Multidisciplinary management of advanced prostate cancer: Changing perspectives on referring patients and enhancing collaboration between oncologists and urologists in clinical trials

Prostate Cancer Unit Initiative in Europe: A position paper by the European School of Oncology

The Prostate Cancer Programme of the European School of Oncology developed the concept of specialised interdisciplinary and multiprofessional prostate cancer care to be formalized in Prostate Cancer Units (PCU). After the publication in 2011 of the collaborative article "The Requirements of a Specialist Prostate Cancer Unit: A Discussion Paper from the European School of Oncology", in 2012 the PCU Initiative in Europe was launched. A multiprofessional Task Force of internationally recognized opinion leaders, among whom representatives of scientific societies, and patient advocates gathered to set standards for quality comprehensive prostate cancer care and designate care pathways in PCUs. The result was a consensus on 40 mandatory and recommended standards and items, covering several macro-areas, from general requirements to personnel to organization and case management. This position paper describes the relevant, feasible and applicable core criteria for defining PCUs in most European countries delivered by PCU Initiative in Europe Task Force.

Management of prostate cancer in Asia: resource-stratified guidelines from the Asian Oncology Summit 2013

Many local and systemic options for prostate cancer have emerged in recent years, but existing management guidelines do not account for diversity in health resources between different countries. We present recommendations for the management of prostate cancer, stratified according to the extent of resource availability-based on a four-tier system of basic, limited, enhanced, and maximum resources-to enable applicability to Asian countries with differing levels of health-care resources. This statement of recommendations was formulated by a multidisciplinary panel from Asia-Pacific countries, at a consensus session on prostate cancer that was held as part of the 2013 Asian Oncology Summit in Bangkok, Thailand.

The requirements of a specialist Prostate Cancer Unit: a discussion paper from the European School of Oncology

The widely recognised benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to treating cancer may be particularly important in prostate cancer, where there are so many treatment options to choose from. It offers patients the best chance of receiving high-quality medical procedures administered by a team of specialists in prostate disease, which is able to tailor treatment and observational strategies to their needs, and ensure access to specialist counselling, supportive care and rehabilitation. This article proposes Prostate Cancer Units as the most suitable structures for organising specialist multidisciplinary care for patients at all stages, from newly diagnosed to advanced disease, including preventing and managing the main complications, whether physical, emotional or psychological, arising from the disease and its treatment. Following the German example with prostate cancer, the British example with urological malignancies and the European breast cancer units, this article proposes general recommendations and mandatory requirements for Prostate Cancer Units, with a view to laying the basis for a network of certified units across Europe. Such a network could help improve standards of care throughout the region, providing patients, practitioners and health authorities with a means of identifying high-quality units and providing a system of quality control and audit. The article is intended as a contribution to the debate within the European uro-oncologic community on the best way to organise prostate cancer care.

Changing Nature of High Risk Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

We examined the outcomes of radical prostatectomy alone in high risk patients with prostate cancer and evaluated changes in high risk prostate cancer outcomes with time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1988 to 2003, 251 men with high risk prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen more than 20 ng/ml and/or biopsy Gleason greater than 7) were identified in a cohort of 1,796 (14%) enrolled in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. Temporal changes in clinicopathological characteristics and prostate specific antigen recurrence rates were examined stratified by 4, 4-year periods.

RESULTS

With time significantly more men were considered at high risk due to a high biopsy Gleason score relative to prior years, when the most common reason for being considered at high risk was increased PSA (p <0.001). Only 3% of high risk men from 2000 to 2003 had increased prostate specific antigen and high biopsy Gleason score compared to 23% from 1988 to 1991. With time there were no differences in biochemical recurrence rates (p = 0.147). Men with a high biopsy Gleason score and increased prostate specific antigen had worse outcomes than men with only a high Gleason score or men with only high prostate specific antigen (p = 0.046 and 0.081, respectively). On multivariate analysis that only included preoperative clinical characteristics only prostate specific antigen was an independent predictor of prostate specific antigen failure following radical prostatectomy (p = 0.014). There was a trend, which did not attain statistical significance, for higher biopsy Gleason scores and higher clinical stage to be associated with higher failure rates (p = 0.060 and 0.081, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are designated as high risk by Gleason grade more commonly now than early in the prostate specific antigen era. Outcomes in high risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy alone have not significantly improved with time. New treatment strategies, such as multimodality therapy, are needed to improve outcomes in high risk patients with prostate cancer.

National cooperative group trials

Now is the time to answer critical questions in the management of prostate cancer through enrollment in high-priority national phase 3 clinical trials. Studies of systemic therapy before and after local therapy are vitally important to determine whether early systemic interventions might delay cancer progression. Chemotherapy must be studied in earlier disease progression. Novel targeted therapies, such as vaccine therapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, and newer microtubule targeting agents, should be studied in all stages of progression. Despite these needs and the availability of systemic therapies, accrual to trials has been lagging. This article reviews the national cooperative group clinical trials, whether currently open or planned, and suggests practical strategies to improve accrual.