Diagnosis and treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Adherence to the European Association of Urology clinical guidelines in a nationwide population-based study - GESCAP group

Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer in Kashmir, India: A Real-World Study

Purpose Despite the importance of quality care for patients with prostate cancer, significant gaps exist in healthcare delivery, including diagnosis and treatment. Our objective was to assess the quality of care (QoC) using retrospective data from prostate care patients in our center. Methods We performed a retrospective study of prostate cancer patients registered at a dedicated cancer care center in the Kashmir region from 2012 to 2020. A set of 15 quality indicators representing crucial facets of diagnosis, pathology, and treatment was identified from a comprehensive list developed and validated by other researchers. Results The final analysis of all indicators was conducted on 46 patients with a median age of 70 years (52-92 years). In the majority of patients, the diagnosis (89.1%) was made through a prostatic biopsy, while only five patients were diagnosed solely based on the prostate-specific antigen. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or transurethral resection (TURP)-guided biopsy was documented in 84.8% of patients, with Gleason grading documented in 87.5% of patients. However, the number of positive cores was mentioned for only 25.7% of patients. Radical prostatectomy was the primary treatment for most patients with localized prostate cancer (58.3%). The majority of patients with metastatic prostate cancer were treated with orchidectomy (55%), owing to easy access and the lower cost of surgical castration. Conclusion The study demonstrated a lack of compliance with many QoC indicators at the diagnostic and therapeutic levels. However, large-scale, population-based studies are needed to establish the compliance of prostate cancer QoC in Kashmir. The quality indicator assessment can guide the necessary actions required to improve QoC for prostate cancer patients.

Health-related quality of life in men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: validation of an abbreviated version of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice in Spain

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is greatly affected by prostate cancer (PCa) and associated treatments. This study aimed to measure the impact of radiotherapy on HRQoL and to further validate the Spanish version of the 16-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-16) in routine clinical practice.

Methods

An observational, non-interventional, multicenter study was conducted in Spain with localized PCa patients initiating treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy (BQT). Changes from baseline in EPIC-16, University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), and patient-perceived health status were longitudinally assessed at end of radiotherapy (V2) and 90 days thereafter (V3). Psychometric evaluations of the Spanish EPIC-16 were conducted.

Results

Of 516 patients enrolled, 495 were included in the analysis (EBRT, n = 361; BQT, n = 134). At baseline, mean (standard deviation [SD]) EPIC-16 global scores were 11.9 (7.5) and 10.3 (7.7) for EBRT and BQT patients, respectively; scores increased, i.e., HRQoL worsened, from baseline, by mean (SD) of 6.8 (7.6) at V2 and 2.4 (7.4) at V3 for EBRT and 4.2 (7.6) and 3.9 (8.2) for BQT patients. Changes in Spanish EPIC-16 domains correlated well with urinary, bowel, and sexual UCLA-PCI domains. EPIC-16 showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), reliability, and construct validity.

Conclusion

The Spanish EPIC-16 questionnaire demonstrated sensitivity, strong discriminative properties and reliability, and validity for use in clinical practice. EPIC-16 scores worsened after radiotherapy in different HRQoL domains; however, a strong tendency towards recovery was seen at the 3-month follow-up visit.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01856-z.

Guidelines in urology: Lights and shadows

Clinical practice guidelines have become increasingly important in the decision-making process in many clinical conditions and have been recognized as key instruments to improve the quality of care. On the one hand, guidelines represent a good tool for improving patient's outcome, and on the other hand, the adherence to guidelines and good practice recommendations is mandatory to reduce the risk of legal disputes. A recent revision by the Italian Parliament of the legal system that rules the responsibilities of health professionals and health care safety stimulated all clinicians to improve their adhesion to clinical guidelines. It is justified by the high-quality level obtained in the recent years by the international guidelines. In the recent years, a revision of the clinical guideline development has been done. In particular, the European Association of Urology Guideline Office changed the "Guidelines for Guidelines," and a rigorous development process has been established. A clinical recommendation is produced after a rigorous methodological process using an analysis of all published clinical trials, and the expert opinion is not yet considered. For oncological guidelines, the adherence to the producing process is easily feasible due to the high number of clinical trials; for non-oncological guidelines, instead, the small number of clinical trials could represent a problem for obtaining recommendation based on rigorous methodology. Here, on the basis of these considerations, we aim to discuss the lights and the shadows of the clinical applicability of guidelines in urology.

125I low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR) are two widely used treatment options for patients with T1c-T3a prostate cancer. In the present study, the efficacy of the two treatments was compared. A total of 429 patients who underwent either LDR (n=218) or RP (n=211) between January 2010 and June 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Biochemical relapse-free survival time (bRFS) and clinical relapse-free survival time (cRFS) were assessed. The log-rank test compared bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression identified factors associated with bRFS. The median follow-up time and patient age were 46.6 months and 71 years, respectively. The bRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 89.4, 87.2 and 79.9% for LDR, respectively, and 91.0, 82.8 and 72.2% for RP, respectively (P=0.077). The cRFS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 99.1, 97.7 and 94.9% for LDR, respectively, and 99.0, 96.2 and 94.5% for RP, respectively (P=0.630). It was indicated that LDR produced equivalent bRFS and cRFS rates compared with RP. The risk of biochemical failure (bF) was higher for the RP group compared with the LDR group in patients with a Gleason score ≤3+4 (P=0.022) or initial prostate specific antigen ≤10 ng/ml (P=0.002). Based on the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of all 429 patients, T stage ≥T2b was an independent predictor for bF.

The Novel Combination of Nitroxoline and PD-1 Blockade, Exerts a Potent Antitumor Effect in a Mouse Model of Prostate Cancer

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade is a promising therapeutic strategy against prostate cancer. Nitroxoline has been found to have effective anticancer properties in several cancer types. We investigated the efficacy of a combination therapy involving nitroxoline and PD-1 blockade in a prostate cancer mouse model. In our in vitro analysis, we found that nitroxoline inhibited the viability and proliferation of the mouse prostate cancer cell line RM9-Luc-PSA. Additionally, nitroxoline downregulated the expressions of phospho-PI3 kinase, phospho-Akt (Thr308), phospho-Akt (Ser473), phospho-GSK-3β, Bcl-2, and Bcl-xL. Nitroxoline also downregulated programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels in prostate cancer cell line and tumor tissue. In our murine prostate cancer orthotopic model, nitroxoline plus PD-1 blockade synergistically suppressed tumor growth when compared with nitroxoline or PD-1 blockade alone, leading to reductions in tumor weight, bioluminescence tumor signals, and serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Furthermore, fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis showed that the combination strategy significantly enhanced antitumor immunity by increasing CD44⁺CD62L⁺CD8⁺ memory T cell numbers and reducing myeloid-derived suppressor cell numbers in peripheral blood. In conclusion, our findings suggest that nitroxoline plus PD-1 blockade may be a promising treatment strategy in patients with prostate cancer.

Three-year interim results of overall and progression-free survival in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (GESCAP group)

AIMS

To describe the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-specific mortality in the prospective prostate cancer GESCAP cohort, as well as the progression to castration resistance in patients on hormone therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective, observational, epidemiological, multicentre study. Of the 4087 patients recruited, 3843 were evaluable. The variables analysed were the risk group (localized, locally advanced, lymph involvement, metastatic), age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason score and initial treatment. Kaplan Meier survival analysis, the log-rank test and the Cox model were used to evaluate the survival data.

RESULTS

Three-year PFS was 81.4% and OS was 92.4%. During the 3 years of follow-up, 303 patients died (7.9%), 110 of them (36.3%) due to disease-related causes. The probability of castration resistance for all patients on hormone therapy (n=715) was 14.2%: 5%, 9.9%, 26.1% and 44.4% in localized, locally advanced, lymph involvement and metastatic cancer, respectively (log-rank P<.0001). Patients with metastases had poorer outcomes with respect to PFS, OS, disease-specific mortality and castration resistance. In the multivariate analysis, the Gleason score, PSA and presence of metastases were associated with shorter OS and PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed stratification of risk, with a more unfavourable prognosis for patients with metastases. Patients with locally advanced disease differed with respect to those with localized disease due to their higher risk as regards disease-specific mortality. (Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN19893319).

Quality indicators of clinical cancer care for prostate cancer: a population-based study in southern Switzerland

Background

Quality of cancer care (QoCC) has become an important item for providers, regulators and purchasers of care worldwide. Aim of this study is to present the results of some evidence-based quality indicators (QI) for prostate cancer (PC) at the population-based level and to compare the outcomes with data available in the literature.

Methods

The study included all PC diagnosed on a three years period analysis (01.01.2011–31.12.2013) in the population of Canton Ticino (Southern Switzerland) extracted from the Ticino Cancer Registry database. 13 QI, approved through the validated Delphi methodology, were calculated using the “available case” approach: 2 for diagnosis, 4 for pathology, 6 for treatment and 1 for outcome. The selection of the computed QI was based on the availability of medical documentation. QI are presented as proportion (%) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.

Results

700 PC were detected during the three-year period 2011–2013: 78.3% of them were diagnosed through a prostatic biopsy and for 72.5% 8 or more biopsy cores were taken. 46.5% of the low risk PC patients underwent active surveillance, while 69.2% of high risk PC underwent a radical treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy or brachytherapy) and 73.5% of patients with metastatic PC were treated with hormonal therapy. The overall 30-day postoperative mortality was 0.5%.

Conclusions

Results emerging from this study on the QoCC for PC in Canton Ticino are encouraging: the choice of treatment modalities seems to respect the international guidelines and our results are comparable to the scarce number of available international studies. Additional national and international standardisation of the QI and further QI population-based studies are needed in order to get a real picture of the PC diagnostic-therapeutic process progress through the definition of thresholds of minimal standard of care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4604-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Our experience in the management of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is challenging and remain controversial. Currently there is no consensus about this condition. The aim of the study was to analyse our experience in the diagnosis and management of PCa in RTR.

METHOD

Retrospective monocentric study of a prospective and consecutive database from 2003-2017. Inclusion of RTR diagnosed of PCa. Staging and treatment in agreement with the contemporary guidelines. The main outcome measures included clinical staging, type of treatment, oncological outcomes and follow-up.

RESULTS

1,330 renal transplants were performed (787 males), diagnosed of PCa in 33 RTR (4.2%), mean age 66years±6.3 (51-78). Median PSA was 8.8ng/ml and PSA ratio 0.19. Mean time between renal transplantation and PCa diagnosis 130months±90 (2-236).

TREATMENTS

Radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=22; 66.7%), Radiation therapy (RT) with Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n=7; 21.2%), Active surveillance (n=3; 9.1%), ADT (n=1; 3%). No graft loss neither impaired renal function due to PCa treatment was reported. After RP two patients (9.1%) presented biochemical recurrence treated with RT. Remission of the 100%. Mean follow-up was 61months±37 (6-132).

CONCLUSIONS

PCa in renal transplant patients can be managed with the same therapeutic options as in the general population. Active surveillance should also be provided in RTR despite being under immunosuppressive therapy.