Is time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy associated with oncological outcomes?

Lessons learned after one year of COVID-19 from a urologist and radiotherapist view: A German survey on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment

Introduction

Since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, COVID-19 has changed the medical landscape. International recommendations for localized prostate cancer (PCa) include deferred treatment and adjusted therapeutic routines.

Materials and methods

To longitudinally evaluate changes in PCa treatment strategies in urological and radiotherapy departments in Germany, a link to a survey was sent to 134 institutions covering two representative baseline weeks prior to the pandemic and 13 weeks from March 2020 to February 2021. The questionnaire captured the numbers of radical prostatectomies, prostate biopsies and case numbers for conventional and hypofractionation radiotherapy. The results were evaluated using descriptive analyses.

Results

A total of 35% of the questionnaires were completed. PCa therapy increased by 6% in 2020 compared to 2019. At baseline, a total of 69 radiotherapy series and 164 radical prostatectomies (RPs) were documented. The decrease to 60% during the first wave of COVID-19 particularly affected low-risk PCa. The recovery throughout the summer months was followed by a renewed reduction to 58% at the end of 2020. After a gradual decline to 61% until July 2020, the number of prostate biopsies remained stable (89% to 98%) during the second wave. The use of RP fluctuated after an initial decrease without apparent prioritization of risk groups. Conventional fractionation was used in 66% of patients, followed by moderate hypofractionation (30%) and ultrahypofractionation (4%). One limitation was a potential selection bias of the selected weeks and the low response rate.

Conclusion

While the diagnosis and therapy of PCa were affected in both waves of the pandemic, the interim increase between the peaks led to a higher total number of patients in 2020 than in 2019. Recommendations regarding prioritization and fractionation routines were implemented heterogeneously, leaving unexplored potential for future pandemic challenges.

Compliance with recommended cancer patient pathway timeframes and choice of treatment differed by cancer type and place of residence among cancer patients in Norway in 2015-2016

Background

Cancer patient pathways (CPPs) were implemented in Norway to reduce unnecessary waiting times, regional variations, and to increase the predictability of cancer care for the patients. This study aimed to determine if 70% of cancer patients started treatment within the recommended time frames, and to identify potential delays.

Methods

Patients registered with a colorectal, lung, breast, or prostate cancer diagnosis at the Cancer Registry of Norway in 2015–2016 were linked with the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. Adjusting for sociodemographic variables, multivariable quantile (median) regressions were used to examine the association between place of residence and median time to start of examination, treatment decision, and start of treatment.

Results

The study included 20 668 patients. The proportions of patients who went through the CPP within the recommended time frames were highest among colon (84%) and breast (76%) cancer patients who underwent surgery and lung cancer patients who started systemic anticancer treatment (76%), and lowest for prostate cancer patients who underwent surgery (43%). The time from treatment decision to start of treatment was the main source of delay for all cancers. Travelling outside the resident health trust prolonged waiting time and was associated with a reduced odds of receiving surgery and radiotherapy for lung and rectal cancer patients, respectively.

Conclusions

Achievement of national recommendations of the CCP times differed by cancer type and treatment. Identified bottlenecks in the pathway should be targeted to decrease waiting times. Further, CPP guidelines should be re-examined to determine their ongoing relevance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09306-9.

Gleason grade accuracy of transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies in MRI-naïve patients

PURPOSE

Accurate assessment of Gleason grade is essential to guiding prostate cancer management. Not all healthcare systems have universal access to prostate MRI. We investigated whether transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies provide more accurate Gleason grading than transrectal (TR) biopsies in MRI-naïve patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing TP and TR systematic prostate needle biopsies from 2011 to 2018 were analysed. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) within 180 days of biopsies were included. Patients undergoing MRI prior to biopsies were excluded. Pathological concordance, incidence of Gleason upgrading, and correlation coefficients among biopsies and RP Gleason grade were compared. A sub-analysis for concordance in anterior prostate tumours was conducted.

RESULTS

262 patients were included (112 TP; 150 TR), the median age was 63 years, and median time from biopsy to RP was 68 days. Concordance with RP histology for TP was 65% compared to 49% for TR (p = 0.011). Biopsy technique predicted RP concordance independent of the number of cores. Gleason upgrading occurred following 24% of TP versus 33% of TR biopsies. In anterior and apical tumours, upgrading occurred in 19% of TP biopsies and 38% of TR biopsies (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests TP approach to prostate biopsies result in improved histological grade accuracy in men whom MRI is not available, even after controlling for number of cores. TP approach also resulted in less upgrading for lesions in the anterior and apical prostate compared to TR.

Impact of delay from transperineal biopsy to radical prostatectomy upon objective measures of cancer control

Objective

Treatment delays in prostate cancer have been characterised, although not explicitly in men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsies. We aimed to determine if delays to radical prostatectomy correlate with adverse outcomes using a contemporary population-based cohort of men diagnosed by transperineal biopsies.

Methods

This study analysed men with prostate cancer of the International Society for Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, diagnosed by transperineal prostate biopsies who underwent prostatectomy, using the prospectively data from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2018 Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria. Data were analysed according to stratified demographic and disease characteristics. Time intervals from biopsy (28, 60, 90, 120, and 270 days) were compared using odds ratios and regression analyses for proportion of upgrading, early biochemical recurrence, pT3 disease at prostatectomy, and positive surgical margins.

Results

In total, 2008 men were analysed. There were 306 (16.7%) men with upgrading, 151 (8.4%) with biochemical recurrence, 1068 (54.1%) with pT3 disease, and 464 (23.1%) with positive surgical margins (percentages excluded patients with missing data). All adverse outcomes studied were significantly associated with higher prostate-specific antigen and grade at diagnosis. Delays of 120–270 days did not adversely alter the incidence of Gleason upgrading, pT3, or recurrence. Delays (most frequent 60–89 days, 28%) were associated with positive surgical margins but not monotonically. Regression modelling demonstrated no increased likelihood of most adverse outcomes for up to 270 days.

Conclusion

Men with prostate cancer of grade group ≥2 diagnosed through transperineal biopsy may wait up to 270 days for a prostatectomy without a greater likelihood of upgrading, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, or biochemical recurrence.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Oncologic impact of delaying radical prostatectomy in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarize the available evidence on the survival and pathologic outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The PubMed database and Web of Science were searched in November 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported the survival and pathologic outcomes of patients treated with deferred RP for intermediate- and high-risk PCa compared to the control group including those patients treated with RP without delay.

RESULTS

Overall, nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria. We found a significant heterogeneity across the studies in terms of definitions for delay and outcomes, as well as in patients' baseline clinicopathologic features. According to the currently available literature, deferred RP does not seem to affect oncological survival outcomes, such as prostate cancer-specific mortality and metastasis-free survival, in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa. However, the impact of deferred RP on biochemical recurrence rates remains controversial. There is no clear association of deferring RP with any of the features of aggressive disease such as pathologic upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion. Deferred RP was not associated with the need for secondary treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the different definitions of a delayed RP, it is hard to make a consensus regarding the safe delay time. However, the current data suggest that deferring RP in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa for at least around 3 months is generally safe, as it does not lead to adverse pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence, the need for secondary therapy, or worse oncological survival outcomes.

Time pressure predicts decisional regret in men with localized prostate cancer: data from a longitudinal multicenter study

PURPOSE

A substantial proportion of men with localized prostate cancer (lPCa) later regret their treatment decision. We aimed to identify factors contributing to decisional regret.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study, in which men with lPCa were surveyed at four measurement points: T0 (baseline) = prior to treatment; T1 = 6; T2 = 12; T3 = 18 months after baseline. χ²-tests and independent t-tests were used to compare men undergoing different treatments [Active Surveillance (AS) vs. local treatment]. Logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the associations between predictors (time pressure, information provided by the urologist, impairment of erectile functioning, satisfaction with sexual life) and the criterion decisional regret.

RESULTS

At baseline, the sample included N = 176 men (AS: n = 100; local treatment: n = 76). At T2 and T3, men after local therapies reported higher regret than men under AS. Decisional regret at T3 was predicted by time pressure at baseline (OR 2.28; CI 1.04-4.99; p < 0.05), erectile dysfunction at T2 and T3 (OR 3.40; CI 1.56-7.42; p < 0.01), and satisfaction with sexual life at T1-T3 (OR 0.44; CI 0.20-0.96; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Time pressure, erectile dysfunction, and satisfaction with sexual life predict decisional regret in men with lPCa. Mitigating time pressure and realistic expectations concerning treatment side effects may help to prevent decisional regret in PCa survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00009510; date of registration: 2015/10/28.

Impact of surgical wait times during summer months on the oncological outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: 10 years' experience from a large Canadian academic center

PURPOSE

Most Canadian hospitals face significant reductions in operating room access during the summer. We sought to assess the impact of longer wait times on the oncological outcomes of localized prostate cancer patients following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained RARP database in two high-volume academic centers, between 2010 and 2019. Assessed outcomes included the difference between post-biopsy UCSF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores, Gleason score upgrade and biochemical recurrence rates (BCR). Multivariable regression analyses (MVA) were used to evaluate the effect of wait times.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 men were included for analysis. Consistent over a 10 year period, summer months had the lowest surgical volumes despite above average booking volumes. The lowest surgical volume occurred during the month of July (7.1 cases on average), which was 35% less than the cohort average. The longest average wait times occurred for patients booked in June (93 ± 69 days, p < 0.001). On MVA, patients booked in June had significantly more chance of having an increase in CAPRA score [HR (95% CI) 1.64 (1.02-2.63); p = 0.04] and in CAPRA risk group [HR (95% CI) 1.82 (1.04-3.19); p = 0.03]. Cohort analysis showed fair correlation between CAPRA-score difference and wait time (Pearson correlation: r =  - 0.062; p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Our cohort results demonstrate that conventional RARP wait times are significantly and consistently prolonged during summer months over the past 10 years, with worse post-RARP oncological outcomes in terms of CAPRA scores. Other compensatory mechanisms to sustain consistent yearly operative output should be considered.

Summary and considerations in genitourinary cancer patient care during the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To provide a summary and recommendations for the set-up of strategies for cancer patients care in genitourinary oncology clinics during the pandemic and in the recovery period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A non-systematic review of available literature on the management of urological malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic was performed to summarize recommendations to improve the diagnosis and treatment of urological cancers during and after the contingence, including clinical and research aspects.

RESULTS

Urological cancer diagnosis and management should be tailored according to the severity of the COVID-19 crisis in each region and the aggressiveness of each tumor. Clinicians should adhere to strict protocols in order to prioritize the attention of patients with high-risk malignancies while optimizing resources to avoid the saturation of critical care services.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic urological cancer care has been severely impaired. For proper patient management, multidisciplinary approach is encouraged tailoring therapy according to COVID-19 regional behavior and local institutional resources. Patients with high-risk malignancies should be prioritized.

Risks from Deferring Treatment for Genitourinary Cancers: A Collaborative Review to Aid Triage and Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Context

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is leading to delays in the treatment of many urologic cancers.

Objective

To provide a contemporary picture of the risks from delayed treatment for urologic cancers to assist with triage.

Evidence acquisition

A collaborative review using literature published as of April 2, 2020.

Evidence synthesis

Patients with low-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer are unlikely to suffer from a 3–6-month delay. Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are at risk of disease progression, with radical cystectomy delays beyond 12 wk from diagnosis or completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prioritization of these patients for surgery or management with radiochemotherapy is encouraged. Active surveillance should be used for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Treatment of most patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be deferred 3–6 mo without change in outcomes. The same may be true for cancers with the highest risk of progression. With radiotherapy, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care. For surgery, although the added value of neoadjuvant ADT is questionable, it may be considered if a patient is interested in such an approach. Intervention may be safely deferred for T1/T2 renal masses, while locally advanced renal tumors (≥T3) should be treated expeditiously. Patients with metastatic renal cancer may consider vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Risks for delay in the treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer depend on grade and stage. For patients with high-grade disease, delays of 12 wk in nephroureterectomy are not associated with adverse survival outcomes. Expert guidance recommends expedient local treatment of testis cancer. In penile cancer, adverse outcomes have been observed with delays of ≥3 mo before inguinal lymphadenectomy. Limitations include a paucity of data and methodologic variations for many cancers.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians should consider the oncologic risk of delayed cancer intervention versus the risks of COVID-19 to the patient, treating health care professionals, and the health care system.

Patient summary

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to delays in the treatment of patients with urologic malignancies. Based on a review of the literature, patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma, advanced kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and penile cancer should be prioritized for treatment during these challenging times.

The role of fatal family history and mode of inheritance in prostate cancer for long-term outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Purpose

To determine whether fatal family history (FFH) or mode of inheritance in prostate cancer (PCa) has an impact on long-term outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

1076 PCa patients after RP with at least one deceased first-degree relative with PCa were included and stratified by FFH (four subgroups: fraternal, paternal, multiple, and none) and by mode of inheritance (two subgroups: male to male, non-male to male). We compared clinicopathological characteristics between subgroups with Fisher’s exact or Chi-square tests. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were analyzed using the method of Kaplan and Meier. Simple and multiple Cox regression with backward elimination were performed to select prognostic factors for BRFS and CSS.

Results

Median age at surgery was 63.3 (range 35.9–79.4) years. The overall Kaplan–Meier estimated BRFS rate at 10 and 15 years was 65.6% and 57.0%, respectively. The overall Kaplan–Meier estimated CSS rate at 10 and 15 years was 98.1% and 95.7%, respectively. Neither FFH nor mode of inheritance were factors associated with worse BRFS. However, in multiple Cox regression, paternal FFH was an important prognostic factor for a better CSS (HR 0.19, CI 0.05–0.71, p = 0.014) compared to non-FFH.

Conclusion

FFH and mode of inheritance do not seem to be prognostic factors of worse long-term outcomes following RP. Rather, a paternal FFH was associated with a better CSS; however, the reasons remain unclear. Nevertheless, patients after RP and FFH could be reassured that their own PCa diagnosis is not associated with a worse long-term outcome.