylation in non-neoplastic tissue adjacent to prostate tumour (NTAT) in association with prostate cancer mortality.

Methods

From two cohorts of consecutive prostate cancer patients diagnosed at one pathology ward in Turin, Italy, we selected 157 patients with available NTAT and followed them up for more than 14 years. We obtained DNA from NTAT in paraffin-embedded prostate tumour tissues and used probe real-time PCR to analyse methylation of the glutathione S-transferase (GSTP1) and adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene promoters.

Results

Prevalence of APC and GSTP1 methylation in the NTAT was between 40 and 45%. It was associated with methylation in prostate tumour tissue for the same two genes as well as with a high Gleason score. The hazard ratio (HR) of prostate cancer mortality was 2.38 (95% confidence interval: 1.23–4.61) for APC methylation, and 2.92 (1.49–5.74) for GSTP1 methylation in NTAT. It changed to 1.91 (1.03–3.56) and 1.60 (0.80–3.19) after adjusting for Gleason score and methylation in prostate tumour tissue. Comparison of 2 vs. 0 methylated genes in NTAT revealed a HR of 4.30 (2.00–9.22), which decreased to 2.40 (1.15–5.01) after adjustment. Results were stronger in the first 5 years of follow-up (adjusted HR: 3.29, 95% CI: 1.27–8.52).

Conclusions

Changes in gene methylation are an early event in prostate carcinogenesis and may play a role in cancer progression. Gene methylation in NTAT is a possible prognostic marker to be evaluated in clinical studies.