Contemporary prostate cancer treatment choices in multidisciplinary clinics referenced to national trends

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown.

METHODS

We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics.

RESULTS

Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Progress for all: addressing disparities in sarcoidosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The impact of healthcare disparities in the treatment, care, and outcomes of patients with sarcoidosis has been described. There is paucity of literature on ways to address these disparities with a goal to improving health outcomes for patients with sarcoidosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings in other respiratory and systemic diseases suggest that multifaceted interventions directed at improving care at various levels including individual, family, and larger societal levels have been successful in dismantling some of the social and structural barriers to care and consequently have resulted in a reduction in disparate disease outcomes. We explore what some of these interventions would look like in sarcoidosis.

SUMMARY

The impact of healthcare disparities in the treatment, care, and outcomes of patients with sarcoidosis has been described. We outline various steps and approaches aimed at addressing these health disparities with a goal to improving outcomes for those most impacted by disease.

Reducing Racial Inequalities in Prostate Cancer Treatment: Healthcare Access Barriers

Inequalities in healthcare for patients with prostate cancer can result in treatment and mortality disparities. Despite Black men with prostate cancer having higher incidence and mortality from prostate cancer, the study by Hammarlund and colleagues found that they are less likely to receive appropriate treatment compared with their White counterparts. Given that Black men with prostate cancer have similar or better survival when participating in clinical trials or receiving equal treatment from an equal access to healthcare system, identifying factors contributing to inequitable treatment is essential to improve the overall health and survival of Black men with prostate cancer. See related article by Hammarlund and colleagues, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33:435-41.

Disparities With Systemic Therapies for Black Men Having Advanced Prostate Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer represents the most common cancer diagnosis in Black men and is the second leading cause of cancer death in this population. Multilevel disparities have been well-documented in Black men with prostate cancer and play a role in poorer survival outcomes when compared with White men with prostate cancer. In this review, we highlight the changing trend in disparities for systemic therapy outcomes in Black men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed data from real-world registries and prospective clinical trials with a particular focus on equal access settings to compare outcomes to systemic therapies between Black and White men with metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

In metastatic prostate cancer, there is growing evidence to suggest that Black men may have similar, if not better, outcomes to systemic therapies than White men with advanced disease, as corroborated by prospective studies and clinical trials where health care delivery and follow-up are more likely to be standardized.

CONCLUSION

This review illustrates the importance of nonbiological drivers of racial disparities in Black men with advanced prostate cancer. Mitigating barriers to health care access and delivery as well as including participation in clinical trials will be pivotal to ongoing efforts to address disparities in systemic therapy outcomes for Black men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Novel hormone therapy and coordination of care in high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in 20-50% of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing primary definitive treatment. Patients with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of metastatic progression and subsequent PCa-specific mortality, and thus could benefit from treatment intensification. Given the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, multidisciplinary care (MDC) can play a crucial role in the individualized management of this patient population. This review explores the role for MDC when evaluating the clinical evidence for the evolving definition of high-risk BCR and the emerging therapeutic strategies, especially with novel hormone therapies (NHTs), for patients with either high-risk BCR or oligometastatic PCa. Clinical studies have used different characteristics to define high-risk BCR and there is no consensus regarding the definition of high-risk BCR nor for management strategies. Next-generation imaging and multigene panels offer potential enhanced patient identification and precision-based decision-making, respectively. Treatment intensification with NHTs, either alone or combined with radiotherapy or metastasis-directed therapy, has been promising in clinical trials in patients with high-risk BCR or oligometastases. As novel risk-stratification and treatment options as well as evidence-based literature evolve, it is important to involve a multidisciplinary team to identify patients with high-risk features at an earlier stage, and make informed decisions on the treatments that could optimize their care and long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, MDC data are scarce in the BCR or oligometastatic setting. Efforts to integrate MDC into the standard management of this patient population are needed, and will likely improve outcomes across this heterogeneous PCa patient population.

Patterns of multispecialty care for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the use of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary models of care have been advocated for prostate cancer (PC) to promote shared decision-making and facilitate quality care. Yet, how this model applies to low-risk disease where the preferred management is expectant remains unclear. Accordingly, we examined recent practice patterns in specialty visits for low/intermediate-risk PC and resultant use of active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare, we ascertained whether patients saw urology and radiation oncology (i.e., multispecialty care) versus urology alone, based on self-designated specialty codes, for newly diagnosed PC from 2010 to 2017. We also examined the association with AS, defined as the absence of treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Time trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were applied to compare sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics between these models of care.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients seeing both specialists was 35.5% and 46.5% for low- and intermediate-risk patients respectively. Trend analysis showed a decline in multispecialty care in low-risk patients (44.1% to 25.3% years 2010-2017; P < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2017, the use of AS increased 40.9% to 68.6% (P < 0.001) and 13.1% to 24.6% (P < 0.001) for patients seeing urology and those seeing both specialists respectively. Age, urban residence, higher education, SEER region, co-morbidities, frailty, Gleason score, predicted receipt of multispecialty care (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of AS among men with low-risk PC has occurred primarily under the purview of urologists. While selection is certainly at play, these data suggest that multispecialty care may not be required to promote the utilization of AS for men with low-risk PC.

Complications after Prostate Cancer Treatment: Pathophysiology and Repair of Post-Radiation Urethral Stricture Disease

Radiation therapy (RT) in the management of pelvic cancers remains a clinical challenge to urologists given the sequelae of urethral stricture disease secondary to fibrosis and vascular insults. The objective of this review is to understand the physiology of radiation-induced stricture disease and to educate urologists in clinical practice regarding future prospective options clinicians have to deal with this condition. The management of post-radiation urethral stricture consists of conservative, endoscopic, and primary reconstructive options. Endoscopic approaches remain an option, but with limited long-term success. Despite concerns with graft take, reconstructive options such as urethroplasties in this population with buccal grafts have shown long-term success rates ranging from 70 to 100%. Robotic reconstruction is augmenting previous options with faster recovery times. Radiation-induced stricture disease is challenging with multiple interventions available, but with successful outcomes demonstrated in various cohorts including urethroplasties with buccal grafts and robotic reconstruction.

Heterogeneity in the pharmacological management of radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis is a complication of pelvic radiotherapy, with an incidence of up to 5%. The resultant hematuria may be severe and refractory to conservative measures. Our objective was to describe the pattern of inpatient treatments among a cohort of patients with radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis requiring pharmacological management.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series to identify all inpatient admissions at a single institution during which patients with radiation cystitis underwent pharmacological intervention for refractory hematuria between 2004 and 2019. Patient demographics, medical history, details of radiation therapy, and relevant admission data were collected. Details of treatment, including the use of pharmacotherapy and surgical treatment, were reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

We identified 21 patients who were treated during 26 admissions. Most were male (91%) with a history of external beam radiation therapy (86%), primarily for prostate cancer (85%), and a median age of 73 (IQR: 67-85). Most patients received continuous bladder irrigation as the first intervention during their admission (65%), for a median duration of 40 hours (IQR: 25-59). Eleven separate pharmacologic agents were used, with variations in initial pharmacotherapy utilization over time. Most patients were treated with a combination of surgical and pharmacological interventions (85%). The median length of stay was 9 days (IQR: 5-17) and the 90-day readmission rate was 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic treatment for refractory radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis is inconsistent and lacks evidence to support treatment strategies. Further work is needed to determine the optimal management for this morbid complication.

Addressing Challenges and Controversies in the Management of Prostate Cancer with Multidisciplinary Teams

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future.

Tackling Health Care Disparities: How to Build a Sarcoidosis Center

Sarcoidosis is a multi-organ system inflammatory disease of unknown etiology that disproportionately affects women and black patients in the United States. In addition, woman and minority patients have worse outcomes. In 2015, sarcoidosis physicians in cardiology, pulmonary medicine and rheumatology joined forces to create a multidisciplinary sarcoidosis at Virginia Commonwealth University. In 2019, the clinic was recognized as a World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG) Center of Excellence. We identify four pillars of a patient-centered sarcoidosis clinic: clinical care, research, teaching, and community outreach. We detail how each of these facets plays a critical role in improving the health of individual patients, creating a strong infrastructure to improve the future of sarcoidosis treatment, and developing community-based resources that can empower patients. Most importantly, we highlight how a multidisciplinary clinic can help identify and combat healthcare disparities.

Dynamic multidisciplinary team discussions can improve the prognosis of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management is a popular treatment paradigm in managing cancer patients, which provides fully-discussed, interdisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients. However, there has been a lack of data on its actual impact on the overall survival (OS) of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. mCRPC is the end stage of prostate cancer, facing a treatment dilemma of overwhelming options; therefore, we hypothesize dynamic MDT discussions can be helpful in comprehensively managing these patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 422 mCRPC patients' clinical information from 2013 to 2020 from our institute. Patients can voluntarily choose whether to enroll in the dynamic MDT group, which includes discussions at CRPC diagnosis and subsequent disease progression. All patients were followed up regularly, and OS from CRPC diagnosis to death was set as the endpoint of this study.

RESULTS

Participating in MDT discussions is a favorable independent indicator of longer overall survival (median OS: MDT (+): 39.7 months; MDT (-): 27.0 months, hazard ratio: 0.549, p = .001). Moreover, this survival benefit of MDT remained in subgroups with first-line therapy [median OS: MDT (+): not reached; MDT (-): 27.0 months, p = .001) and with multi-line therapy until the end of follow-up (median OS: MDT (+): 36.7 months; MDT (-): 25.6 months, p = .044).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, regular MDT discussions are valuable in the management of mCRPC patients. Clinicians are encouraged to tailor MDT discussions dynamically to provide mCRPC patients with a better and more individualized treatment plan and more prolonged survival. Take-home messages ● The MDT model is defined as dynamic MDT discussions at the time of mCRPC diagnosis and each time they progressed later on throughout the disease management. ● Prostate cancer MDT usually includes specialists in urologic oncology, pathology, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ultrasound, imaging and nuclear medicine. ● MDT model can benefit mCRPC patients in terms of overall survival.

Current Opinion Regarding Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinic Utilization for the Management of Prostate Cancer

Objectives:

Multidisciplinary cancer clinic (MDC) is an evaluation option for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of MDC is to provide the patient with a comprehensive assessment and risk/benefit discussion of all pertinent treatment options. Our objective was to obtain a contemporary measure and analysis of urologists’ opinion regarding PCa MDC.

Material and Methods:

We created a 14-item questionnaire for respondent baseline characteristics, subjective and objective inquiries regarding MDC for PCa management. The survey was distributed through email to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology and the Endourological Society. Data were analyzed using R (R Core team, 2017).

Results:

One hundred and seven (51%) respondents reported participation in MDC; the majority of which were male (97.6%), academic (61.4%) urologists with urologic oncology fellowship training (50%), and >20 years in practice (40.3%). MDC patients were most commonly referrals (78.5%) and with high-risk disease (Gleason sum 8–10) (83.2%). A majority of the respondents felt that MDC was very or extremely beneficial for PCa research (45% and 19%, respectively) and treatment (35% and 20%, respectively). Responses dissuading the use of MDC included lack of infrastructure (41%) and time commitment (21%). On multivariate analysis, urologists with >10 years in practice were less likely to find MDC beneficial in the management of PCa (11–20 years, P = 0.028 and >20 years P = 0.009).

Conclusion:

A contemporary sampling of urologists’ opinion and practice patterns alludes to the benefits that advocate for and the resource demand that hinders routine use of MDC for PCa evaluation. Urologist training and practice environment can affect participation in PCa MDC.

Influence of Geography on Prostate Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Several definitive treatment options are available for prostate cancer, but geographic access to those options is not uniform. We created maps illustrating provider practice patterns relation to patients and assessed the influence of distance to treatment receipt.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The patient cohort was created by searching the National Medicare Database for patients diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer from 2011 to 2014. The provider cohort was created by querying the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify physicians who had treated patients with prostatectomy, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or proton therapy. Maps detailing the location of providers were created for each modality. Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to assess the association between patient-provider distance and probability of treatment.

RESULTS

Cohorts consisted of 89,902 patients treated by 5518 physicians. Substantial numbers of providers practicing established modalities (IMRT, prostatectomy, and brachytherapy) were noted in major urban centers, whereas provider numbers were reduced in rural areas, most notably for brachytherapy. Ninety percent of prostate cancer patients lived within 35.1, 28.9, and 55.6 miles of a practitioner of prostatectomy, IMRT, and brachytherapy, respectively. Practitioners of emerging modalities (SBRT and proton therapy) were predominantly concentrated in urban locations, with 90% of patients living within 128 miles (SBRT) and 374.5 miles (proton). Greater distance was associated with decreased probability of treatment (IMRT -3.8% per 10 miles; prostatectomy -2.1%; brachytherapy -2%; proton therapy -1.6%; and SBRT -1.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic disparities were noted for analyzed treatment modalities, and these disparities influenced delivery.

A bispecific T cell engager targeting Glypican-1 redirects T cell cytolytic activity to kill prostate cancer cells

BACKGROUND

Glypican-1 is a heparan sulfate proteoglycan that is overexpressed in prostate cancer (PCa), and a variety of solid tumors. Importantly, expression is restricted in normal tissue, making it an ideal tumor targeting antigen. Since there is clinical and preclinical evidence of the efficacy of Bispecific T cell Engager (BiTE) therapy in PCa, we sought to produce and test the efficacy of a GPC-1 targeted BiTE construct based on the Miltuximab^® sequence. Miltuximab^® is a clinical stage anti-GPC-1 antibody that has proven safe in first in human trials.

METHODS

The single chain variable fragment (scFv) of Miltuximab^® and the CD3 binding sequence of Blinatumomab were combined in a standard BiTE format. Binding of the construct to immobilised recombinant CD3 and GPC-1 antigens was assessed by ELISA and BiaCore, and binding to cell surface-expressed antigens was measured by flow cytometry. The ability of MIL-38-CD3 to activate T cells was assessed using in vitro co-culture assays with tumour cell lines of varying GPC-1 expression by measurement of CD69 and CD25 expression, before cytolytic activity was assessed in a similar co-culture. The release of inflammatory cytokines from T cells was measured by ELISA and expression of PD-1 on the T cell surface was measured by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Binding activity of MIL-38-CD3 to both cell surface-expressed and immobilised recombinant GPC-1 and CD3 was retained. MIL-38-CD3 was able to mediate the activation of peripheral blood T cells from healthy individuals, resulting in the release of inflammatory cytokines TNF and IFN-g. Activation was reliant on GPC-1 expression as MIL-38-CD3 mediated only low level T cell activation in the presence of C3 cells (constitutively low GPC-1 expression). Activated T cells were redirected to lyse PCa cell lines PC3 and DU-145 (GPC-1 moderate or high expression, respectively) but could not kill GPC-1 negative Raji cells. The expression of PD-1 was up-regulated on the surface of MIL-38-CD3 activated T cells, suggesting potential for synergy with checkpoint inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports preclinical findings into the efficacy of targeting GPC-1 in PCa with BiTE construct MIL-38-CD3. We show the specificity and efficacy of the construct, supporting its further preclinical development.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Genitourinary Cancer Care: Re-envisioning the Future

CONTEXT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated rapid changes in medical practice. Many of these changes may add value to care, creating opportunities going forward.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-informed, expert-derived review of genitourinary cancer care moving forward following the initial COVID-19 pandemic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative narrative review was conducted using literature published through May 2020 (PubMed), which comprised three main topics: reduced in-person interactions arguing for increasing virtual and image-based care, optimisation of the delivery of care, and the effect of COVID-19 in health care facilities on decision-making by patients and their families.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patterns of care will evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine, virtual care, and telemonitoring will increase and could offer broader access to multidisciplinary expertise without increasing costs. Comprehensive and integrative telehealth solutions will be necessary, and should consider patients' mental health and access differences due to socioeconomic status. Investigations and treatments will need to maximise efficiency and minimise health care interactions. Solutions such as one stop clinics, day case surgery, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and oral or less frequent drug dosing will be preferred. The pandemic necessitated a triage of those patients whose treatment should be expedited, delayed, or avoided, and may persist with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in circulation. Patients whose demographic characteristics are at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19 may re-evaluate the benefit of intervention for less aggressive cancers. Clinical research will need to accommodate virtual care and trial participation. Research dissemination and medical education will increasingly utilise virtual platforms, limiting in-person professional engagement; ensure data dissemination; and aim to enhance patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic will have lasting effects on the delivery of health care. These changes offer opportunities to improve access, delivery, and the value of care for patients with genitourinary cancers but raise concerns that physicians and health administrators must consider in order to ensure equitable access to care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the care provided to many patients with genitourinary cancers. This has necessitated a transition to telemedicine, changes in threshold or delays in many treatments, and an opportunity to reimagine patient care to maintain safety and improve value moving forward.

A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The early diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent access to the treatment options helps to achieve optimal cancer outcomes. As the treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve, patients need to access a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to receive best-practice care.

METHODS

In this paper a MEDLINE review was performed to assess clinical decision making in the context of MDT discussions for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

RESULTS

From 441 returned articles and abstracts, 50 articles were assessed for eligibility and 16 articles included for analysis. Sixteen articles were identified, 9 of the 16 articles used quantitative methodology including three retrospective analysis of clinical registry data, patient medical records and/or MDT meeting notes and three cross-sectional surveys. Other study designs included one observation study and one study using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and one mini-review. There were also four editorials included in the review and two consensus statements.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlights the important role the inter-disciplinary MDT has on shared decision making for men with advanced prostate cancer. The application of MDT care is a rapidly growing trend in uro-oncology and an efficient MDT service requires further research to assess its efficiency so that it may expand through all aspect of uro-oncology.