Radical Prostatectomy or Observation for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Extended Follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT)

Delayed definitive management of localized prostate cancer: what do we know?

Delays in the work-up and definitive management of patients with prostate cancer are common, with logistics of additional work-up after initial prostate biopsy, specialist referrals, and psychological reasons being the most common causes of delays. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent surges, timing of definitive care delivery with surgery or radiotherapy has become a topic of significant concern for patients with prostate cancer and their providers alike. In response, recommendations for the timing of definitive management of prostate cancer with radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy were published but without a detailed rationale for these recommendations. While the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, patients are always asking the question: "When should I start radiation or undergo surgery?" In the absence of level I evidence specifically addressing this question, we will hereby present a narrative review to summarize the available data on the effect of treatment delays on oncologic outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer from prospective and retrospective studies.

Impact of the diagnostic label for a low-risk prostate lesion: protocol for two online factorial randomised experiments

INTRODUCTION

Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

Pragmatic clinical trials for localized prostate cancer: lessons learned and "three sins"

In "Explanatory and Pragmatic Attitudes in Therapeutic Trials", Schwatrz and Lelouch describe two approaches to the design of trials, "… the first "explanatory", the second "pragmatic". They explained "… the biologist may be interested to know whether the drugs differ in their effects … the explanatory approach". Biologically endpoints might determine whether it was better to give androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before or after external beam radiation (EBRT) (i.e., does the sequence of treatments matter). Alternatively, if the arms focus on a clinical endpoint, this is considered … "the pragmatic approach". An example of a clinically relevant endpoint is overall survival (OS). A real-world example of this are the two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of prophylactic whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). RTOG 9413 evaluated possible interactions between the sequence of drugs and volume irradiated, while RTOG/NRG 0924 focuses on OS. There appears to be a common pattern of "what not to do", or "design errors" made by a number of investigators, that I call the "three sins". I posit that the prospects for a well-designed pragmatic RCT are likely to be high if these "three sins" are avoided/minimized. The "three sins" alluded to are: 1. You can't prove something doesn't work by treating people who don't need the treatment. 2. You can't prove something does not work if the treatment is not done properly. 3. You can't prove something does not work with an underpowered study.

Localized prostate cancer in older patients: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy versus observation

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) or irradiation on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in older patients with localized prostate cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception up to December 2023 to identify studies comparing the outcomes of surgery or radiotherapy (RT) versus observation in patients aged 65 and older with localized PC. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PCSM using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 284,066 patients were analyzed. Three were large randomized trials (RCTs) and 10 were retrospective studies. Overall survival with surgery was greater in observational studies (HR = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.59; P < 0.001) than in RCTs (HR = 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.03). Data on PCSM from seven studies also indicated a significant benefit for RP in RCTs (HR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.3-0.73; P < 0.001) and observational studies (HR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.27-0.62; P < 0.001). Both analyses presented high heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, P < 0.001 and I2 = 65%, P = 0.01). An analysis of patients receiving RT indicated a significant, albeit smaller, OS (n = 7 studies) and PCSM (n = 5 studies) advantage (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.59-0.79; P < 0.001; and HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; P = 0.001) compared to observation (1 RCT and 8 observational studies).

DISCUSSION

The evidence suggests that patients with PC might consider opting for surgery as the main treatment option or, alternatively, for RT, as an alternative to observation, based on their individual medical history, life expectancy, and preferences.

Natural History of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Managed With Watchful Waiting

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposure

Nonmetastatic PCa.

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for localized prostate cancer: An interim analysis of the multinational FASST study

BACKGROUND

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) emerged as a novel approach for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). However, prospective studies on HIFU-related outcomes and predictors of treatment failure (TF) remain scarce.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multinational prospective cohort study among patients undergoing HIFU therapy for localized, low- to intermediate-risk PCa. Follow-up data on serial prostate specific antigen (PSA), multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), targeted/systematic biopsies, adverse events and functional outcomes were collected. The primary endpoint was TF, defined as histologically confirmed PCa requiring whole-gland salvage treatment. Uni- and multi-variable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression models.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 64.14 (7.19) years, with the majority of patients showing T-stage 1 (73.9%) and International Society of Urological Pathology grading system Grade 2 (58.8%). PSA nadir (median, 1.70 ng/mL) was reached after 6 months. Of all patients recruited, 16% had clinically significant PCa, as confirmed by biopsy, of which 13.4% had TF. Notably, T-stage and number of positive cores at initial biopsy were independent predictors of TF during follow-up (HR [95% CI] 1.27 [1.02-1.59] and 5.02 [1.80-14.03], respectively). Adverse events were minimal (17% and 8% early and late adverse events, respectively), with stable or improved functional outcomes in the majority of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This interim analysis of a multinational study on HIFU therapy for the management of low-to-intermediate-risk PCa reveals good functional outcomes, minimal adverse events and low incidence of TF over the short-term. Data on long-term outcomes, specifically as it relates to oncological outcomes, are awaited eagerly.

Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes.

METHODS

A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS)

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men.

METHODS

Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake.

RESULTS

Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

Navigating the evolving diagnostic and therapeutic landscape of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

ABSTRACT

In this nonsystematic review of the literature, we explored the changing landscape of detection and treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Through emphasizing improved cancer assessment with histology classification and genomics, we investigated key developments in PCa detection and risk stratification. The pivotal role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the novel diagnostic pathway is examined, alongside the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-targeted biopsies for detection and tumor characterization. We also delved into treatment options, particularly active surveillance for intermediate-risk PCa. Outcomes are compared between intermediate- and low-risk patients, offering insights into tailored management. Surgical techniques, including Retzius-sparing surgery, precision prostatectomy, and partial prostatectomy for anterior cancer, are appraised. Each technique has the potential to enhance outcomes and minimize complications. Advancements in technology and radiobiology, including computed tomography (CT)/MRI imaging and positron emission tomography (PET) fusion, allow for precise dose adjustment and daily target monitoring with imaging-guided radiotherapy, opening new ways of tailoring patients' treatments. Finally, experimental therapeutic approaches such as focal therapy open new treatment frontiers, although they create new needs in tumor identification and tracking during and after the procedure.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations

BACKGROUND

Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment.

METHODS

A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language.

HIGHLIGHTS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Isolating the Drivers of Racial Inequities in Prostate Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Black individuals in the United States are less likely than White individuals to receive curative therapies despite a 2-fold higher risk of prostate cancer death. While research has described treatment inequities, few studies have investigated underlying causes.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of 40,137 Medicare beneficiaries (66 and older) linked to the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry who had clinically significant, non-metastatic (cT1-4N0M0, grade group 2-5) prostate cancer (diagnosed 2010-2015). Using the Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, we assessed the contributions of patient health and health care delivery on the racial difference in localized prostate cancer treatments (radical prostatectomy or radiation). Patient health consisted of comorbid diagnoses, tumor characteristics, SEER site, diagnosis year, and age. Health care delivery was captured as a prediction model with these health variables as predictors of treatment, reflecting current treatment patterns.

RESULTS

A total of 72.1% and 78.6% of Black and White patients received definitive treatment, respectively, a difference of 6.5 percentage points. An estimated 15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6-24] of this treatment difference was explained by measured differences in patient health, leaving the remaining estimated 85% (95% CI: 74-94) attributable to a potentially broad range of health care delivery factors. Limitations included insufficient data to explore how specific health care delivery factors, including structural racism and social determinants, impact differential treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show the inadequacy of patient health differences as an explanation of the treatment inequity.

IMPACT

Investing in studies and interventions that support equitable health care delivery for Black individuals with prostate cancer will contribute to improved outcomes.

Quantified treatment effect at the individual level is more indicative for personalized radical prostatectomy recommendation: implications for prostate cancer treatment using deep learning

BACKGROUND

There are potential uncertainties and overtreatment existing in radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients, thus identifying optimal candidates is quite important.

PURPOSE

This study aims to establish a novel causal inference deep learning (DL) model to discern whether a patient can benefit more from RP and to identify heterogeneity in treatment responses among PCa patients.

METHODS

We introduce the Self-Normalizing Balanced individual treatment effect for survival data (SNB). Six models were trained to make individualized treatment recommendations for PCa patients. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to avoid treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

35,236 patients were included. Patients whose actual treatment was consistent with SNB recommendations had better survival outcomes than those who were inconsistent (multivariate hazard ratio (HR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.92; IPTW-adjusted HR: 0.77, 95% CI, 0.61-0.95; risk difference (RD): 3.80, 95% CI, 2.48-5.11; IPTW-adjusted RD: 2.17, 95% CI, 0.92-3.35; the difference in restricted mean survival time (dRMST): 3.81, 95% CI, 2.66-4.85; IPTW-adjusted dRMST: 3.23, 95% CI, 2.06-4.45). Keeping other covariates unchanged, patients with 1 ng/mL increase in PSA levels received RP caused 1.77 months increase in the time to 90% mortality, and the similar results could be found in age, Gleason score, tumor size, TNM stages, and metastasis status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our highly interpretable and reliable DL model (SNB) may identify patients with PCa who could benefit from RP, outperforming other models and clinical guidelines. Additionally, the DL-based treatment guidelines obtained can provide priori evidence for subsequent studies.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death.

RESULTS

Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%.

CONCLUSION

In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in African American men, yet prostate cancer screening regimens in this group are poorly guided by existing evidence, given underrepresentation of African American men in prostate cancer screening trials. It is critical to optimize prostate cancer screening and early detection in this high-risk group because underdiagnosis may lead to later-stage cancers at diagnosis and higher mortality while overdiagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.

METHODS

We performed a review of the literature related to prostate cancer screening and early detection specific to African American men to summarize the existing evidence available to guide health-care practice.

RESULTS

Limited evidence from observational and modeling studies suggests that African American men should be screened for prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to initiating screening of African American men at younger ages (eg, 45-50 years) and at more frequent intervals relative to other racial groups in the United States. Screening intervals can be optimized by using a baseline prostate-specific antigen measurement in midlife. Finally, no evidence has indicated that African American men would benefit from screening beyond 75 years of age; in fact, this group may experience higher rates of overdiagnosis at older ages.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for prostate cancer screening in African American men is limited by the lack of large, randomized studies. Our literature search supported the need for African American men to be screened for prostate cancer, for initiating screening at younger ages (45-50 years), and perhaps screening at more frequent intervals relative to men of other racial groups in the United States.

Surgical Management and Considerations for Patients with Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Localized high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogenous disease state with a wide range of presentations and outcomes. Historically, non-surgical management with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy was the treatment option of choice. However, surgical resection with radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is increasingly utilized as a primary treatment modality for patients with HRPCa. Recent studies have demonstrated that surgery is an equivalent treatment option in select patients with the potential to avoid the side effects from androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy combined. Advances in imaging techniques and biomarkers have also improved staging and patient selection for surgical resection. Advances in robotic surgical technology grant surgeons various techniques to perform RP, even in patients with HR disease, which can reduce the morbidity of the procedure without sacrificing oncologic outcomes. Clinical trials are not only being performed to assess the safety and oncologic outcomes of these surgical techniques, but to also evaluate the role of surgical resection as a part of a multimodal treatment plan. Further research is needed to determine the ideal role of surgery to potentially provide a more personalized and tailored treatment plan for patients with localized HR PCa.

The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses are widely used to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. However, there is a limited investigation of the quality of prespecified and reported subgroup analyses in stroke trials. This study evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses in stroke trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from inception to 24 March 2021. Three reviewers screened, extracted, and analyzed the data from the publications. Primary publications of stroke trials that reported at least one subgroup effect and had published corresponding study protocols were included. The Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) was used to examine the quality of the subgroup effects reported, with each subgroup effect assigned a credibility rating ranging from very low to high. Subgroup effects with two or more "definitely no" responses received a low credibility rating. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials version 2.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and reported a combined total of 647 subgroup effects. The median sample size was 1264 (interquartile range (IQR): 380-3876), and the median number of subgroups prespecified in the protocol was 6 (IQR: 2-10). Sixty-one (82%) studies used the univariate test of interaction. Of the total 647 subgroup effects reported in these studies, 319 (49%) were reported in acute stroke trials, while 423 (65%) had low credibility.

CONCLUSION

The quality of subgroup analysis reporting in stroke trials remains poor. More effort is needed to train trialists on the best methods for designing and performing subgroup analyses, and how to report the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

We prospectively registered the review with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42020223133).

Does Centralization of Radical Prostatectomy Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence?

Background

On the basis of previous analyses of the incidence of urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP), the hospital RP volume threshold in the Netherlands was gradually increased from 20 per year in 2017, to 50 in 2018 and 100 from 2019 onwards.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of hospital RP volumes on the incidence and risk of UI after RP (RP-UI).

Design setting and participants

Patients who underwent RP during 2016-2020 were identified in the claims database of the largest health insurance company in the Netherlands. Incontinence was defined as an insurance claim for ≥1 pads/d.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The relationship between hospital RP volume (HV) and RP-UI was assessed via multivariable analysis adjusted for age, comorbidity, postoperative radiotherapy, and lymph node dissection.

Results and limitations

RP-UI incidence nationwide and by RP volume category did not decrease significantly during the study period, and 5-yr RP-UI rates varied greatly among hospitals (19-85%). However, low-volume hospitals (≤120 RPs/yr) had a higher percentage of patients with RP-UI and higher variation in comparison to high-volume hospitals (>120 RPs/yr). In comparison to hospitals with low RP volumes throughout the study period, the risk of RP-UI was 29% lower in hospitals shifting from the low-volume to the high-volume category (>120 RPs/yr) and 52% lower in hospitals with a high RP volume throughout the study period (>120 RPs/yr for 5 yr).

Conclusions

A focus on increasing hospital RP volumes alone does not seem to be sufficient to reduce the incidence of RP-UI, at least in the short term. Measurement of outcomes, preferably per surgeon, and the introduction of quality assurance programs are recommended.

Patient summary

In the Netherlands, centralization of surgery to remove the prostate (RP) because of cancer has not yet improved the occurrence of urinary incontinence (UI) after surgery. Hospitals performing more than 120 RP operations per year had better UI outcomes. However, there was a big difference in UI outcomes between hospitals.

Insights into urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: urgent urinary incontinence or stress urinary incontinence

PURPOSE

Urinary incontinence is a common complication following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Few studies have explored the relationships and differences between stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgent urinary incontinence (UUI) after RARP. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence rates and risk factors of UUI and SUI in short term after RARP.

METHODS

We prospectively included prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon. Demographics, lower urinary tract function, oncology, and follow-ups were recorded. Occurrence rates and risk factors of UUI and SUI within 3 months after catheter withdrawal were calculated.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 363 subjects with a mean age of 66.05 years. The median preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 14 (range 0-35), and the median Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) was 3 (range 0-14). The occurrence rate of UUI and SUI at 3 months after catheter withdrawal was 8.5% (31/363) and 15.2% (55/363). Nearly all patients with UUI also had SUI. Diabetes history and high OABSS before RARP were independent risk factors for UUI, especially within 1 month after catheter withdrawal. The Gleason Score was an independent risk factor for SUI at 3 months after catheter withdrawal. Additionally, UUI but not SUI might be an influencing factor for decision-making regarding postoperative radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence rate of SUI after RARP was persistently higher than that of UUI. Nearly all of the patients with UUI simultaneously had SUI. The risk factors of UUI and SUI after RARP were absolutely different.

Biopsy and Erectile Functional Outcomes of Partial Prostate Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic summary of prospectively performed studies evaluating ablative therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) that included protocol-mandated assessment of (1) residual disease by post-treatment biopsy and/or (2) erectile functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search in September 2022. Studies were evaluated according to a predefined and registered plan in PROSPERO (CRD42022302777). Only prospective trials with protocol-mandated post-treatment prostate biopsies or functional assessments were included. Targeted focal therapy was the only ablation pattern with sufficient data to perform meta-analyses (29 studies, 1079 patients).

RESULTS

At baseline, 65.0% of patients treated with targeted focal therapy harbored grade group (GG) ≥2 PCa. One year after treatment, in-field treatment failure with ≥GG1 and ≥GG2 PCa occurred in 25.7% (range 11.1%-66.7%) and 8.8% (range 0%-27.8%) of men, respectively. In patients that received whole-gland biopsies 1year after ablation, residual ≥GG1 and ≥GG2 PCa was detected anywhere in the prostate in 43.7% (range 19.4%-71.7%) and 13.0% (range 0%-35.9%) of men. Erectile function was negatively affected by treatment, but 78.7% were potent 1year after targeted focal therapy (7 studies, 197 patients), and the average decrease in erectile function scores was 8.8% at 1year (21 studies, 760 patients).

CONCLUSION

Though long-term data after targeted focal therapy are limited, oncologic and treatment failure occurred in 13% and 9% (≥GG2 at 6-12months after treatment). Most men were able to maintain potency. This work can help benchmark new techniques and power future trials.

Surgical and medical co-management optimizes surgical outcomes in older patients with chronic diseases undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

While robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is a standard mode for localized prostate cancer (PC), the risk of complications in older patients with chronic diseases and complex medical conditions can be a deterrent to surgery. Surgical and medical co-management (SMC) is a new strategy to improve patients' healthcare outcomes in surgical settings.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of older patients with chronic diseases who were cared for with SMC undergoing RRP in our hospital in the past 3 years and compared them with the clinical data from the general urology ward. Preoperative conditions and related indicators of recovery, and incidence of postoperative complications with the Clavien Grade System were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The indicators of recovery were significantly better, and the incidence rates of complications were significantly reduced in the SMC group at grades I-IV (p < 0.05), as compared to the general urology ward group.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of care by SMC for older patients focused on early identification, comorbidity management, preoperative optimization, and collaborative management would significantly improve surgical outcomes. The SMC strategy is worthy of further clinical promotion in RRP treatment in older men with chronic diseases and complex medical conditions.

Postoperative Bladder Neck to Pubic Symphysis Ratio Predictive for De Novo Overactive Bladder after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim was to investigate the incidence and clinical predictive factors of de novo overactive bladder (OAB) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), including a Retzius-sparing (RS) approach, in the same period at a single institution.

METHODS

Of a total of 113 patients with localized prostate cancer, 81 received conventional RARP (CON-RARP) and 32 received RS-RARP at our institution. The basic characteristics data of patients and self-assessment questionnaires, including IPSS and OABSS, were obtained preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months after RARP. In addition, a retrospective biomarker analysis was also performed of predictive clinical parameters obtained from cystography that included a postoperative bladder neck to pubic symphysis (BNPS) ratio.

RESULTS

Patients' basic characteristics were similar between CON-RARP and RS-RARP groups. With respect to the surgical procedure, anastomosing time was found to be significantly longer for patients in the RS-RARP compared to the CON-RARP group (p < 0.01). Compared to the CON-RARP group, the RS-RARP group showed a significantly lower postoperative BNPS and aspect ratio (p < 0.001). The incidence of de novo OAB in patients of the CON-RARP group was greater than for those in the RS-RARP group (40.7% CON-RARP vs. 25.0% RS-RARP), though this was not significant. Regarding the emergence of de novo OAB, the following were revealed in univariate analysis to be independent prognostic factors: age > 64 years (hazards ratio [HR]: 4.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-12.3), postoperative BNPS ratio > 0.44 (HR: 8.7, 95% CI: 6.43-54.5), postoperative aspect ratio > 1.18 (HR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.49-7.61). Additionally, multivariate analysis identified a sole significant prognostic factor: postoperative BNPS ratio > 0.44 (HR: 13.3, 95% CI: 4.33-41.1).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the postoperative BNPS ratio may be a practical predictive indicator of the emergence of de novo OAB after RARP.

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation

Importance

The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented in 2014 to help veterans gain broader access to specialized care outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities by providing them with purchased community care (CC).

Objective

To describe the prevalence and patterns in VCP-funded purchased CC after the implementation of the VCP among veterans with prostate cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used VHA administrative data on veterans with prostate cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. These veterans were regular VHA primary care users. Analyses were performed from March to July 2023.

Exposures

Driving distance (in miles) from residence to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. The location (VHA or purchased CC) in which treatment decisions were made was ascertained by considering 3 factors: (1) location of the diagnostic biopsy, (2) location of most of the postdiagnostic prostate-specific antigen laboratory testing, and (3) location of most of the postdiagnostic urological care encounters.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was receipt of definitive treatment and proportion of purchased CC by treatment type (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], or active surveillance) and by distance to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. Quality was evaluated based on receipt of definitive treatment for Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer (low risk/limited treatment benefit by guidelines).

Results

The cohort included 45 029 veterans (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [6.9] years) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer; of these patients, 28 866 (64.1%) underwent definitive treatment. Overall, 56.8% of patients received definitive treatment from the purchased CC setting, representing 37.5% of all RP care and 66.7% of all RT care received during the study period. Most patients who received active surveillance management (92.5%) remained within the VHA. Receipt of definitive treatment increased over the study period (from 5830 patients in 2015 to 9304 in 2018), with increased purchased CC for patients living farthest from VHA tertiary care facilities. The likelihood of receiving definitive treatment of Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer was higher in the purchased CC setting (adjusted relative risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.93).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that the percentage of veterans receiving definitive treatment in VCP-funded purchased CC settings increased significantly over the study period. Increased access, however, may come at the cost of low care quality (overtreatment) for low-risk prostate cancer.

Is Active Surveillance Too Active?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Many prostate cancer active surveillance protocols mandate serial monitoring at defined intervals, including but certainly not limited to serum PSA (often every 6 months), clinic visits, prostate multiparametric MRI, and repeat prostate biopsies. The purpose of this article is to evaluate whether current protocols result in excessive testing of patients on active surveillance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have been published in the past several years evaluating the utility of multiparametric MRI, serum biomarkers, and serial prostate biopsy for men on active surveillance. While MRI and serum biomarkers have promise with risk stratification, no studies have demonstrated that periodic prostate biopsy can be safely omitted in active surveillance. Active surveillance for prostate cancer is too active for some men with seemingly low-risk cancer. The use of multiple prostate MRIs or additional biomarkers do not always add to the prediction of higher-grade disease on surveillance biopsy.

Active surveillance should not be routinely considered in ISUP grade group 2 prostate cancer

Active surveillance has been proposed as a therapeutic option in selected intermediate risk patients with biopsy grade group 2 prostate cancer. However, its oncologic safety in this setting is debated. Therefore, we conducted a non-systematic literature research of contemporary surveillance protocols including patients with grade group 2 disease to collect the most recent evidence in this setting. Although no randomized controlled trial compared curative-intent treatments, namely radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy vs. active surveillance in patients with grade group 2 disease, surgery is associated with a benefit in terms of disease control and survival when compared to expectant management in the intermediate risk setting. Patients with grade group 2 on active surveillance were at higher risk of disease progression and treatment compared to their grade group 1 counterparts. Up to 50% of those patients were eventually treated at 5 years, and the metastases-free survival rate was as low as 85% at 15-years. When considering low- and intermediate risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy, grade group 2 was one of the strongest predictors of grade upgrading and adverse features. Available data is insufficient to support the oncologic safety of active surveillance in all men with grade group 2 prostate cancer. Therefore, those patients should be counselled regarding the oncologic efficacy of upfront active treatment modalities and the lack of robust long-term data supporting the safety of active surveillance in this setting.

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer must balance patient preferences, oncologic risk, and preservation of sexual, urinary and bowel function. While Active Surveillance (AS) is the recommended option for men with Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6) prostate cancer without other intermediate-risk features, men with Grade Group 2 (Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7) are typically recommended active treatment. For select patients, AS can be a possible initial management strategy for men with Grade Group 2. Herein, we review current urology guidelines and the urologic literature regarding recommendations and evidence for AS for this patient group.

MAIN BODY

AS benefits men with prostate cancer by maintaining their current quality of life and avoiding treatment side effects. AS protocols with close follow up always allow for an option to change course and pursue curative treatment. All the major guideline organizations now include Grade Group 2 disease with slightly differing definitions of eligibility based on risk using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical stage, and other factors. Selected men with Grade Group 2 on AS have similar rates of deferred treatment and metastasis to men with Grade Group 1 on AS. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials, large observational (prospective and retrospective) cohorts that confirm the oncologic safety of AS for these men. While some men will inevitably conclude AS at some point due to clinical reclassification with biopsy or imaging, some men may be able to stay on AS until transition to watchful waiting (WW). Magnetic resonance imaging is an important tool to confirm AS eligibility, to monitor progression and guide prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSION

AS is a viable initial management option for well-informed and select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, low volume of pattern 4, and no other adverse clinicopathologic findings following a well-defined monitoring protocol. In the modern era of AS, urologists have tools at their disposal to better stage patients at initial diagnosis, risk stratify patients, and gain information on the biologic potential of a patient's prostate cancer.

Global Burden of Prostate Cancer and Association with Socioeconomic Status, 1990-2019: A Systematic Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study

IMPORTANCE

Both the morbidity and mortality of prostate cancer are increasing worldwide. Updated evaluations of prostate cancer burden and its global, regional and national patterns are essential for formulating effective preventive strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) between 1990 and 2019 to facilitate preventive measures and control planning.

METHODS

Annual incident cases, deaths, DALYs, age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs), age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs), and age-standardized DALYs rates (ASDRs) of prostate cancer between 1990 and 2019 were derived from the Global Burden of Diseases study 2019. Percentage changes in incident cases, deaths and DALYs and estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) in ASIRs, ASMRs and ASDRs were calculated to quantify temporal trends. Correlations between EAPCs and socio-demographic index (SDI) and universal health coverage index (UHCI) were evaluated by Pearson correlation analyses.

RESULTS

Globally, the number of incident cases, deaths, and DALYs of prostate cancer increased by 116.11%, 108.94%, and 98.25% from 1990 to 2019, respectively. The ASIR increased by an average of 0.26% (95% CI: 0.14%, 0.37%) per year between 1990 and 2019, while the ASMR and ASDR decreased by an average of - 0.75% (95% CI: - 0.84%, - 0.67%) and - 0.71% (95% CI: - 0.78%, - 0.63%) per year in this period, respectively. Epidemic trends in the burdens of prostate cancer were not uniform throughout different groups of SDI or geography. The burdens of prostate cancer varied across SDI regions, with an increasing trend in ASIR, ASMR, and ASDR in low and low-middle SDI regions between 1990 and 2019. A significant positive correlation between the EAPC in ASIR and UHCI was observed in countries with a UHCI < 70 (ρ = 0.37, p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Prostate cancer remains a major global health burden due to the increase in incident cases, deaths, and DALYs in the past three decades. These increases are likely to continue as the population ages, which indicates a potential talent gap in the trained healthcare workforce. The diversity of prostate cancer development models implies the importance of specific local strategies tailored for each country's risk factor profile. Prevention, early detection and more effective treatment strategies for prostate cancer are essential.

A Systematic Review of Patient Race, Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Educational Attainment in Prostate Cancer Treatment Randomised Trials-Is the Evidence Base Applicable to the General Patient Population?

Context

Prostate cancer (PC) disproportionately affects men of Black race, and lower educational and socioeconomic status. Guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, the representation of different races, educations, and socioeconomic backgrounds in these trials is unclear.

Objective

To assess reporting of equality, diversity, and inclusion characteristics (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion [EDI]) and differences in treatment effects between different races, and educational or socioeconomic status.

Evidence acquisition

We conducted a systematic review of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in April 2020 examining RCTs investigating treatments for PC. Outcomes collected were race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. RCTs investigating PC treatment in any population or setting were included. Data extraction of characteristics was performed independently by pairs of reviewers and checked by a senior author. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed the quality of included papers.

Evidence synthesis

A total of 265 trials were included, and 138 of these were available as full-text articles. Fifty-four trials including 19 039 participants reported any EDI data. All 54 trials reported race, 11 reported ethnicity, three reported educational attainment, and one reported socioeconomic status. Patients of White race were the majority of the recruited population (82.6%), while the minority prevalence was as follows: Black 9.8% and Asian 5.7%. Three studies reported mortality outcomes depending on the participant's race. All three studies investigated different treatments, so a meta-analysis was not performed. No studies reported outcomes stratified by the educational or socioeconomic status of participants.

Conclusions

There is poor reporting of patient race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and educational attainment in RCTs for PC treatments between 2010 and 2020. Addressing this for future studies will help explain differences in the incidence of and mortality from PC and improve the generalisability of results.

Patient summary

In this study, we reviewed prostate cancer treatment trials to see whether these reported race, education, and socioeconomic backgrounds of their patient populations. We conclude that reporting of these characteristics is poor. This needs to be improved in future to improve outcomes for patients with prostate cancer of all ethnical, racial, and socioeconomic groups.

Single-center, prospective phase 2 trial of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with unilateral localized prostate cancer: good functional results but oncologically not as safe as expected

PURPOSE

Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is only recommended within the context of clinical trials by international guidelines. We aimed to investigate oncological follow-up and safety data of focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center prospective study of 29 patients with PCa treated with (focal) HIFU between 2016 and 2021. Inclusion criteria were unilateral PCa detected by mpMRI-US-fusion prostate biopsy and maximum prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 15 ng/ml. Follow-up included mpMRI-US fusion-re-biopsies 12 and 24 months after HIFU. No re-treatment of HIFU was allowed. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (FFS), defined as freedom from intervention due to cancer progression.

RESULTS

Median follow-up of all patients was 23 months, median age was 67 years and median preoperative PSA was 6.8 ng/ml. One year after HIFU treatment PCa was still detected in 13/ 29 patients histologically (44.8%). Two years after HIFU another 7/29 patients (24.1%) were diagnosed with PCa. Until now, PCa recurrence was detected in 11/29 patients (37.93%) which represents an FFS rate of 62%.One patient developed local metastatic disease 2 years after focal HIFU. Adverse events (AE) were low with 70% of patients remaining with sufficient erectile function for intercourse and 97% reporting full maintenance of urinary continence.

CONCLUSION

HIFU treatment in carefully selected patients is feasible. However, HIFU was oncologically not as safe as expected because of progression rates of 37.93% and risk of progression towards metastatic disease. Thus, we stopped usage of HIFU in our department.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy.

METHODS

At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P = 0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.).

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

P-score in preoperative biopsies accurately predicts P-score in final pathology at radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heterogeneous, multifocal disease, and identification of clinically significant lesions is challenging, which complicates the choice of adequate treatment. The Prostatype® score (P-score) is intended to guide treatment decisions for newly diagnosed PCa patients based on a three-gene signature (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) and clinicopathological information obtained at diagnosis. This study evaluated association of the P-score measured in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided core needle biopsies (CNBs) and the P-score measured in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens of PCa patients. We also evaluated the P-score association with the pathology of RP specimens. Furthermore, concordance of the P-score in paired CNB and RP specimens, as well as in index versus concomitant nonindex tumor foci from the same RP was investigated.

METHODS

The study included 100 patients with localized PCa. All patients were diagnosed by CNB and underwent RP between 2015 and 2018. Gene expression was assessed with the Prostatype® real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction kit and the P-score was calculated. Patients were categorized into three P-score risk groups according to previously defined cutoffs.

RESULTS

For 71 patients, sufficient CNB tumor material was available for comparison with the RP specimens. The CNB-based P-score was associated with the pathological T-stage in RP specimens (p = 0.02). Moreover, the CNB-based P-score groups were in substantial agreement with the RP-based P-score groups (weighted κ score: 0.76 [95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 0.60-0.92]; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient r = 0.83 [95% CI: 0.74-0.89]; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the P-score groups based on paired index tumor and concomitant nonindex tumor foci (n = 64) were also in substantial agreement (weighted κ score: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.57-0.91]; r = 0.83 [95% CI: 0.73-0.89], p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the P-score based on preoperative CNB accurately reflects the pathology of the whole tumor, highlighting its value as a decision support tool for newly diagnosed PCa patients.

Are high-risk prostate cancer patients being treated equally? The impact of PSA

BACKGROUND

Patients with high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) represent a heterogeneous group, however, current treatment guidelines do not consider their specific features. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment trends and outcomes in HR patients defined by PSA alone and otherwise low-risk features.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients diagnosed with HR PCa between 2010 and 2016. A study group of patients defined by PSA >20 ng/ml alone and otherwise low-risk features, was compared to a group of HR patients defined by Gleason score or stage. We compared treatment rates over time, the use of concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and overall survival (OS). Examination of treatment trends was done using a Z-test analysis. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine 5-year OS with the Log-rank test for comparison. Statistical analyses were completed using R Version 3.5.2.

RESULTS

We identified 5,652 patients in the study group and 71,922 in the comparison group. Only 6.8% of the study group had disease ≥cT2, compared to 43.7% in the comparison group. In the study group, 12.5% (709), underwent active surveillance (AS), 36.4% (2,055) radiation therapy (EBRT) and 51.1% (2,888) radical prostatectomy (RP), while the rate of AS, EBRT, and RP in the comparison group were 0.3% (191), 43.0% (30,928), and 56.7% (40,803), respectively. Over the study period, adoption of AS increased from 6.2% in 2010 to 25.0% in 2016 in the study group (P< 0.001), but not in the comparison group. In patients undergoing EBRT, ADT treatment increased from 2010 to 2016 in both groups, though by 2016 only 45.3% of patients in the study group and 86.3% in the comparison group received ADT. The 5-year OS was 93.7% (95% CI 92.8-94.6) in the study group and 89.7% (95% CI 89.2-90.1) in the comparison group (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with HR PCa defined by PSA with otherwise low risk features present at an earlier stage and receive less aggressive therapy than other HR patients. Despite increased rates of AS and decreased use of ADT, these patients appear to have improved survival when compared to other HR patients. These findings suggest that not all HR patients will benefit from aggressive definitive treatment.

Consensus Quality Measures and Dose Constraints for Prostate Cancer From the Veterans Affairs Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program and American Society for Radiation Oncology Expert Panel

PURPOSE

There are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans.

Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

The aim of this study is to compare the functional, oncological, and complication outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (PeRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) operations. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between October 2018 and June 2020 for localized prostate cancer (N0, < T3) were retrospectively screened. After the exclusion criteria, 56 patients who underwent PeRP and 67 patients who underwent RARP remained in the study. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected. In functional outcomes, continence and potency status were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The mean age of the patients was 61.3 ± 5.9 years in the PeRP group and 62.2 ± 5.7 years in the RARP group. No statistically significant differences were present between preoperative and postoperative values. Among the perioperative findings, the mean operation time was 90.4 ± 11.2 min for the PeRP group and 114.6 ± 14.7 min for the RARP group. The operation time was shorter in the PeRP group. The average hospital stay was 2 ± 0.6 days in the PeRP group and 2.3 ± 0.5 days in the RARP group. It was significantly shorter in the PeRP group. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the oncological and functional results. PeRP is a surgical procedure safe in low-risk patients with medium-risk prostate cancer (PCa) who do not require lymph-node dissection. Moreover, PeRP minimizes the difficulties of perineal surgery.

Racial inequities in the quality of surgical care among Medicare beneficiaries with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

US Black men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as men of other races. Lower quality care may contribute to this higher death rate.

METHODS

Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained for men in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-4N0/xM0/x) and managed primarily by radical prostatectomy (2005-2015). Surgical volume was determined for facility and surgeon. Relationships between race, surgeon and/or facility volume, and characteristics of treating facility with survival (all-cause and cancer-specific) were assessed using multivariable Cox regression and competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

Black men represented 6.7% (n = 2123) of 31,478 cohort. They were younger at diagnosis, had longer time from diagnosis to surgery, lower socioeconomic status, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and higher comorbid status compared with men of other races (p < .001). They were less likely to receive care from a surgeon or facility in the top volume percentile (p < .001); less likely to receive surgical care at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and more likely seen at a minority-serving hospital; and less likely to travel ≥50 miles for surgical care. On multivariable analysis stratified by surgical volume, Black men receiving care from a surgeon or facility with lower volumes demonstrated increased risk of prostate cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.69) adjusting for age, clinical stage, PSA, and comorbidity index.

CONCLUSIONS

Black Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer more commonly receive care from surgeons and facilities with lower volumes, likely affecting surgical quality and outcomes. Access to high-quality prostate cancer care may reduce racial inequities in disease outcomes, even among insured men.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Black men are twice as likely to die of prostate cancer than other US men. Lower quality care may contribute to higher rates of prostate cancer death. We used surgical volume to evaluate the relationship between race and quality of care. Black Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer more commonly received care from surgeons and facilities with lower volumes, correlating with a higher risk of prostate cancer death and indicating scarce resources for care. Access to high-quality prostate cancer care eases disparities in disease outcomes. Patient-centered interventions that increase access to high-quality care for Black men with prostate cancer are needed.

Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer-A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?

This case-based discussion describes a 65-year-old man newly diagnosed with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 prostate cancer (PCa). According to the European Association of Urology classification system, the patient harbors an intermediate-risk cancer. In step-by step discussion, we elaborate guideline-based treatment modalities for intermediate-risk PCa focused on debating active surveillance versus active treatment. Thereby, we discuss the importance of patient characteristics, including age, hereditary factors, life expectancy and comorbidity status, findings of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, as well as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and PSA kinetics, in predicting the clinical course of the disease. In addition, we focus on cribriform pathology as a predictor of adverse outcomes and critically discuss its relevance in patient management. Lastly, we outline genomic stratification in ISUP 2 cancer as a future tool to predict PCa aggressiveness. PATIENT SUMMARY: Based on current guidelines, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are treated actively or can alternatively undergo an active surveillance approach when favorable risk factors are present. One major issue is to discriminate between patients who benefit from an active therapy approach and those who benefit from a deferred treatment. Therefore, reliable biomarkers and early predictors of disease progression are needed urgently.

PSA testing, cancer treatment, and prostate cancer mortality reduction: What is the mechanism?

Any effective screening program must satisfy 2 criteria: 1) the test must identify clinically significant disease earlier than its clinical presentation, and 2) a treatment must be available that will alter the natural history of the disease. The controversy surrounding PSA testing that has raged since 1991 centers on these 2 points. Screening and treatment trials published during the past 3 decades have provided critical insights into our understanding of the natural history of PSA identified cancers and the impact of treatment. This in turn raises questions concerning the mechanism of prostate cancer mortality reduction. This essay reflects on the mechanisms of disease progression and the implications for future screening and treatment efforts.

Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only

BACKGROUND

Screening for prostate cancer is burdened by a high rate of overdiagnosis. The most appropriate algorithm for population-based screening is unknown.

METHODS

We invited 37,887 men who were 50 to 60 years of age to undergo regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Participants with a PSA level of 3 ng per milliliter or higher underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate; one third of the participants were randomly assigned to a reference group that underwent systematic biopsy as well as targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions shown on MRI. The remaining participants were assigned to the experimental group and underwent MRI-targeted biopsy only. The primary outcome was clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of 3+3. The secondary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of at least 3+4. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the men who were invited to undergo screening, 17,980 (47%) participated in the trial. A total of 66 of the 11,986 participants in the experimental group (0.6%) received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, as compared with 72 of 5994 participants (1.2%) in the reference group, a difference of -0.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.4; relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.64; P<0.001). The relative risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in the experimental group as compared with the reference group was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.1). Clinically significant cancer that was detected only by systematic biopsy was diagnosed in 10 participants in the reference group; all cases were of intermediate risk and involved mainly low-volume disease that was managed with active surveillance. Serious adverse events were rare (<0.1%) in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The avoidance of systematic biopsy in favor of MRI-directed targeted biopsy for screening and early detection in persons with elevated PSA levels reduced the risk of overdiagnosis by half at the cost of delaying detection of intermediate-risk tumors in a small proportion of patients. (Funded by Karin and Christer Johansson's Foundation and others; GÖTEBORG-2 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN94604465.).

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.

Trends in primary treatment for localized prostate cancer according to the availability of treatment modalities and the impact of introducing robotic surgery

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the effect of available treatment modalities on primary treatment selection in patients with localized prostate cancer and that of introducing robotic surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 12 061 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2018 from 21 institutions. These institutions were divided into five groups according to the availability of surgery and radiotherapy. Differences in primary treatment selection between the institutions were investigated, and the predictive factors involved in the selection were explored.

RESULTS

Surgery, radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and active surveillance/watchful waiting were selected as primary treatment in 4115, 3621, 3188, and 821 patients, respectively, while the remaining 316 patients selected other modalities. The number of patients, particularly young patients, was much higher in institutions with both surgery and radiotherapy. With the introduction of robotic surgery, open radical prostatectomy has decreased, and robotic surgery made up approximately 70% of all prostatectomies. Institutions with both surgery and radiotherapy tended to treat patients with very low or low risk by surgery or radiotherapy, while institutions without surgery and radiotherapy tended to select active surveillance or watchful waiting. Multivariate analysis revealed that primary treatment selection for prostate cancer was affected not only by clinical factors, but also by the available modalities in each institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in available treatment modalities affect the selection of primary treatment for localized prostate cancer. Introduction of robotic surgery also has a strong influence on the number of patients in each institution.

Adverse Pathological Findings at Radical Prostatectomy following Active Surveillance: Results from the Movember GAP3 Cohort

Background: Little is known about the consequences of delaying radical prostatectomy (RP) after Active Surveillance (AS) according to stringent or wider entry criteria. We investigated the association between inclusion criteria and rates, and timing of adverse pathological findings (APFs) among patients in GAP3 cohorts. Methods: APFs (GG ≥ 3, pT ≥ 3, pN > 0 and positive surgical margins [R1]) were accounted for in very low-risk (VLR: grade group [GG] 1, cT1, positive cores < 3, PSA < 10 ng/mL, PSA density [PSAD] < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3) and low-risk (LR: GG1, cT1-2, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL) patients undergoing subsequent RP. The Kaplan−Meier method and log−rank test analyzed APF-free survival. Stratified mixed effects models analyzed association. Results: Out of 21,169 patients on AS, 1742 (VLR: 721; LR: 1021) underwent delayed RP. Most (60.8%) did not have APFs. APFs occurred more frequently (44.6% vs. 31.7%; OR 1.54, p < 0.001) and earlier (median time: 40.3 vs. 62.6 months; p < 0.001) in LR patients, and consisted of pT ≥ 3 (OR 1.47, p = 0.013) or R1 (OR 1.80, p < 0.001), but not of GG ≥ 3 or node involvement. Age (OR 1.05, p < 0.001), PSAD (OR 23.21, p = 0.003), and number of positive cores (OR 1.16, p = 0.004) were independently associated with APFs. Conclusions: AS stands as a safe option for low-risk patients, and most do not have APFs at surgery. Wider entry criteria are associated with pT3 and R1. The prognostic implications remain uncertain.

SNPs at SMG7 Associated with Time from Biochemical Recurrence to Prostate Cancer Death

BACKGROUND

A previous genome-wide association study identified several loci with genetic variants associated with prostate cancer survival time in two cohorts from Sweden. Whether these variants have an effect in other populations or if their effect is homogenous across the course of disease is unknown.

METHODS

These variants were genotyped in a cohort of 1,298 patients. Samples were linked with age, PSA level, Gleason score, cancer stage at surgery, and times from surgery to biochemical recurrence to death from prostate cancer. SNPs rs2702185 and rs73055188 were tested for association with prostate cancer-specific survival time using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. SNP rs2702185 was further tested for association with time to biochemical recurrence and time from biochemical recurrence to death with a multi-state model.

RESULTS

SNP rs2702185 at SMG7 was associated with prostate cancer-specific survival time, specifically the time from biochemical recurrence to prostate cancer death (HR, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.5; P = 0.0014). Nine variants were in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs2702185; one, rs10737246, was found to be most likely to be functional based on LD patterns and overlap with open chromatin. Patterns of open chromatin and correlation with gene expression suggest that this SNP may affect expression of SMG7 in T cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNP rs2702185 at the SMG7 locus is associated with time from biochemical recurrence to prostate cancer death, and its LD partner rs10737246 is predicted to be functional.

IMPACT

These results suggest that future association studies of prostate cancer survival should consider various intervals over the course of disease.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Prognostic Model for Urologic Cancers: A SEER-Based Study

Simple Summary

We describe a risk profile reconstruction model for cancer-specific survival estimation for continuous time points after urologic cancer diagnosis. We used artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms, a national cancer registry data, and accessible clinical parameters for the risk-profile reconstruction. We derived a risk stratification model and estimated the minimum follow-up duration and the likelihood for risk stability in prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. The estimated follow-up duration was in alignment with recognized clinical guidelines for these cancers. Moreover, the estimated follow-up duration was differed by the cancer origin and the disease dissemination status. Overall, the reconstruction of the population’s risk profile for the cancer-specific prognostic score estimation is feasible using AI and has potential application in clinical settings to improve risk stratification and surveillance management.

Abstract

Background: Prognostication is essential to determine the risk profile of patients with urologic cancers. Methods: We utilized the SEER national cancer registry database with approximately 2 million patients diagnosed with urologic cancers (penile, testicular, prostate, bladder, ureter, and kidney). The cohort was randomly divided into the development set (90%) and the out-held test set (10%). Modeling algorithms and clinically relevant parameters were utilized for cancer-specific mortality prognosis. The model fitness for the survival estimation was assessed using the differences between the predicted and observed Kaplan–Meier estimates on the out-held test set. The overall concordance index (c-index) score estimated the discriminative accuracy of the survival model on the test set. A simulation study assessed the estimated minimum follow-up duration and time points with the risk stability. Results: We achieved a well-calibrated prognostic model with an overall c-index score of 0.800 (95% CI: 0.795–0.805) on the representative out-held test set. The simulation study revealed that the suggestions for the follow-up duration covered the minimum duration and differed by the tumor dissemination stages and affected organs. Time points with a high likelihood for risk stability were identifiable. Conclusions: A personalized temporal survival estimation is feasible using artificial intelligence and has potential application in clinical settings, including surveillance management.

Combined miR-486 and GP88 (Progranulin) Serum Levels Are Suggested as Supportive Biomarkers for Therapy Decision in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients

Our study aimed to assess the applicability of miR-486 in combination with soluble GP88 protein as a diagnostic and/or predictive biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. miR-486 and GP88 levels in serum samples from 136 patients undergoing MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate were assessed by qRT−PCR and ELISA, respectively. Of these, 86 patients received a histologically confirmed diagnosis of PCa. Neither marker showed an association with the diagnosis of cancer. PCa patients were separated based on (i) treatment into patients with active surveillance or patients with any type of curative treatment and (ii) age into elderly (>68 years) patients and younger patients (≤68 years). In elderly patients (N = 41) with the intention of curative treatment at optimized cut-off values, significantly higher GP88 levels (p = 0.018) and lower miR-486 levels (p = 0.014) were observed. The total PSA level and ISUP biopsy grade were used in a baseline model for predicting definitive therapy. The baseline model exhibited an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.783 (p = 0.005). The addition of the serum biomarkers miR-486 and GP88 to the baseline model yielded an improved model with an AUC of 0.808 (p = 0.002). Altogether, combined miR-486 and GP88 serum levels are associated with and are therefore suggested as supportive biomarkers for therapy decisions, particularly in elderly PCa patients.