Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer in the US Veterans Health Administration: Is PIVOT Generalizable?

Radiogenomic analysis of ultrasound phenotypic features coupled to proteomes predicts metastatic risk in primary prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Primary prostate cancer with metastasis has a poor prognosis, so assessing its risk of metastasis is essential.

METHODS

This study combined comprehensive ultrasound features with tissue proteomic analysis to obtain biomarkers and practical diagnostic image features that signify prostate cancer metastasis.

RESULTS

In this study, 17 ultrasound image features of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), primary prostate cancer without metastasis (PPCWOM), and primary prostate cancer with metastasis (PPCWM) were comprehensively analyzed and combined with the corresponding tissue proteome data to perform weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), which resulted in two modules highly correlated with the ultrasound phenotype. We screened proteins with temporal expression trends based on the progression of the disease from BPH to PPCWOM and ultimately to PPCWM from two modules and obtained a protein that can promote prostate cancer metastasis. Subsequently, four ultrasound image features significantly associated with the metastatic biomarker HNRNPC (Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein C) were identified by analyzing the correlation between the protein and ultrasound image features. The biomarker HNRNPC showed a significant difference in the five-year survival rate of prostate cancer patients (p < 0.0053). On the other hand, we validated the diagnostic efficiency of the four ultrasound image features in clinical data from 112 patients with PPCWOM and 150 patients with PPCWM, obtaining a combined diagnostic AUC of 0.904. In summary, using ultrasound imaging features for predicting whether prostate cancer is metastatic has many applications.

CONCLUSION

The above study reveals noninvasive ultrasound image biomarkers and their underlying biological significance, which provide a basis for early diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of primary prostate cancer with metastasis.

Proteomics reveals MRPL4 as a high-risk factor and a potential diagnostic biomarker for prostate cancer

Through digital rectal examinations (DRE) and routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, early prostate cancer (PC) treatment has become possible. However, PC is a complex and heterogeneous disease. In vivo, cancer cells can invade adjacent tissues and metastasize to other tissues resulting in hard cures. Therefore, the key to improving PC patients' survival time is preventing cancer cells' metastasis. We used mass spectrometry to profile primary PC in patients with versus without metastatic PC. We named these two groups of PC patients as high-risk primary PC (n = 11) and low-risk primary PC (n = 7), respectively. At the same time, patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, n = 6) were used as controls to explore the possible factors driving PC metastasis. Based on comprehensive mass spectrometry analysis and biological validation, we found significant upregulation of MRPL4 expression in high-risk primary PC relative to low-risk primary PC and BPH. Further, through research of the extensive clinical cohort data in the database, we discovered that MRPL4 could be a high-risk factor for PC and serve as a potential diagnostic biomarker. The MRPL4 might be used as an auxiliary indicator for clinical status/stage of primary PC to predict patient survival time.

[On the practice of therapy decision in locally limited prostate cancer: surgery vs. radiation-who benefits? : Allocation and results of a monocentric, cumulative long-term study]

AIM

The goal of this two-armed observational study was to map the clinical therapy effectiveness of radical prostatovesiculectomy (RPVE) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in locally limited prostate cancer (PCA) in direct comparison over 20 years under clinical conditions. Retrospectively, the various variables and predictors for the individual therapy decision were identified, and the preference was to compared with studies on survival and recurrence characteristics. The presentation of toxicity was not the focus of this work.

METHODOLOGY

In all, 743 patients from a single center were enrolled according to biopsy/staging chronologically in the sequence of the initial consultation after clarification and informed consent: 494 patients were in the RPVE arm and 249 patients in the EBRT arm. We used retrospective data analysis with univariate and multivariate comparisons in the alternative therapy arms. Multivariate logical regression models were developed to objectify the allocation process. Univariate processing of survival analyses, the comparison of tumor- and comorbidity-specific mortality rates was co-founded.

RESULTS

Predictive variables for RPVE vs. EBRT therapy decision are significantly age, Gleason score, D'Amico index, Charlson index, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume. There was no significance level for the biopsy score. The age gap was in the median 67 (RPVE) and 73 (EBRT) years. Overall survival (n = 734, 20 years, all risks) in the RPVE arm was 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45.1-67.0%) and in the EBRT arm 19.2% (95%CI 9.2-31.8%). Comorbid risk was highly significantly (p < 0.0001) different (27.1% [95%CI 18.0-36.1%] in the RPVE arm, and 60.4% [95%CI 47.3-73.5%] in the EBRT arm). The risk of tumor-specific death at 16.2% (95%CI 8.1-24.4%) after RPVE and 20.5% (95%CI 11.7-29.3%) after EBRT was not significantly different (p = 0.2122, overlapping 95%CI). After stratification, a clear advantage can be demonstrated for the high-risk tumors after allocation to the RPVE arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of the predictive variables of the PCA further complicates the individual therapy decision. According to our data, the higher D'Amico score, the rather low Charlson index, a high Gleason score and a higher organ volume speak for a valid therapy for RPVE.

Using an Automated Electronic Health Record Score To Estimate Life Expectancy In Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer In The Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an automatically calculated electronic health record score can estimate intermediate-term life expectancy in men with prostate cancer to provide guideline concordant care.

METHODS

We identified all men (n = 36,591) diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2013-2015 in the VHA. Of the 36,591, 35,364 (96.6%) had an available Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score (range: 0-99) automatically calculated in the 30 days prior to the date of diagnosis. It was designed to estimate short-term risks of hospitalization and mortality. We fit unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine the association between the CAN score and overall survival among men with prostate cancer. We compared CAN score performance to two established comorbidity measures: The Charlson Comorbidity Index and Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index (PCCI).

RESULTS

Among 35,364 men, the CAN score correlated with overall stage, with mean scores of 46.5 ( ± 22.4), 58.0 ( ± 24.4), and 68.1 ( ± 24.3) in localized, locally advanced, and metastatic disease, respectively. In both unadjusted and adjusted models for prostate cancer risk, the CAN score was independently associated with survival (HR = 1.23 95%CI 1.22-1.24 & adjusted HR = 1.17 95%CI 1.16-1.18 per 5-unit change, respectively). The CAN score (overall C-Index 0.74) yielded better discrimination (AUC = 0.76) than PCCI (AUC = 0.65) or Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC = 0.66) for 5-year survival.

CONCLUSION

The CAN score is strongly associated with intermediate-term survival following a prostate cancer diagnosis. The CAN score is an example of how learning health care systems can implement multi-dimensional tools to provide fully automated life expectancy estimates to facilitate patient-centered cancer care.

Laboratory-wide association study of survival with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Estimates of overall patient health are essential to inform treatment decisions for patients diagnosed with cancer. The authors applied XWAS methods, herein referred to as "laboratory-wide association study (LWAS)", to evaluate associations between routinely collected laboratory tests and survival in veterans with prostate cancer.

METHODS

The authors identified 133,878 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2013 in the Veterans Health Administration using any laboratory tests collected within 6 months of diagnosis (3,345,083 results). Using the LWAS framework, the false-discovery rate was used to test the association between multiple laboratory tests and survival, and these results were validated using training, testing, and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 31 laboratory tests associated with survival met stringent LWAS criteria. LWAS confirmed markers of prostate cancer biology (prostate-specific antigen: hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.06-1.08]; and alkaline phosphatase: HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.20-1.24]) as well laboratory tests of general health (eg, serum albumin: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.80]; and creatinine: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03-1.07]) and inflammation (leukocyte count: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.98-1.26]; and erythrocyte sedimentation rate: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09-1.61]). In addition, the authors derived and validated separate models for patients with localized and advanced disease, identifying 28 laboratory markers and 15 laboratory markers, respectively, in each cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified routinely collected laboratory data associated with survival for patients with prostate cancer using LWAS methodologies, including markers of prostate cancer biology, overall health, and inflammation. Broadening consideration of determinants of survival beyond those related to cancer itself could help to inform the design of clinical trials and aid in shared decision making.

LAY SUMMARY

This article examined routine laboratory tests associated with survival among veterans with prostate cancer. Using laboratory-wide association studies, the authors identified 31 laboratory tests associated with survival that can be used to inform the design of clinical trials and aid patients in shared decision making.

Life expectancy estimates for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration

PURPOSE

Accurate life expectancy estimates are required to inform prostate cancer treatment decisions. However, few models are specific to the population served or easily implemented in a clinical setting. We sought to create life expectancy estimates specific to Veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using national Veterans Health Administration electronic health records, we identified Veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2015. We abstracted demographics, comorbidities, oncologic staging, and treatment information. We fit Cox Proportional Hazards models to determine the impact of age, comorbidity, cancer risk, and race on survival. We stratified life expectancy estimates by age, comorbidity and cancer stage.

RESULTS

Our analytic cohort included 145,678 patients. Survival modeling demonstrated the importance of age and comorbidity across all cancer risk categories. Life expectancy estimates generated from age and comorbidity data were predictive of overall survival (C-index 0.676, 95% CI 0.674-0.679) and visualized using Kaplan-Meier plots and heatmaps stratified by age and comorbidity. Separate life expectancy estimates were generated for patients with localized or advanced disease. These life expectancy estimates calibrate well across prostate cancer risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Life expectancy estimates are essential to providing patient-centered prostate cancer care. We developed accessible life expectancy estimation tools for Veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer that can be used in routine clinical practice to inform medical-decision making.

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.

Incidence of subsequent primary cancers and radiation-induced subsequent primary cancers after low dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy for prostate cancer in long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

As aging is the most significant risk factor for cancer development, long-term prostate cancer (PCa) survivors have an evident risk of developing subsequent primary cancers (SPCs). Radiotherapy itself is an additional risk factor for cancer development and the SPCs appearing beyond 5 years after radiotherapy in the original treatment field can be considered as radiation-induced subsequent primary cancers (RISPCs).

METHODS

During the years 1999-2008, 241 patients with localized PCa who underwent low dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) with I125 and were followed-up in Kuopio University Hospital, were included in this study. In this study the incidences and types of SPCs and RISPCs with a very long follow-up time after LDR-BT were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up time of 11.4 years, a total of 34 (14.1%) patients developed a metachronous SPC. The most abundant SPCs were lung and colorectal cancers, each diagnosed in six patients (16.7% out of all SPCs). The crude incidence rate of RISPC was 1.7% (n = 4). Half of the SPC cases (50%) were diagnosed during the latter half of the follow-up time as the risk to develop an SPC continued throughout the whole follow-up time with the actuarial 10-year SPC rate of 7.0%. The crude death rates due to metachronous out-of-field SPCs and RISPCs were 50 and 50%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The crude rate of SPC was in line with previously published data and the incidence of RISPC was very low. These results support the role of LDR-BT as a safe treatment option for patients with localized PCa.

Real-world practice patterns in veterans with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is incurable, with most patients surviving less than 3 years. However, many treatments that extend survival have been approved in the past decade.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patient demographics, disease characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a cohort of Veterans diagnosed with mCRPC in the Veterans Health Administration.

DESIGN

We identified 3,637 Veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2006 and August 2015 with evidence of mCRPC through December 2016. We described the most commonly used systemic mCRPC treatments according to mCRPC diagnosis era: Epoch 1 (2006-2010) or Epoch 2 (2011-2016). Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment patterns were examined using descriptive statistics. An unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median time to biochemical progression and overall survival (OS) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The median age at initial prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years. Approximately 67% of patients were non-Hispanic white, 29% were black, and 4% were other/unknown. A high-risk Gleason score (8-10) was reported in 748 (67%) of patients in Epoch 1 and 1578 (63%) of patients in Epoch 2, and the median prostate-specific antigen level at initial prostate cancer diagnosis was higher in Epoch 1 patients than in Epoch 2 patients (68 vs. 35 ng/ml). Following mCRPC diagnosis, the most common first-line therapies in Epoch 1 patients were docetaxel (83%) and abiraterone (9%), whereas Epoch 2 patients mainly received abiraterone (47%), docetaxel (36%), and enzalutamide (15%). In Epoch 1 and Epoch 2 patients, the median time to biochemical progression (unadjusted) was 9 and 13 months, respectively, and the median OS (unadjusted) was 15 and 23 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of new therapies has resulted in increased use of the noncytotoxic agents abiraterone and enzalutamide as first-line treatment in lieu of docetaxel. Our results suggest that more recently diagnosed patients (Epoch 2) have a delayed time to biochemical progression and longer OS (unadjusted) compared with patients diagnosed earlier (Epoch 1).

PSA Testing Use and Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Stage After the 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Changes

BACKGROUND

Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes.

RESULTS

In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care, PSA testing decreased significantly and fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting provider adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes. Long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of decreased screening on prostate cancer survival.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Early Detection of Cancer
• Guidelines as Topic
• Humans
• Male
• Neoplasm Staging
• Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood
• Prostatic Neoplasms/blood
• Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology
• Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology

Collapse

Grants

• R01 CA183962 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Christopher J. Magnani School of Medicine, Stanford University
Kevin Li School of Medicine, Stanford University
Tina Seto Stanford University School of Medicine IRT Research Technology
Kathryn M. McDonald Department of Medicine, Stanford University
Douglas W. Blayney Department of Medicine, Stanford University Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University
James D. Brooks Department of Urology, Stanford University
Tina Hernandez-Boussard Department of Medicine, Stanford University Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University

Collapse

Long-term efficacy and urological toxicity of low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) as monotherapy in localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of late severe (≥Grade 3) urinary toxicity and the long-term efficacy after low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

During the years 1999-2008, 241 patients with PCa who underwent LDR-BT with I¹²⁵ and were followed up in Kuopio University Hospital were included to this analysis. The incidence of late severe (Grade 3) urinary toxicity and the long-term efficacy results were analyzed.

RESULTS

All D'Amico risk groups were represented, as 58.9%, 35.3%, and 5.8% of the patients were classified as low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. With a median followup of 11.4 years after implantation, the incidence of severe urinary toxicity increased throughout the followup period. The risk of Grade 3 urinary toxicity was highest among patients with higher Gleason scores (p = 0.016) and higher initial urine residual volumes (p = 0.017) and the cumulative incidence of severe urinary toxicity was 10.0%. The crude rate for transurethral prostatic resection was 5.8%. The relapse-free survival, the cause-specific survival, and the overall survival were 79.3%, 95.0%, and 66.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment was well tolerated as 90% of patients avoided any Grade 3 urinary toxicity. LDR-BT for localized PCa achieved high and durable efficacy. These results support the role of LDR-BT monotherapy as one of the valid primary treatment options for low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk patients.

Image-guided Percutaneous Polymethylmethacrylate-augmented Spondylodesis for Painful Metastasis in the Veteran Population

The treatment of painful spinal metastases in patients with limited life-expectancy, significant perioperative risks, and poor bone quality poses a surgical challenge. Recent advances in minimal-access spine surgery allow for the surgical treatment of patients previously considered not to be operative candidates. The addition of fenestrated screws for cement augmentation to existing image-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation can enhance efficiency, decrease risk of hardware complications, and improve back pain in this patient population.

The patient is a 70-year-old man with severe axial back pain due to metastatic prostate cancer and L5 pathologic fractures not amenable to kyphoplasty. In the setting of a 6-12-month life-expectancy, the primary goal of surgery was relief of back pain associated with instability with minimal operative morbidity and post-operative recovery time. This was achieved with an internal fixation construct including percutaneously placed cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws at L4 and S1. The patient was discharged to home on post-operative day 1 with substantial improvement of his low back pain.

Image-guided, percutaneous placement of fenestrated, cement-augmented pedicle screws is an emerging treatment for back pain associated with metastasis. Fenestrated screws allow for integrated cement augmentation. The minimal associated blood loss and recovery time make this approach an option even for patients with limited life-expectancy. This is the first report of utilization of this technique for the veteran population.

Only <10% of Patients Selected for Radical Prostatectomy Reach the Competing Mortality Rate of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT)

In the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), surgery was not associated with lower mortality compared with observation. However, the high competing mortality rate of approximately 33% after 10 yr among the PIVOT study population has raised concerns on the generalizability of these results. We investigated 4282 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 1992 and 2010 to determine which subgroups harbored a competing (non-prostate cancer) mortality risk comparable to that of PIVOT and tested several combinations of higher age and comorbidities ("worst case scenarios") to identify subgroups reaching or even superseding the competing mortality rate of the PIVOT population. The competing mortality rate of PIVOT was not reached till an age-adjusted Charlson score of 5 or higher (corresponding to an age of 70-79 yr with diabetes with end-organ damage). Only 8.9% of patients belonged to this high-risk subgroup, and only small subgroups comprising 1-5% patients superseded the competing mortality rate among the PIVOT study population. This data underline that the results of PIVOT should be used with great caution to exclude candidates for radical prostatectomy with comorbidities from curative treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: Only <10% of patients selected for radical prostatectomy reached the competing mortality rate of approximately 33% observed in the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). The results of PIVOT should be used with great caution to exclude patients with concomitant diseases who seem otherwise fit for radical prostatectomy from curative treatment.