Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study

Artificial intelligence-based personalized clinical decision-making for patients with localized prostate cancer: surgery versus radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Surgery and radiotherapy are primary nonconservative treatments for prostate cancer (PCa). However, personalizing treatment options between these treatment modalities is challenging due to unclear criteria. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based model that can identify patients with localized PCa who would benefit more from either radiotherapy or surgery, thereby providing personalized clinical decision-making.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from consecutive patients with localized PCa who received radiotherapy or surgery with complete records of clinicopathological variables and follow-up results in 12 registries of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were analyzed. Patients from 7 registries were randomly assigned to training (TD) and internal validation datasets (IVD) at a 9:1 ratio. The remaining 5 registries constituted the external validation dataset (EVD). TD was divided into training-radiotherapy (TRD) and training-surgery (TSD) datasets, and IVD was divided into internal-radiotherapy (IRD) and internal-surgery (ISD) datasets. Six models for radiotherapy and surgery were trained using TRD and TSD to predict radiotherapy survival probability (RSP) and surgery survival probability (SSP), respectively. The models with the highest concordance index (C-index) on IRD and ISD were chosen to form the final treatment recommendation model (FTR). FTR recommendations were based on the higher value between RSP and SSP. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for patients receiving recommended (consistent group) and nonrecommended treatments (inconsistent group), which were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The study included 118 236 patients, categorized into TD (TRD: 44 621; TSD: 41 500), IVD (IRD: 4949; ISD: 4621), and EVD (22 545). Both radiotherapy and surgery models accurately predicted RSP and SSP (C-index: 0.735-0.787 and 0.769-0.797, respectively). The consistent group exhibited higher survival rates than the inconsistent group, particularly among patients not suitable for active surveillance (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

FTR accurately identifies patients with localized PCa who would benefit more from either radiotherapy or surgery, offering clinicians an effective AI tool to make informed choices between these 2 treatments.

Iodine-125 low-dose rate prostate brachytherapy

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy are the most common radical treatments for localized prostate cancer, and brachytherapy (BT) also plays a role in this field. Iodine-125 (I-125) low-dose rate (LDR) prostate BT is an established treatment. However, it remains controversial. Specifically, there are a variety of issues, such as indications for combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, prostate-specific antigen follow-up, the significance of postimplant biopsy, the usefulness of salvage BT and focal therapy, reduction of toxicities, and bladder cancer after BT. In this review, we summarize the recent developments in I-125 LDR BT.

Active Surveillance for Taiwanese Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: Intermediate-Term Outcomes and Predictive Factors

PURPOSE

Active surveillance (AS) is one of the management options for patients with low-risk and select intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, factors predicting disease reclassification and conversion to active treatment from a large population of pure Asian cohorts regarding AS are less evaluated. This study investigated the intermediate-term outcomes of patients with localized PC undergoing AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study enrolled consecutive men with localized non-high-risk PC diagnosed in Taiwan between June 2012 and Jan 2023. The study endpoints were disease reclassification (either pathological or radiographic progression) and conversion to active treatment. The factors predicting endpoints were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 405 patients (median age: 67.2 years) were consecutively enrolled and followed up with a median of 64.6 months. Based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk grouping, 70 (17.3%), 164 (40.5%), 140 (34.6%), and 31 (7.7%) patients were classified as very low-risk, low-risk, favorable-intermediate risk, and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC, respectively. The 5-year reclassification rates were 24.8%, 27.0%, 18.6%, and 25.3%, respectively. The 5-year conversion rates were 20.4%, 28.8%, 43.6%, and 37.8%, respectively. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) of ≥0.15 ng/mL² predicted reclassification (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.88) and conversion (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.31). A maximal percentage of cancer in positive cores (MPCPC) of ≥15% predicted conversion (15% to <50%: HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.91-2.18; ≥50%: HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.1453-3.40) compared with that of <15%. A Gleason grade group (GGG) of 3 tumor also predicted conversion (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.06-6.79; GGG 3 vs 1). One patient developed metastasis, but none died of PC during the study period (2,141 person-years).

CONCLUSIONS

AS is a viable option for Taiwanese men with non-high-risk PC, in terms of reclassification and conversion. High PSAD predicted reclassification, whereas high PSAD, MPCPC, and GGG predicted conversion.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A single-center experience

PURPOSE

To report the long-term oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in selected patients with favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A retrospective database review of two academic centers was conducted to identify favorable IR PCa patients initially managed by AS between 2014 and 2022. Favorable IR PCa was defined by the presence of one single element of IR disease (i.e., PSA 10-20ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group [GG] 2, or cT2b). All patients were diagnosed and followed up according to a contemporary scheme, including MRI and image-guided biopsies. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients met our inclusion criteria and the median follow-up was 56months. During follow-up, there were no cases of metastasis or death due to PCa, but 6 deaths due to competing causes. A total of 25 (44%) and 6 patients (11%) had definitive treatment and GG 3 reclassification during follow-up, respectively. In multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis, the risk of undergoing definitive treatment was significantly associated with PSA density>0.15 (HR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.47 to 15; P=0.01) and PI-RADS 4-5 lesions on mpMRI (HR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.06 to 5.19; P=0.006). Interestingly, tumor burden (P=0.3) and GG (P=0.7) on biopsy were not associated with definitive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

AS is a safe and valuable strategy for well-selected patients with favorable IR prostate cancer, with excellent oncological outcomes after five years' follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

MYB exhibits racially disparate expression, clinicopathologic association, and predictive potential for biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer

MYB acts as a potentiator of aggressiveness and castration resistance in prostate cancer (PCa) through aberrant activation of androgen receptor (AR) signaling. Since Black men experience higher PCa incidence and mortality than White men, we examined if MYB was differentially expressed in prostate tumors from patients of these racial backgrounds. The data reveal that aberrant MYB expression starts early in precancerous high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and increases progressively in malignant cells. PCa tissues from Black patients exhibit higher MYB expression than White patients in overall and grade-wise comparisons. MYB also exhibits a positive correlation with AR expression and both display higher expression in advanced tumor stages. Notably, we find that MYB is a better predictor of biochemical recurrence than AR, pre-treatment PSA, or Gleason's grades. These findings establish MYB as a promising molecular target in PCa that could be used for improved risk prediction and therapeutic planning.

Unveiling Disrupted Lipid Metabolism in Benign Prostate Hyperplasia, Prostate Cancer, and Metastatic Patients: Insights from a Colombian Nested Case-Control Study

Prostate cancer is a significant global health concern, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Despite extensive research efforts, the complexity of the disease remains challenging with respect to fully understanding it. Metabolomics has emerged as a powerful approach to understanding prostate cancer by assessing comprehensive metabolite profiles in biological samples. In this study, metabolic profiles of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer (PCa), and metastatic prostate cancer (Met) were characterized using an untargeted approach that included metabolomics and lipidomics via liquid chromatography and gas chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry. Comparative analysis among these groups revealed distinct metabolic profiles, primarily associated with lipid biosynthetic pathways, such as biosynthesis of unsaturated fatty acids, fatty acid degradation and elongation, and sphingolipid and linoleic acid metabolism. PCa patients showed lower levels of amino acids, glycerolipids, glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, and carnitines compared to BPH patients. Compared to Met patients, PCa patients had reduced metabolites in the glycerolipid, glycerophospholipid, and sphingolipid groups, along with increased amino acids and carbohydrates. These altered metabolic profiles provide insights into the underlying pathways of prostate cancer's progression, potentially aiding the development of new diagnostic, and therapeutic strategies.

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.

Hypercoagulability and Thrombosis Risk in Prostate Cancer: The Role of Thromboelastography

Thrombosis is one of the leading causes of death in cancer. Cancer-induced hypercoagulable state contributes to thrombosis and is often overlooked. Prostate cancer may not be of high thrombogenic potential compared with other cancers, but its high prevalence brings it into focus. Pathological evidence for venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in prostate cancer exists. Factors such as age, comorbidities, and therapies increase the VTE risk further. There is a need to systematically identify the risk of VTE in regard to patient-, cancer-, and treatment-related factors to risk stratify patients for better-targeted and individualized strategies to prevent VTE. Sensitive tests to enable such risk assessment are urgently required. There is sufficient evidence for the utility of thromboelastography (TEG) in cancer, but it is not yet part of the clinic and there is only limited data on the use of TEG in prostate cancer. One study revealed that compared with age-matched controls, 68.8% of prostate cancer patients demonstrated hypercoagulable TEG parameters. The absence of clinical guidelines is a limiting factor in TEG use in the cancer population. Cancer heterogeneity and the unique cancer-specific microenvironment in each patient, as well as determining the hypercoagulable state in each patient, are added limitations. The way forward is to combine efforts to design large multicenter studies to investigate the utility and clinical effectiveness of TEG in cancer and establish longitudinal studies to understand the link between hypercoagulable state and development of thrombosis. There is also a need to study low thrombogenic cancers as well as high thrombogenic ones. Awareness among clinicians and understanding of test applicability and interpretation are needed. Finally, expert discussion is critical to identify the investigation priorities.

The CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9 Prognostic Model Is Significantly Associated with Adverse Post-Surgical Pathology Outcomes

Objectives: To investigate the association of the prognostic risk score CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9 as measured on pre-surgical diagnostic needle biopsy tissue with pathological outcomes after radical prostatectomies in a clinically low−intermediate-risk patient cohort. Patients and Methods: RNA was extracted from biopsy punches of diagnostic needle biopsies. The patient cohort comprises n = 151 patients; of those n = 84 had low−intermediate clinical risk based on the CAPRA score and DRE clinical stage <cT3. This cohort (n = 84) was investigated for pathology outcomes in this study. RT-qPCR was performed to determine PDE4D5, PDE4D7 and PDE4D9 transcript scores in the cohorts. The CAPRA score was inferred from the relevant clinical data (patient age, PSA, cT, biopsy Gleason, and percentage tumor positive biopsy cores). Logistic regression was used to combine the PDE4D5, PDE4D7 and PDE4D9 scores to build a PDE4D5/7/9_BCR regression model. The CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR risk score used was same as previously published. Results: We investigated three post-surgical outcomes in this study: (i) Adverse Pathology (any ISUP pathological Gleason grade >2, or pathological pT stage > pT3a, or tumor penetrated prostate capsular status, or pN1 disease); (ii) any ISUP pathological Gleason >2; (iii) any ISUP pathological Gleason >1. In the n = 84 patients with low to intermediate clinical risk profiles, the clinical-genomics CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR risk score was significantly lower in patients with favorable vs. unfavorable outcomes. In univariable logistic regression modeling the genomics PDE4D5/7/9_BCR as well as the clinical-genomics CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR combination model were significantly associated with all three post-surgical pathology outcomes (p = 0.02, p = 0.0004, p = 0.04; and p = 0.01, p = 0.0002, p = 0.01, respectively). The clinically used PRIAS criteria for the selection of low-risk candidate patients for active surveillance (AS) were not significantly associated with any of the three tested post-operative pathology outcomes (p = 0.3, p = 0.1, p = 0.1, respectively). In multivariable analysis adjusted for the CAPRA score, the genomics PDE4D5/7/9_BCR risk score remained significant for the outcomes of adverse pathology (p = 0.04) and ISUP pathological Gleason >2 (p = 0.004). The negative predictive value of the CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR risk score using the low-risk cut-off (0.1) for the three pathological endpoints was 82.0%, 100%, and 59.1%, respectively for a selected low-risk cohort of n = 22 patients (26.2% of the entire cohort) compared to 72.1%, 94.4%, and 55.6% for n = 18 low-risk patients (21.4% of the total cohort) selected based on the PRIAS inclusion criteria. Conclusion: In this study, we have shown that the previously reported clinical-genomics prostate cancer risk model CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR which was developed to predict biological outcomes after surgery of primary prostate cancer is also significantly associated with post-surgical pathology outcomes. The risk score predicts adverse pathology independent of the clinical risk metrics. Compared to clinically used active surveillance inclusion criteria, the clinical-genomics CAPRA&PDE4D5/7/9_BCR risk model selects 22% (n = 8) more low-risk patients with higher negative predictive value to experience unfavorable post-operative pathology outcomes.

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.

Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data

Simple Summary

AS is an option for the initial management of selected patients with intermediate-risk PC. The proper way to predict which men will have an aggressive clinical course or indolent PC who would benefit from AS has not been unveiled. Genetics and MRI can help in the decision-making, but it remains unclear which men would benefit from which tests. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. Large series and a few RCTs are under investigation, and more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk PC. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer: outstanding questions and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance has become the preferred management strategy for patients with low risk prostate cancer, but it is unclear if active surveillance can be safely extended to favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, defining a favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer population safe for active surveillance remains elusive due to paucity of high-level data in this population. This article serves to review relevant data, particularly the safety of active surveillance in grade group 2 patients, and what tools are available to aid in selecting a favorable subset of intermediate risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance studies with long-term data appear to report worsened survival outcomes in intermediate risk patients when compared to those undergoing definitive treatment, but there exists a subset of intermediate risk patients with nearly equivalent outcomes to low risk patients on active surveillance. Tools such as percentage and total length of Gleason pattern 4, tumor volume, prostate specific antigen density, magnetic resonance imaging, and genomic modifiers may help to select a favorable subset of intermediate risk prostate cancer appropriate for active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is a viable strategy in select patients with low volume group grade 2 (GG2) prostate cancer. Prospective and retrospective data in the FIR population appear to be mostly favorable in regards to survival outcomes, but there exists some heterogeneity with respect to long-term outcomes in this patient population.

Causes of Death after Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Population-Based Study

Background

Mortality from noncancer causes in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is unclear. This study assesses the causes and risks of noncancer death with each follow-up time period after PCa diagnosis.

Methods

Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were analyzed for noncancer causes of death in PCa patients from 2000 to 2016. The standard mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated for noncancer mortality.

Results

Altogether, 752,352 patients with PCa were identified, and 180,862 (24.0%) died during follow-up. The largest proportion of deaths from noncancer causes (36%) occurred within 5 to 10 years after diagnosis. The most common causes of noncancer death are cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared with the general age-matched male population, patients with PCa had a higher risk of death from any noncancer cause within 5 years, in particular other infectious diseases and suicide and self-inflicted injury. However, the risk of death from noncancer causes of PCa for more than 5 years is lower, except for Alzheimer's disease and hypertension from 5 to 10 years after diagnosis. In addition, the risk of death from noncancer causes was influenced by treatment, ethnicity, and staging differences. In particular, compared with the general population, many noncancer causes of death have higher risk of death in patients with or without treatment within 1 to 5 years after diagnosis, whereas patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without radiotherapy (RT) or chemotherapy (CTx) are not at high risk of death from COPD, pneumonia and influenza, nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis, septicemia, and atherosclerosis.

Conclusion

The risk of death from noncancer causes gradually decreased in all patients with PCa during each follow-up period after diagnosis In addition, the risk of dying from noncancer causes are influenced by differences in stage, ethnicity, and treatment. In particular, patients undergoing RP±RT/CTx and RT/CTx have a lower risk of death compared to the general population. These findings provide important implications for the healthcare management of patients with PCa.

Long-term satisfaction with curative treatment and follow-up in prostate cancer survivors

PURPOSE

In a cross-sectional observational study to explore long-term satisfaction with treatment among men who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) or definitive pelvic radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

After mean 7 years from therapy (range: 6-8), 431 PCa-survivors (RP: n = 313, RT: n = 118) completed a mailed questionnaire assessing persistent treatment-related adverse effects (AEs) (Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite [EPIC-26]) and seven Quality indicators describing satisfaction with the health care service following a most often general practitioner (GP)-led follow-up plan. A logistic regression model evaluated the associations between long-term satisfaction and treatment modality, age, the seven satisfaction-related Quality indicators, and persistent AEs. The significance level was set at p< .05.

RESULTS

Four of five (81%) PCa-survivors reported long-term satisfaction with their treatment. In a multivariable model, satisfaction was positively associated with sufficient information about treatment and AEs, patient-perceived sufficient cooperation between the hospital and the GP and sufficient follow-up of AEs (ref.: insufficient). Age ≥70 years (ref.: <70) and a rising summary score within the EPIC-26 sexual domain additionally increased long-term satisfaction. The treatment modality itself (RP versus RT) did not significantly impact on satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of curatively treated PCa-survivors are satisfied with their treatment more than 5 years after primary therapy. Sufficient information, improved cooperation between the hospital specialists and the responsible GP and optimized follow-up of AEs may further increase long-term satisfaction among prostatectomized and irradiated PCa-survivors.

Precision Targets for Intercepting the Lethal Progression of Prostate Cancer: Potential Avenues for Personalized Therapy

Organ-confined prostate cancer of low-grade histopathology is managed with radiation, surgery, active surveillance, or watchful waiting and exhibits a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 95%, while metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is incurable, holding a 5-year OS of 30%. Treatment options for advanced PCa-metastatic and non-metastatic-include hormone therapy that inactivates androgen receptor (AR) signaling, chemotherapy and genome-targeted therapy entailing synthetic lethality of tumor cells exhibiting aberrant DNA damage response, and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), which suppresses tumors with genomic microsatellite instability and/or deficient mismatch repair. Cancer genome sequencing uncovered novel somatic and germline mutations, while mechanistic studies are revealing their pathological consequences. A microRNA has shown biomarker potential for stratifying patients who may benefit from angiogenesis inhibition prior to ICI. A 22-gene expression signature may select high-risk localized PCa, which would not additionally benefit from post-radiation hormone therapy. We present an up-to-date review of the molecular and therapeutic aspects of PCa, highlight genomic alterations leading to AR upregulation and discuss AR-degrading molecules as promising anti-AR therapeutics. New biomarkers and druggable targets are shaping innovative intervention strategies against high-risk localized and metastatic PCa, including AR-independent small cell-neuroendocrine carcinoma, while presenting individualized treatment opportunities through improved design and precision targeting.

Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment?: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance are three widely used treatment options for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until June 2020, focusing on the studies comparing the effect of radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Through the random-effects model, dichotomous data were extracted and summarised by odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Twenty-two studies containing 185,363 participants were pooled for the comprehensive comparison. The Bayesian mixed network estimate demonstrated the cancer-specific mortality of radical prostatectomy was significantly lower than active surveillance (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.34-0.64) and external beam radiation therapy (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96), but not brachytherapy (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-1.03). The brachytherapy demonstrated the best treatment ranking probability results in terms of all-cause mortality, while no significant difference was observed when compared with other three treatment modalities. Brachytherapy and radical prostatectomy were associated with a similar risk of cancer-specific mortality, and both of them were significantly superior to active surveillance and external beam radiation therapy; nevertheless, there was no significant difference among the aforementioned treatment methods in all-cause mortality.

Secondary Use of Clinical Data in Data-Gathering, Non-Interventional Research or Learning Activities: Definition, Types, and a Framework for Risk Assessment

Background

The secondary use of clinical data in data-gathering, non-interventional research or learning activities (SeConts) has great potential for scientific progress and health care improvement. At the same time, it poses relevant risks for the privacy and informational self-determination of patients whose data are used.

Objective

Since the current literature lacks a tailored framework for risk assessment in SeConts as well as a clarification of the concept and practical scope of SeConts, we aim to fill this gap.

Methods

In this study, we analyze each element of the concept of SeConts to provide a synthetic definition, investigate the practical relevance and scope of SeConts through a literature review, and operationalize the widespread definition of risk (as a harmful event of a certain magnitude that occurs with a certain probability) to conduct a tailored analysis of privacy risk factors typically implied in SeConts.

Results

We offer a conceptual clarification and definition of SeConts and provide a list of types of research and learning activities that can be subsumed under the definition of SeConts. We also offer a proposal for the classification of SeConts types into the categories non-interventional (observational) clinical research, quality control and improvement, or public health research. In addition, we provide a list of risk factors that determine the probability or magnitude of harm implied in SeConts. The risk factors provide a framework for assessing the privacy-related risks for patients implied in SeConts. We illustrate the use of risk assessment by applying it to a concrete example.

Conclusions

In the future, research ethics committees and data use and access committees will be able to rely on and apply the framework offered here when reviewing projects of secondary use of clinical data for learning and research purposes.

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting

Objectives

To investigate the utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting.

Patients and methods

All consecutive men who underwent a prostate biopsy (transperineal or transrectal) at Royal Melbourne Hospital between July 2017 to June 2019 were included, totalling 332 patients. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records. For each individual patient, the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy based on clinical findings was determined using the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, with and without incorporation of MRI findings.

Results

MRI has good diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer. A PI‐RADS 2 or lower finding has a negative predictive value of 96% for clinically significant cancer, and a PI‐RADS 3, 4 or 5 MRI scan has a sensitivity of 93%. However, MRI has a false negative rate of 6.5% overall for clinically significant prostate cancers. Pre‐ biopsy MRI may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, as up to 50.0% of negative or ISUP1 biopsies have MRI PI‐RADS 2 or lower. Incorporation of MRI findings into the ERSPC calculator improved predictive performance for all prostate cancer diagnoses (AUC 0.77 vs 0.71, P = .04), but not for clinically significant cancer (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87, P = .37).

Conclusion

MRI has good sensitivity and negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancers. It is useful as a pre‐biopsy tool and can be used to significantly reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, MRI does not significantly improve risk predictions for clinically significant cancers when incorporated into the ERSPC risk calculator.

The Value of Real-World Data in Understanding Prostate Cancer Risk and Improving Clinical Care: Examples from Swedish Registries

Simple Summary

Real-world data (RWD), i.e., data reflecting normal clinical practice collected outside the constraints of randomised controlled trials, provide important insights into our understanding of prostate cancer and its management. Clinical cancer registries are an important source of RWD. Depending on their scope and the potential linkage to other data sources, registry-based data can be utilised to address a variety of questions including risk factors, healthcare utilisation, treatment effectiveness, adverse effects, disparities in healthcare access, quality of care and healthcare economics. This review describes the various registry-based RWD sources for prostate cancer research in Sweden (namely the National Prostate Cancer Register, the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) and the Patient-overview Prostate Cancer) and documents their utility for better understanding prostate cancer aetiology and improving clinical care.

Abstract

Real-world data (RWD), that is, data from sources other than controlled clinical trials, play an increasingly important role in medical research. The development of quality clinical registers, increasing access to administrative data sources, growing computing power and data linkage capacities have contributed to greater availability of RWD. Evidence derived from RWD increases our understanding of prostate cancer (PCa) aetiology, natural history and effective management. While randomised controlled trials offer the best level of evidence for establishing the efficacy of medical interventions and making causal inferences, studies using RWD offer complementary evidence about the effectiveness, long-term outcomes and safety of interventions in real-world settings. RWD provide the only means of addressing questions about risk factors and exposures that cannot be “controlled”, or when assessing rare outcomes. This review provides examples of the value of RWD for generating evidence about PCa, focusing on studies using data from a quality clinical register, namely the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) Sweden, with longitudinal data on advanced PCa in Patient-overview Prostate Cancer (PPC) and data linkages to other sources in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe).

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines allow active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients but do not provide comprehensive recommendations for selection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for active surveillance in intermediate- and low-risk groups.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance using 3 literature search engines (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus) over the past 10 years. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who remain under surveillance. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and metastasis-free survival. For articles including both low- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing active surveillance, comparisons between the two groups were made.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who remained on active surveillance was comparable between the low- and intermediate-risk groups after 10 and 15 years' follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.14; and OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.13). Cancer-specific survival was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69) and 15 years (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.2-0.58). The overall survival rate showed no statistical difference at 5 years' follow-up (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57) but was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53). Metastases-free survival did not significantly differ after 5 years (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.2-1.53) and was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77).

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance could be offered to patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, they should be informed of the need for regular monitoring and the possibility of discontinuation as a result of a higher rate of progression. Available data indicate that 5-year survival rates between intermediate- and low-risk patients do not differ; 10-year survival rates are worse. To assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of active surveillance, it is necessary to develop unified algorithms for patient selection and management, and to prospectively conduct studies with long-term surveillance.

Combination of total length of Gleason pattern 4 and number of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 cores detects similar outcome group to Gleason score 6 cancers among cases with ≥5% of Gleason pattern 4

Expanding the inclusion criteria for active prostate cancer surveillance to include cases with a Gleason score (GS) of 3 + 4 = 7 has been discussed. GS 3 + 4 = 7 cases with a percentage of Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) <5% were shown to be associated with similar outcomes with those of GS 6 cases. We examined the clinicopathological significance of %GP4 ≥5% with a limited amount of GP4. A total of 315 radical prostatectomy cases with GS 6 or 3 + 4 = 7 in a prior biopsy, were reviewed. The cases with the highest %GP4 ≥5% were subcategorized using the total length of GP4 (GP4-TL) and number of GS 3 + 4 = 7 cores. As outcome measures, the frequency of adverse pathology (AP) and the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) were compared between the GS 6 and 3 + 4 = 7 subgroups. In the %GP4 ≥5% subgroup, only cases with both GP4-TL <0.5 mm and 1 core of GS 3 + 4 = 7 showed similar outcome measures with those of GS 6 cancers. However, all other subgroups showed a higher frequency of AP and/or risk of BCR than GS 6 cancers. Our results suggest that cases with %GP4 ≥5% with a limited amount of GP4 should be considered for inclusion in the active surveillance category.

Factors affecting health-related quality of life among prostate cancer patients: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is recognized as the leading cause of malignancy-related incidence and mortality in the male population. The treatment regimens have long-term effects detrimental to the patient's quality of life. Hence, this review was aimed to determine the overall HRQOL and its associated among prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cumulative Index to the Nursing and Allied Literature (CINAHL), which provided articles that were critically examined, yielding 52 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review.

RESULTS

Out of 52 studies, 30 studies reported poor overall HRQOL in various domains after prostate cancer treatment. Contrastingly, 15 studies reported good overall quality of life after treatment. Among the various domains, sexual function was the most grossly affected functional score by the treatment modalities of prostate cancer. Nonetheless, seven studies showed that the absence of a significant change in the overall quality of life after treatment. According to the studies, older age, comorbidities, higher clinical stage, higher Gleason score, greater cancer severity, African American race, impaired mental health, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and lower level of education were the major poor predictors of HRQOL among prostate cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The overall HRQOL in prostate cancer patients was generally poor in various functional domains after treatment. Among the various domains, sexual function was the most grossly affected functional score by the treatment modalities of prostate cancer.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Cases Having a Gleason Score 3+4=7 With <5% of Gleason Pattern 4 in Prostate Needle Biopsy Show Similar Failure-free Survival and Adverse Pathology Prevalence to Gleason Score 6 Cases in a Radical Prostatectomy Cohort

Recent discussions have suggested expanding the inclusion criteria for active prostate cancer surveillance to include cases with a Gleason score (GS) of 3+4=7. In this study, we examined this proposed use of a limited percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) to identify candidates of active surveillance among 315 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer with a GS of 6 or 3+4=7 via needle biopsy. The latter cases were divided into 4 groups using highest or overall %GP4 cut-off values of 5% and 10% as determined from prostate needle biopsies. The frequency of adverse pathology and risk of biochemical recurrence were compared between the GS 6 and both GS 3+4=7 groups. Adverse pathology was defined as a GS 4+3=7 or higher, pT3b staging or positive lymph node metastasis. Notably, the Gleason pattern 4 <5% and GS 6 groups did not differ significantly in terms of the frequency of adverse pathology and risk of biochemical recurrence by the highest method. However, other highest Gleason pattern 4 categories had significantly higher frequencies and risks. Using the overall method, even the Gleason pattern 4 <5% group had a significantly higher frequency of adverse pathology and risk of biochemical recurrence relative to the GS 6 group. In conclusion, our findings suggest that patients with a GS 3+4=7 on biopsy with a highest %GP4 <5% are similar candidates for active surveillance to men with GS 6 cancers.

Duration of sick leave after active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the loss of working time due to sick leave by treatment strategy for localised prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort study.

SETTING

Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 15 902 working-aged men with localised low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed during 2007-2016 from the Prostate Cancer Data Base Sweden, together with 63 464 prostate cancer-free men. Men were followed until 2016.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Using multistate Markov models, we calculated the proportion of men on work, sick leave, disability pension and death, together with the amount of time spent in each state. All-cause and cause-specific estimates were calculated.

RESULTS

During the first 5 years after diagnosis, men with active surveillance as their primary treatment strategy spent a mean of 17 days (95% CI 15 to 19) on prostate cancer-specific sick leave, as compared with 46 days (95% CI 44 to 48) after radical prostatectomy and 44 days (95% CI 38 to 50) after radiotherapy. The pattern was similar after adjustment for cancer and sociodemographic characteristics. There were no differences between the treatment strategies in terms of days spent on sick leave due to depression, anxiety or stress. Five years after diagnosis, over 90% of men in all treatment strategies were free from sick leave, disability pension receipt and death from any cause.

CONCLUSIONS

Men on active surveillance experienced less impact on working life compared with men who received radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. From a long-term perspective, there were no major differences between treatment strategies. Our findings can inform men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer on how different treatment strategies may affect their working lives.

The long-term outcomes of Gleason grade groups 2 and 3 prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: Results from a large, population-based cohort

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but its role in the management of favorable intermediate-risk PCa remains controversial. Most reports studying the role of AS for these men generally lack long-term followup and include small numbers of patients. Our objective was to report the outcomes of men diagnosed with Gleason grade groups (GGG) 2 and 3 PCa who were managed expectantly.

METHODS

Using administrative datasets and pathology reports, we identified all men who were diagnosed with GGG 2 and 3 PCa and managed expectantly between 2002 and 2011 in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes and associated factors were estimated using cumulative incidence function methods and multivariable Cox regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 926 men who were managed expectantly (AS [n=374] or watchful waiting [n=552]). The eight-year cancer-specific survival was 94% and 89% for the AS and watchful waiting cohorts, respectively. Among AS men, 266 (71%) received treatment after a followup of approximately eight years. Cumulative AS discontinuation rates at one and five years were 30.5% and 65.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectant management of GGG 2 and 3 PCa may be an option for certain men. Notably for AS patients, the cancer-specific mortality at eight years was 6%, and over 65% of men underwent treatment within five years. Further studies are required to evaluate which patients, based on disease-specific features and competing health risks, would benefit most from a conservative strategy.

Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance (AS), now the standard of care for most men with favourable-risk prostate cancer, is appealing for selected men with 'favourable' intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a review of the indications for conservative management in this population, the outcomes reported in prospective series, and the use of molecular biomarkers and imaging to identify optimal candidates.

RESULTS

Candidates are those patients who are categorized as having intermediate-risk disease either because of a prostate-specific antigen level between 10 and 20 ng/mL, or by virtue of having Grade Group 2 disease, with a small percentage of Gleason 4 pattern, and a negative magnetic resonance imaging result or negative targeted biopsy of a region of interest. Confirmation with a favourable score on a tissue-based genetic assay can provide further reassurance. A subset of patients with intermediate-risk disease has indolent disease that may benefit from AS; at the same time, some patients with intermediate-risk disease have an aggressive clinical course that requires early definitive therapy. This heterogeneity is not adequately captured with traditional histopathological staging. Clinical, genomic and radiological biomarkers are the key to appropriate risk stratification and patient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of AS make it an appealing option for selected patients with intermediate-risk disease.

Active treatment in low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study

Background

Active surveillance instead of active treatment (at) is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (lr-pca), but practice varies widely. We conducted a population-based study to assess the proportion of patients who underwent at between January 2011 and December 2014, and to evaluate factors associated with at.

Methods

The provincial cancer registry was linked to administrative health datasets to identify patients with lr-pca and to acquire demographic, tumour, and treatment data. The primary outcome was receipt of at during the first 12 months after diagnosis, defined as any receipt of external-beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, or androgen deprivation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the correlation between patient and tumour factors and at.

Results

Of 1565 patients with lr-pca, 554 (35.4%) underwent at within 12 months of diagnosis. Radical prostatectomy was the most common treatment (58%), followed by brachytherapy (29.6%). Younger age [odds ratio (or) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.91 to 0.94], lower score (≥3) on the Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 0.36; 95% ci: 0.19 to 0.68), T2 stage (or: 3.05; 95% ci: 2.03 to 4.58), higher prostate-specific antigen (psa) at diagnosis (or: 1.13; 95% ci: 1.06 to 1.21), radiation oncologist consultation (or: 3.35; 95% ci: 2.55 to 4.39), and earlier diagnosis year (2012 or: 0.46; 95% ci: 0.34 to 0.63; 2013 or: 0.45; 95% ci: 0.32 to 0.63; 2014 or: 0.33; 95% ci: 0.23 to 0.47) were associated with a higher probability of at.

Conclusions

This contemporary population-based study demonstrates that approximately one third of patients with lr-pca undergo at. Patients of younger age, with less comorbidity, a higher tumour stage, higher psa, earlier year of diagnosis, and radiation oncologist consultation were more likely to undergo at. Further investigation is needed to identify strategies that could minimize overtreatment.

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

PURPOSE

To study the association between time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy (RP-interval) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), histological findings in the RP-specimen and failure after RP (RP-failure).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) in 2001-2010 and prostatectomized within 180 days of biopsy were identified in the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients were stratified according to risk groups and RP-intervals of 0-60, 61-90, 91-120 and 121-180 days. Aalen-Johansen and Kaplan-Meier methods estimated curves for PCSM, RP-failure and overall mortality. Multivariable Cox regressions and Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the impact of RP-interval on outcomes.

RESULTS

In 5163 eligible patients, the median time from diagnosis to RP was 93 days (range 1-180). Risk group distribution was similar in all RP-interval groups. With almost eight years of observation, no association was found between RP-interval and PCSM in the intermediate-or high-risk groups. Increasing RP-interval did not increase the rate of adverse histological outcomes or incidence of RP-failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing RP-interval up to 180 days was not associated with adverse oncological outcomes at eight years follow-up. These findings should be considered when planning for prostatectomy.

[Focal HIFU vs robot-assisted total prostatectomy: Functionnal and oncologic outcomes at one year]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the functional and oncologic outcomes at one year of focal therapy with HIFU compared with total prostatectomy in patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective and monocentric study from 2008 to 2014 comparing 2 cohorts of patients with localised PCa (T1/T2 clinical stage, Gleason score≤3+4=7 and PSA<15ng/mL), one treated by focal therapy (HIFU-F group), one by robot-assisted total prostatectomy (RATP group). Primary outcome was a trifecta defined as: absence of urinary incontinence, erectile function with sexual relations without treatment, negative PSA with negative surgical margins (RATP group) or negative biopsy cores (HIFU-F group).

RESULTS

The 53 patients included in the "HIFU-F" group and the 66 patients in the "RATP" group were similar in terms of preoperative PSA, D'Amico risk group, erectile function but were different in terms of age, prostatic volume, length of cancer, Gleason score. Complication rate was not different. In multivariate analyse with propensity score, "HIFU-F" group achieved a better trifecta score than "RATP" group (OR=8,3, p=0,005).

CONCLUSION

In case of low or intermediate risk localised PCa, "HIFU-F" group had better functional outcomes than initial learning curse "RATP" group, at one year. A long-term evaluation by a common endpoint is necessary to judge the oncological equivalence of both techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

[Pathology findings after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: Contribution of multiparametric MRI to treatment decision]

OBJECTIVES

To analyze, in patients with prostate cancer (PC) potentially eligible for active surveillance (AS), whether multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) predicts presence of clinically significant cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen.

METHODS

We identified 77 men with PC eligible for AS (PSA≤15ng/mL, stage≤T2a, Gleason score≤6, up to 3 positive cores, maximal cancer core length≤5mm) who underwent RP between 01/2008 and 08/2015. All patients had prebiopsy mp-MRI followed by systematic±targeted biopsies. For each patient, the likelihood of the presence of cancer on mp-MRI was assigned using Likert scale (1 to 5). The predictive factors for the presence of significant cancer on RP specimen (Gleason score≥7 and/or tumoral maximal diameter>10mm) were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 and median PSA was 6.7ng/mL. Overall, 49 (64%) patients had a positive mp-MRI (score≥3). Clinically significant cancer on RP specimen was found in 45 (58%) patients (69% in MRI-positive patients vs 39% in MRI-negative patients). In multivariate analysis, a positive MRI was a predictive factor for the presence of significant cancer on the surgical specimen (OR=3.0; CI95% [1.01-8.88]; P=0.04), as was age (OR=1.17; CI95% [1.05-1.31]; P=0.004) and PSAD (OR=1.10; CI95% [1.01-1.20]; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Mp-MRI is a useful exam for selecting patients eligible for AS even if the situation remains unclear after prostate biopsies including targeted biopsies. Upon confirmation by further studies, mp-MRI should be considered as an independent criterion before entering an AS program.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) with brachytherapy (BT).

Methods

A literature review was conducted according to the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We included studies reporting comparative oncologic outcomes of RP versus BT for localized prostate cancer (PCa). From each comparative study, we extracted the study design, the number and features of the included patients, and the oncologic outcomes expressed as all-cause mortality (ACM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) or, when the former were unavailable, as biochemical recurrence (BCR). All of the data retrieved from the selected studies were recorded in an electronic database. Cumulative analysis was conducted using the Review Manager version 5.3 software, designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-square test.

Results

Our cumulative analysis did not show any significant difference in terms of BCR, ACM or PCSM rates between the RP and BT cohorts. Only three studies reported risk-stratified outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk patients, which are the most prone to treatment failure.

Conclusions

our analysis suggested that RP and BT may have similar oncologic outcomes. However, the analysis included a limited number of studies, and most of them were retrospective, making it impossible to derive any definitive conclusion, especially for intermediate- and high-risk patients. In this scenario, appropriate urologic counseling remains of utmost importance.

3+4 = 6? Implications of the stratification of localised Gleason 7 prostate cancer by number and percentage of positive biopsy cores in selecting patients for active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the number and percentage of positive biopsy cores identify a Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer (PC) subgroup of similar biologic behaviour to Gleason 3+3.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

An observational post-radical prostatectomy study was conducted of a cohort of 799 patients with localised low-risk (n=582, Gleason 6, PSA <10ng/ml and cT1c-2a) and favourable intermediate PC (n=217, Gleason 3+4, PSA ≤10 ng/ml and pT2abc). The Gleason 3+4 tumours were stratified by number (≤3 vs.>3) and by percentage of positive cores (≤33% vs. >33%). We analysed the tumours' association with the biochemical recurrence risk (BRR) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). We conducted various predictive models using Cox regression and estimated (C-index) and compared their predictive capacity.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 71 months, the BRR and CSM of the patient group with Gleason 3+4 tumours and a low number (≤3) and percentage (≤33%) of positive cores were not significantly different from those of the patients with Gleason 6 tumours. At 5 and 10 years, there were no significant differences in the number of biochemical recurrences, the probability of remaining free of biochemical recurrences, the number of deaths by PC or the probability of death by PC between the 2 groups. In contrast, the patients with Gleason 3+4 tumours and more than 33% of positive cores presented more deaths by PC than the patients with Gleason 6 tumours. At 10 years, the probability of CSM was significantly greater. This subgroup of tumours showed a significantly greater BRR (RR, 1.6; P=.02) and CSM (RR, 5.8, P≤.01) compared with the Gleason 6 tumours. The model with Gleason 3+4 stratified by the percentage of positive cores significantly improved the predictive capacity of BRR and CSM.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than 3 cores and a percentage <33% of positive cores identifies a subgroup of Gleason 3+4 tumours with biological behaviour similar to Gleason 6 tumours. At 10 years, there were no differences in BRR and CSM between the 2 groups. These results provide evidence supporting active surveillance as an alternative for Gleason 3+4 tumours and low tumour extension in biopsy.

Superior metastasis-free survival for patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy compared to radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

For high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) in men with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with category 1 evidence or radical prostatectomy (RP) as an acceptable initial therapy. Randomized evidence regarding which therapy is optimal for disease control is lacking for men with HR-PCa. We performed a propensity-score-matched comparison of outcomes for men with localized HR-PCa treated with primary RT or RP.

Methods and materials

The medical records of patients with localized HR-PCa who were treated at our institution between 2002 and 2011 were reviewed. Patient and disease characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes were collected. A combination of nearest-neighbor propensity score matching on age, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 comorbidity index, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical T-stage as well as exact matching on prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason scores, and clinical T-stage was performed. Outcomes were measured from diagnosis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare metastasis-free and overall survival.

Results

A total of 246 patients were identified with 62 propensity-score-matched pairs. ADT was administered to 6.5% and 80.6% of patients receiving RP and RT, respectively. Five-year rates of metastasis for RP and RT were 33% and 8.9%, respectively (P = .003). Overall survival was not different. Delay of salvage therapy was longer for patients undergoing primary RT (P < .001). Findings were similar when only those patients who did not receive ADT were compared.

Conclusions

At our institution, treatment with primary RT resulted in superior metastasis-free survival over RP. This was not accompanied by an improvement in OS.

Radiofrequency heat-enhanced direct intratumoral chemotherapy for prostate cancer

A novel, minimally invasive interventional technique, radiofrequency heat (RFH), has been suggested to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy for solid organ tumors. However, the treatment for prostate cancer has not been completely characterized. The aim of the present study was to investigate the in vitro and in vivo efficiency of chemotherapy in combination with RFH for the treatment of prostate cancer. The following four treatment groups were included: i) No treatment (control); ii) RFH-only; iii) chemotherapy (docetaxel)-only; and iv) combination therapy of docetaxel and RFH in human prostate cancer (HPC) cell lines and mice with HPC xenografts. In the in vitro experiments, a heating guidewire was attached under the bottom of the last chamber of the four-chamber cell culture slide, and was then connected to a radiofrequency (RF) generator. In the in vivo experiments, a tumor model was generated by subcutaneously injecting human prostate cancer cells into 24 male nu/nu mice. RFH was conducted by inserting the 0.022-inch heating-guidewire into the tumor. The follow-up magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a significant reduction in the average tumor size in animals treated with combination therapy compared with those receiving RFH-only and chemotherapy-only. The number of apoptotic cells and the average apoptotic index of the combination therapy group were significantly higher compared with those of the other three treatment groups. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggested that RFH is able to increase the therapeutic efficiency of docetaxel in prostate cancer, and this study serves as a foundation for the future development of an interventional molecular image-guided local treatment strategy for prostate cancer that integrates RF technology, interventional oncology and direct intratumoral chemotherapy, as a replacement for systemic chemotherapy.

Oncologic Outcomes of Definitive Treatments for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer After a Period of Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To compare oncologic outcomes of different definitive treatment (DT) modalities in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

We identified 237 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 1990 to 2012 who did not undergo immediate DT within 12 months of diagnosis (ie, AS patients as well as watchful waiting and those refusing DT). Charts were examined for clinical/pathologic data and type of DT: surgery (RP), radiation including brachytherapy (XRT), cryotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (ADT). The impact of DT on oncologic outcomes of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, disease-specific (DSS), and overall survival (OS) was examined with the Cox proportional hazards model, along with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

After median time on AS of 63.4 months, 40% of patients underwent DT: 47% XRT, 28% RP, 14% ADT, and 11% cryotherapy. On multivariable analysis, the use of XRT predicted higher BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, P = .001) and worse overall mortality (HR 2.1, P = .03) compared with other treatments, controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), stage, Gleason score, and NCCN risk category. Median follow-up was 71.7 months. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 10-year OS was superior for RP versus XRT among patients with prostatic specific antigen (PSA) velocity >2.0 ng/mL/y.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- and intermediate-risk patients with PCa who progress to DT after AS may be inadequately treated with radiation therapy compared with other DT modalities, especially when pretreatment PSA velocity is > 2 ng/mL/y.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is now widely utilized for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The limits of surveillance for men with intermediate risk cancer are controversial. While there is a broad consensus that men with low-risk disease can be safely managed with AS, many potential candidates, including those with Gleason 3 + 4 disease, PSA >10, younger men and African-Americans are often excluded.

RECENT FINDINGS

Outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed by active surveillance demonstrate reasonable outcomes, but these men clearly are at higher risk for progression to metastatic disease. The use of biomarkers and multiparametric MRI will enable a more precise and personalized risk assessment. Literature describing the effects of young age on outcomes is limited, but the experience reported in prospective series with 15-20 year follow-up suggests it is a safe approach. African-American men are at greater risk for occult co-existent higher-grade disease, but in the absence of this their outcome is favorable. Patients with intermediate-risk PCa should not be excluded from active surveillance based on a single criterion. Treatment decisions should be based on multiple parameters, including percent Gleason 4, PSA density, cancer volume on biopsy, MRI findings, and patient age and co-morbidity. Genetic tissue-based biomarkers are also likely to play a role in enhancing decision making.

Favorable Gleason 3 + 4 Prostate Cancer Shows Comparable Outcomes With Gleason 3 + 3 Prostate Cancer: Implications for the Expansion of Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To investigate the feasibility of active surveillance (AS) in biopsy Gleason score (GS) 3 + 4 prostate cancer (PCa), we compared the outcomes of biopsy GS 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 PCa after radical prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the data of 1491 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for biopsy GS 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 PCa who fulfilled the low-risk criteria of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines regardless of GS. The favorable GS 3 + 4 group was defined as having core involvement ≤ 50%, prostate-specific antigen density ≤ 0.2 ng/mL/cm³, and number of positive cores ≤ 2 (maximal 1 core of GS 3 + 4).

RESULTS

The GS 3 + 4 group showed significantly worse pathologic outcomes, including pathologic GS, pathologic stage, and seminal vesicle invasion rate (all P < .001), as well as worse biochemical recurrence-free survival (P < .001) than the GS 3 + 3 group. However, the favorable GS 3 + 4 subgroup showed no significant differences in the pathologic outcomes (all P > .05) and in biochemical recurrence-free survival (P = .817) compared to the GS 3 + 3 group.

CONCLUSION

Despite the application of low-risk criteria, GS 3 + 4 PCa patients showed significantly worse outcomes than GS 3 + 3 patients. However, favorable GS 3 + 4 patients showed comparable clinicopathologic outcomes with GS 3 + 3 patients, suggesting possible expansion of AS for the favorable GS 3 + 4 group.

Long-term quality of life after definitive treatment for prostate cancer: patient-reported outcomes in the second posttreatment decade

Definitive treatment for prostate cancer includes radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy (BT). The different side effect profiles of these options are crucial factors for patients and clinicians when deciding between treatments. This study reports long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients in their second decade after treatment for prostate cancer. We used a validated survey to assess urinary, bowel, and sexual function and HRQOL in a prospective cohort of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer 14-18 years previously. We report and compare the outcomes of patients who were initially treated with RP, EBRT, or BT. Of 230 eligible patients, the response rate was 92% (n = 211) and median follow-up was 14.6 years. Compared to baseline, RP patients had significantly worse urinary incontinence and sexual function, EBRT patients had worse scores in all domains, and BT patients had worse urinary incontinence, urinary irritation/obstruction, and sexual function. When comparing treatment groups, RP patients underwent larger declines in urinary continence than did BT patients, and EBRT and BT patients experienced larger changes in urinary irritation/obstruction. Baseline functional status was significantly associated with long-term function for urinary obstruction and bowel function domains. This is one of the few prospective reports on quality of life for prostate cancer patients beyond 10 years, and adds information about the late consequences of treatment choices. These data may help patients make informed decisions regarding treatment choice based on symptoms they may experience in the decades ahead.

Impact of a decision aid on newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients' understanding of the rationale for active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To compare newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer patients who did and did not view a decision aid (DA) on their knowledge of the rationale for active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 452 newly diagnosed low-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Patients were mailed the video/DVD DA and completed a web-based questionnaire that contained two multiple choice questions assessing knowledge of the rationale for AS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of the DA on knowledge of the rationale for AS.

RESULTS

Patients who watched the DA were more likely to correctly respond to each rationale for AS question; both comparisons were statistically significant. After adjustment, men who viewed the DA were 2.9 times as likely to correctly respond to both rationale for AS questions than men who did not view the DA (95% CI: 1.9-4.5).

CONCLUSION

Patients who viewed a DA better understand the reasons why AS is a viable treatment option for localized prostate cancer than patients who did not view a DA.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Urology clinics and practices should implement the utilization of a treatment DA for newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer prior to the patients' first cancer consultation.

Management and outcomes of Gleason six prostate cancer detected on needle biopsy: A single-surgeon experience over 6 years

Objective

To assess the management and oncological outcomes in men diagnosed with Gleason score (GS) 6 prostate cancer on needle biopsy in a regional centre, as compared with published international data.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients who were diagnosed with GS 6 prostate cancer via transrectal ultrasound-guided or transperineal biopsy between June 2009 and September 2015 under the care of a single surgeon. Data were obtained from a prospectively collected database.

Results

A total of 166 patients were diagnosed with GS 6 prostate cancer. The mean age was 61 (range 46-79) years, with mean prostate-specific antigen of 6.7 (0.91-26.8) ng/mL at diagnosis. Of 166 patients, 117 (70.5%) patients were enrolled into the active surveillance program with 82 (70%) meeting Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, 44 patients underwent immediate definitive treatment (88.6% radical prostatectomy and 9.1% radiotherapy) and five watchful waiting. With a median follow-up of 1.8 years, 37 (31.6%) patients on AS had definitive treatment [30 cases (81%) were attributable to disease progression, 4 cases (10.8%) to an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging result and 3 cases (8.1%) for patient preference]. In the 35 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy immediately after diagnosis, the GS was ≥7 in 29 cases (82.9%), and the final pathology was pT3a in 16 (51.6%) and pT3b in one (2.9%). In patients who underwent radical prostatectomy after being on AS, the proportion of GS ≥7 prostate cancer was 29/32 (90.6%), with pT3a in six (18.8%) and pT3b in three (9.4%) cases. Overall, 23.5% of patients had a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scan.

Conclusion

This single-surgeon cohort of GS 6 prostate cancer patients demonstrates a high proportion of cases managed with active surveillance, with comparable rates to international literature. The majority of cases who underwent immediate definitive treatment had significant disease, indicating that patients are being appropriately selected for active surveillance.

Impact of cause of death adjudication on the results of the European prostate cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries.

METHODS

Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results.

RESULTS

There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out.