Effect of delaying surgery on radical prostatectomy outcomes: a contemporary analysis

Is it safe to defer prostate cancer treatment? Assessing the impact of surgical delay on the risk of pathological upstaging after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

We sought to investigate whether surgical delay may be associated with pathological upstaging in patients treated with robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive firstly-diagnosed PCa patients starting from March 2020 have been enrolled. All the patients were categorized according to EAU risk categories for PCa risk. Uni- and multivariate analysis were fitted to explore clinical and surgical predictors of pathological upstaging to locally advanced disease (pT3/pT4 - pN1 disease).

RESULTS

Overall 2017 patients entered the study. Median age at surgery was 68 (IQR 63-73) years. Overall low risk, intermediate risk, localized high risk and locally advanced disease were recorded in 368 (18.2 %), 1071 (53.1 %), 388 (19.2 %) and 190 (9.4 %), respectively. Median time from to diagnosis to treatment was 51 (IQR 29-70) days. Time to surgery was 56 (IQR 32-75), 52 (IQR 30-70), 45 (IQR 24-60) and 41 (IQR 22-57) days for localized low, intermediate and high risk and locally advanced disease, respectively. Considering 1827 patients with localized PCa, at multivariate analysis ISUP grade group ≥4 on prostate biopsy (HR: 1.30; 95 % CI 1.07-1.86; p = 0.02) and surgical delay only in localized high-risk disease (HR: 1.02; 95 % CI 1.01-1.54; p = 0.02) were confirmed as independent predictors of pathological upstaging to pT3-T4/pN1 disease at final histopathological examination.

CONCLUSIONS

In localized high-risk disease surgical delay could be associated with a higher risk of adverse pathologic findings.

Impact of the time of surgical delay on survival in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Background and objectives

Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) often experience a waiting period before radical surgery for numerous reasons; however, the COVID-19 outbreak has exacerbated this problem. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the impact of the unavoidable time of surgical delay on the outcome of patients with MIBC.

Methods

In all, 165 patients from high-volume centers with pT2-pT3 MIBC, who underwent radical surgery between January 2008 and November 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Patients' demographic and pathological information was recorded. Based on the time of surgical delay endured, patients were divided into three groups: long waiting time (> 90 days), intermediate waiting time (30-90 days), and short waiting time (≤ 30 days). Finally, each group's pathological characteristics and survival rates were compared.

Results

The median time of surgical delay for all patients was 33 days (interquartile range, IQR: 16-67 days). Among the 165 patients, 32 (19.4%) were classified into the long waiting time group, 55 (33.3%) into the intermediate waiting time group, and 78 (47.3%) into the short waiting time group. The median follow-up period for all patients was 48 months (IQR: 23-84 months). The median times of surgical delay in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 188 days (IQR: 98-367 days), 39 days (IQR: 35-65 days), and 16 days (IQR: 12-22 days), respectively. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for all patients was 58.4%, and that in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 35.7%, 61.3%, and 64.1%, respectively (P = 0.035). The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates in the long, intermediate, and short waiting time groups were 38.9%, 61.5%, and 65.0%, respectively (P = 0.042). The multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age, time of surgical delay, pT stage, and lymph node involvement as independent determinants of OS and CSS.

Conclusion

In patients with pT2-pT3 MIBC, the time of surgical delay > 90 days can have a negative impact on survival.

Sociodemographic and Geographic Disparities of Prostate Cancer Treatment Delay in Tennessee: A Population-Based Study

The relationship of social determinants of health, Appalachian residence, and prostate cancer treatment delay among Tennessee adults is relatively unknown. We used multivariate logistic regression on 2005–2015 Tennessee Cancer Registry data of adults aged ≥18 diagnosed with prostate cancer. The outcome of treatment delay was more than 90 days without surgical or nonsurgical intervention from date of diagnosis. Social determinants in the population-based registry were race (White, Black, Other) and marital status (single, married, divorced/separated, widow/widower). Tennessee residence was classified as Appalachian versus non-Appalachian (urban/rural). Covariates include age at diagnosis (18–54, 54–69, ≥70), health insurance type (none, public, private), derived staging of cancer (localized, regional, distant), and treatment type (non-surgical/surgical). We found that Black and divorced/separated patients had 32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22–1.42) and 15% (95% CI: 1.01–1.31) increased odds to delay prostate cancer treatment. Patients were at decreased odds of treatment delay when living in an Appalachian county, both urban (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82–0.95) and rural (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78–0.89), diagnosed at ≥70 (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53–0.66), and received surgical intervention (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.68–0.76). Our study was among the first to comprehensively examine prostate cancer treatment delay in Tennessee, and while we do not make clinical recommendations, there is a critical need to further explore the unique factors that may propagate disparities. Prostate cancer treatment delay in Black patients may be indicative of ongoing health and access disparities in Tennessee, which may further affect quality of life and survivorship among this racial group. Divorced/separated patients may need tailored interventions to improve social support.

The influence of the long duration from biopsy to surgery on biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in Japanese patients

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of the duration between the biopsy and surgery on the biochemical recurrence (BCR) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 302 patients who underwent RARP in our institution from April 2010 to December 2017. Patients were categorized into 2 groups, an interval between biopsy and surgery of 180 days or less (Group A) and longer than 180 days (Group B). Factors retrospectively analyzed for the BCR for the interval between the biopsy and RARP included patient's characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative results. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the predictors of BCR.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 42 months, with 24 patients developing BCR at a mean of 13.5 months after RARP. There was no difference in the rate of BCR in Group A and Group B. Multivariate analysis showed that BMI (<23.5 kg/m², p = 0.034), worst GS of the biopsy (≥8, p = 0.007), and without lymph node dissection (p = 0.034) were significant predictors of BCR. Analysis of the interval from the biopsy showed that there was no significant difference between Group A and Group B, when tested according to the NCCN risk stratification (low risk: p = 0.871, intermediate risk: p = 0.205, high risk: p = 0.287).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative predictors of BCR included BMI (<23.5 kg/m²) and worst GS of the biopsy, and without lymph node dissection. A long duration from biopsy to RARP did not influence the probability of BCR, even in patients considered to be at a high risk.

Mortality Increases When Radical Nephrectomy is Delayed More Than 60 Days for T3 Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: Radical nephrectomy is widely accepted as the default management option for patients with T3 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, it may require a certain time before surgery for various reasons. There are concerns that the delay in surgery may affect postoperative outcomes. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of surgical wait time on survival in patients with T3 RCC. Methods: We retrospectively selected 138 patients with T3 RCC who underwent radical surgery between July 2009 and December 2019. Surgical wait time was defined as the period from initial imaging diagnosis to surgery. Patients were divided into the following 2 groups according to wait time: short-wait group(≤60 days), and long-wait group (>60 days). The clinical and pathological characteristics were evaluated. The overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of each group were calculated and compared. Age, gender, interval, tumor size, pathological grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), surgical approach, year of surgery, and pathological type were included in the multivariable model. Results: This study included 91 male (65.9%) and 47 female (34.1%) patients. The median age of all patients was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR] 52-68 years). The median body mass index is 22.2 kg/m² (IQR 18.9-24.7  kg/m²). There were 128 patients (92.8%) with pT3a disease and 10 patients (7.3%) with pT3b disease. The median surgical wait time for all patients was 16 days (IQR 10-77 days). The median surgical wait time of the short- and long-wait groups was 12 days (IQR 8-16 days) and 92 days (IQR 79-115 days), respectively. Until the last follow-up, 54 patients died. Among them, 49 patients (90.7%) died of tumor-related causes, and 5 patients (9.3%) died of other causes. There are 1 and 4 cases in the short-wait and long-wait groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in gender, ECOG PS, American society of anesthesiologists score, Charlson comorbidity index, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, and body mass index. And there were no significant differences in tumor size, surgical approach, year of surgery, pathological type, tumor grade, pathological T stage, pathological N stage, and venous involvement between the 2 groups. OS, CSS, and RFS were compared. The 5-year OS of the short- and long-wait time groups were 65.0% and 40.9%, respectively (P = .030). The 5-year CSS rates of the short- and long-wait time groups were 68.7% and 51.5%, respectively (P = .012). The 5-year RFS rates of the short- and long-wait time groups were 61.5% and 46.8%, respectively (P = .119). Multivariable analysis revealed that surgical wait time interval and tumor size were independent risk factors for OS and that wait time was also an independent risk factor for CCS. Conclusion: Delay in radical surgery beyond 60 days can negatively affect OS in patients with T3 RCC.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer^® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Waiting Times for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Nigerian Population

Background

Prostate biopsy remains an important surgical procedure in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer, but access to prostate biopsy service is poorly studied in the Nigerian population. While there has been a well-documented delay in patient presentation with prostate cancer in Nigeria, little is however known about how long patients wait to have a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer and start treatment after presenting at Nigerian hospitals.

Method

This was a descriptive retrospective study to document the specific duration of the various timelines in getting a diagnosis of prostate cancer at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, Nigeria.

Results

There were 270 patients. The mean age was 69.50 ± 8.03 years (range 45-90). The mean PSA at presentation was 563.2 ± 1879.2 ng/ml (range 2.05-15400), and the median PSA was 49.3 ng/ml. The median waiting times were (i) 10 days from referral to presentation; (ii) 30 days from presentation to biopsy; (iii) 24 days from biopsy to review of histology; (iv) 1 day from histology review to discussion/planning of treatment. The median overall waiting time from referral to treatment was 103 days. The mean time from presentation to biopsy was significantly shorter for patients with PSA of ≥50 ng/ml compared to those with PSA < 50 ng/ml. p = 0.048. Overall, the median time from biopsy to histology was significantly shorter for patients whose specimens were processed in private laboratories (17 days) compared to those whose specimens were processed at the teaching hospital laboratory (30 days), p ≤ 0.001.

Conclusion

There is a significant delay within the health care system in getting a prostate cancer diagnosis in the Nigerian population studied. The major points of the identified delay were the waiting time from patient presentation to having a biopsy done and the histology report waiting time.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Oncologic impact of delaying radical prostatectomy in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarize the available evidence on the survival and pathologic outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The PubMed database and Web of Science were searched in November 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported the survival and pathologic outcomes of patients treated with deferred RP for intermediate- and high-risk PCa compared to the control group including those patients treated with RP without delay.

RESULTS

Overall, nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria. We found a significant heterogeneity across the studies in terms of definitions for delay and outcomes, as well as in patients' baseline clinicopathologic features. According to the currently available literature, deferred RP does not seem to affect oncological survival outcomes, such as prostate cancer-specific mortality and metastasis-free survival, in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa. However, the impact of deferred RP on biochemical recurrence rates remains controversial. There is no clear association of deferring RP with any of the features of aggressive disease such as pathologic upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion. Deferred RP was not associated with the need for secondary treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the different definitions of a delayed RP, it is hard to make a consensus regarding the safe delay time. However, the current data suggest that deferring RP in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa for at least around 3 months is generally safe, as it does not lead to adverse pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence, the need for secondary therapy, or worse oncological survival outcomes.

Safety of Prolonged Wait Time for Nephrectomy for Clinically Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

There is usually a surgical wait time before nephrectomy for patients with clinically localized renal cell carcinoma, and many factors can influence this preoperative wait time. A relatively prolonged wait time may cause tumor progression. Therefore, we assessed the effect of preoperative wait time on the prognosis of patients with clinically localized renal cell carcinoma.

Methods

The outcomes of 561 patients with clinically localized renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy between July 2011 and March 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. According to the wait time before surgery, we divided the patients into three groups: short-wait group (≤ 30 days), intermediate-wait group (> 30 and ≤ 90 days), and long-wait group (>90 days). The clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated, and the survival rates of the three groups were compared.

Results

This study included 370 male (66%) and 191(34%) female patients, with a median age of 64 years. There were 520 patients with stage T1 and 41 patients with stage T2 tumors. The median interval between diagnosis and surgery was 21 days. There were no significant differences in age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, body mass index, tumor size, surgical approach, surgical procedure, pathological subtype, tumor stage, tumor grade, and residual tumor among the three groups. Overall survival(OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were comparable; the 5-year OS of the short-, intermediate-, and long-wait time groups were 84.2%, 82.0%, and 89.8%, respectively (P=0.732). The 5-year CSS rates of the short-, intermediate-, and long-wait time groups were 87.1%, 88.9%, and 90.4%, respectively (P=0.896). Multivariate analysis revealed that wait time was not an independent prognostic factor for OS or CSS.

Conclusion

Prolonged surgical wait time (> 90 days) does not influence survival in patients with clinically localized renal cell carcinoma.

Identifying Risk Profiles of Malignant Prostate Cancer Surgical Delay Using a Person-Centered Approach to Understand Prostate Cancer Disparities: The Constellation of Health Determinants Using Latent Class Analysis on Cancer Registry Data

Surgical prostate cancer (PCa) treatment delay (TD) may increase the likelihood of recurrence of disease, and influence quality of life as well as survival disparities between Black and White men. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify risk profiles in localized, malignant PCa surgical treatment delays while assessing co-occurring social determinants of health. Profiles were identified by age, marital status, race, county of residence (non-Appalachian or Appalachian), and health insurance type (none/self-pay, public, or private) reported in the Tennessee Department of Health cancer registry from 2005 to 2015 for adults ≥18 years (N = 18,088). We identified three risk profiles. The highest surgical delay profile (11% of the sample) with a 30% likelihood of delaying surgery >90 days were young Black men, <55 years old, living in a non-Appalachian county, and single/never married, with a high probability of having private health insurance. The medium surgical delay profile (46% of the sample) with a 21% likelihood of delay were 55–69 years old, White, married, and having private health insurance. The lowest surgical delay profile (42% of the sample) with a 14% likelihood of delay were ≥70 years with public health insurance as well as had a high probability of being White and married. We identified that even with health insurance coverage, Blacks living in non-Appalachian counties had the highest surgical delay, which was almost double that of Whites in the lowest delay profile. These disparities in PCa surgical delay may explain differences in health outcomes in Blacks who are most at-risk.

Urologic oncology practice during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review on what can be deferrable vs. nondeferrable

PURPOSE

To provide a review of high-risk urologic cancers and the feasibility of delaying surgery without impacting oncologic or mortality outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify articles pertaining to surgical delay and genitourinary oncology. We reviewed all relevant articles pertaining to kidney, upper tract urothelial cell, bladder, prostate, penile, and testicular cancer in regard to diagnostic, surgical, or treatment delay.

RESULTS

The majority of urologic cancers rely on surgery as primary treatment. Treatment of unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, can likely be delayed for 3 to 6 months without affecting oncologic outcomes. Muscle-invasive bladder cancer and testicular cancer can be treated initially with chemotherapy. Surgical management of T3 renal masses, high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and penile cancer should not be delayed.

CONCLUSION

The majority of urologic oncologic surgeries can be safely deferred without impacting long-term cancer specific or overall survival. Notable exceptions are muscle-invasive bladder cancer, high-grade upper tract urothelial cell, large renal masses, testicular and penile cancer. Joint decision making among providers and patients should be encouraged. Clinicians must manage emotional anxiety and stress when decisions around treatment delays are necessary as a result of a pandemic.

Impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage II/III gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative wait time is affected by various factors, and a certain time is needed before surgery. There is a concern that cancer treatment delay can lead to poor survival. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage (cStage) II/III gastric cancer.

METHODS

The study included patients with cStage II/III primary gastric cancer undergoing surgery between 2002 and 2012. Preoperative wait time was defined as the time from endoscopy for initial diagnosis to surgery. Patients were divided into the following three groups according to wait time: short wait group (≤ 30 days), intermediate wait group (> 30 and ≤ 60 days), and long wait group (> 60 and ≤ 90 days). Patient characteristics and survival were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

This study included 467 male (67%) and 229 female (33%) patients, and the median patient age was 67 years. The numbers of cStage II and III patients were 332 (48%) and 364 (52%), respectively. The median wait time was 45 days. The body mass index was lower in the short wait group than in the other groups. A shorter wait time tended to be associated with a more advanced cStage. Although survival was significantly worse in the short wait group than in the long wait group, wait time was not identified as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative wait time up to 90 days does not affect survival in patients with cStage II/III gastric cancer.

One-Stop MRI and MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: an expedited pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of an expedited One-Stop prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 370 consecutive patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI/TRUS-PBx) from our institutional review board-approved database. Patients were divided according to diagnostic pathway: One-Stop (n = 74), with mpMRI and same-day PBx, or Standard (n = 296), with mpMRI followed by a second visit for PBx. mpMRIs were performed and interpreted according to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2). Grade group ≥ 2 PCa defined clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Age (66 vs 66 years, p = 0.59) and PSA density (0.1 vs 0.1 ng/mL², p = 0.26) were not different between One-Stop vs Standard pathway, respectively. One-Stop patients lived further away from the hospital than Standard patients (163 vs 31 km; p < 0.01), and experienced shorter time from mpMRI to PBx (0 vs 7 days; p < 0.01). The number (p = 0.56) and distribution of PI-RADS lesions (p = 0.67) were not different between the groups. All procedures were completed successfully with similar perioperative complications rate (p = 0.24). For patients with PI-RADS 3-5 lesions, the csPCa detection rate (49% vs 41%, p = 0.55) was similar for One-Stop vs Standard, respectively. The negative predictive value of mpMRI (PI-RADS 1-2) for csPCa was 78% for One-Stop vs 83% for Standard (p = 0.99). On multivariate analysis, age, prostate volume and PI-RADS score (p < 0.01), but not diagnostic pathway, predicted csPCa detection.

CONCLUSION

A One-Stop PCa diagnostic pathway is feasible, safe, and provides similar outcomes in a shorter time compared to the Standard two-visit diagnostic pathway.

Impact of serious mental illness on the treatment and mortality of older patients with locoregional high-grade (nonmetastatic) prostate cancer: retrospective cohort analysis of 49 985 SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2013

Background

The influence of serious mental illness (SMI) on the treatment and survival of patients with high‐grade prostate cancer is not well understood. We compared the initial cancer treatment and cancer‐specific mortality of SEER‐Medicare patients with locoregional high‐grade (nonmetastatic) prostate cancer with and without preexisting SMI.

Methods

We identified SEER‐Medicare patients who were 67 years of age or older diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 with locoregional high‐grade (nonmetastatic) prostate cancer. Preexisting SMI was identified by claims indicative of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorder, during the 2 years before cancer diagnosis. We used multivariable binary logistic regression to examine associations between SMI and receipt of surgery or radiation concurrent with hormone therapy (definitive initial treatment) within 1 year after cancer diagnosis. We used Kaplan‐Meier survival curves, as well as Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models to evaluate unadjusted and adjusted associations between SMI and 5‐year cancer‐specific survival.

Results

Among 49 985 patients with locoregional high‐grade (nonmetastatic) prostate cancer, 523 (1.1%) had SMI and 49 462 (98.9%) had no SMI. Overall, SMI was associated with reduced odds of receiving surgery (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49‐0.89) or radiation concurrent with hormone therapy (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67‐0.98) as initial treatments in the year after cancer diagnosis. Additionally, SMI was associated with higher hazard of 5‐year cancer‐specific death (HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.06‐1.89) after accounting for competing risks of non‐cancer death.

Conclusion

Among SEER‐Medicare patients with locoregional high‐grade (nonmetastatic) prostate cancer, those with preexisting SMI—relative to those without these conditions—were less likely to receive definitive initial treatment in the year after diagnosis and had poorer cancer‐specific survival 5 years after diagnosis.

The effect of time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy on adverse pathologic outcomes

Objective

To assess the impact of time between prostate cancer diagnosis on biopsy and definitive intervention with radical prostatectomy (RP) in regard to adverse pathologic outcomes using a large multi-surgeon database.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 2,728 patients who underwent RP between 2005 and 2014. Patients were stratified according to biopsy Grade Group (GG). Pathologic outcomes were evaluated for patients with <2 months between biopsy and surgery and then at monthly intervals of up to 6 months. Adverse pathological outcomes were defined as Gleason upgrading from biopsy, the presence of extraprostatic extension (EPE, pT3a) or seminal vesicle invasion (SVI, pT3b), positive surgical margins, and lymph node positivity. The chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

In total 2,310 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median time from biopsy to surgery was 83 days (range: 61–109 days). No difference was observed for patients in any risk category regarding the adverse pathologic outcomes, including GG upgrade from biopsy to prostatectomy, presence of EPE, SVI, positive surgical margins, and positive lymph node involvement, with delays of up to 6 months between biopsy and RP. Surgical margins were positive in 25% of cases with pT2 disease and 50.2% of cases with pT3 and greater disease. EPE and SVI were present in 24.5% and 7.5% of specimens, respectively.

Conclusion

Surgical delays of up to 6 months following prostate biopsy were not associated with an increased risk of GG upgrading, EPE, SVI, positive surgical margins, or lymph node involvement.

Evaluating the impact of length of time from diagnosis to surgery in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of length of time from diagnostic biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) on oncological outcomes amongst men diagnosed with unfavourable intermediate- to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of men with a diagnosis of grade group (GG) ≥3 prostate cancer on biopsy, who underwent RP within 6 months of diagnosis, at our institution between 2005 and 2018. We assessed patient demographics, pre-biopsy disease characteristics, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. We categorised time between biopsy and RP into two intervals: <3 and 3-6 months. For each GG, we compared receipt of adjuvant therapy, pathological outcomes at RP (positive surgical margin [PSM], extraprostatic extension [EPE], seminal vesicle invasion [SVI], and lymph node involvement [LNI]), risk of 2- and 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and 2-, 5-, and 10-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) between patients who underwent RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Amongst 2303 men who met the study inclusion criteria, 1244 (54%) had GG 3, 608 (26%) had GG 4, and 451 (20%) had GG 5 disease. In all, 72% underwent RP at <3 months after diagnosis. For each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in rates of adjuvant therapy, PSM, EPE, SVI, or LNI in men who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis. In all, 1568 men had follow-up after RP of >1 year. For each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in 2- and 5-year BCRFS between patients who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis (GG 3: 78% vs 83% and 69% vs 66%, respectively, P = 0.6; GG 4: 68% vs 74% and 51% vs 57%, respectively, P = 0.4; GG 5: 58% vs 74% and 48% vs 54%, respectively, P = 0.2). Similarly, for each diagnostic GG, there was no significant difference in 2-, 5-, and 10-year MFS between patients who had RP at <3 vs 3-6 months after diagnosis, although we were not able to calculate 10-year MFS for patients with GG 5 disease due to limited follow-up in that group (GG 3: 98%, 92%, and 84% vs 97%, 95%, and 91%, respectively, P = 0.4; GG 4: 97%, 90%, and 72% vs 94%, 91%, and 81%, respectively, P = 0.8; GG 5: 89% and 81% vs 91% and 71%, respectively, P = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Waiting for RP up to 6 months after diagnosis is not associated with adverse outcomes amongst patients with unfavourable intermediate- to very-high-risk prostate cancer.

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.

Optimizing Time to Treatment to Achieve Durable Biochemical Disease Control after Surgery in Prostate Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The impact of treatment delays on prostate cancer-specific outcomes remains ill-defined. This study investigates the effect of time to treatment on biochemical disease control after prostatectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective study includes 1,807 patients who received a prostatectomy as a primary treatment at two large tertiary referral centers from 1987 to 2015. Multivariate cox model with restricted cubic spline was used to identify optimal time to receive treatment and estimate the risk of biochemical recurrence.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time of the study was 46 (interquartile range, 18-86) months. Time to treatment was subcategorized based on multivariate cubic spline cox model. In multivariate spline model, adjusted for all the pertinent pretreatment variables, inflection point in the risk of biochemical recurrence was observed around 3 months, which further increased after 6 months. Based on spline model, time to treatment was then divided into 0 to 3 months (61.5%), >3 to 6 months (31.1%), and 6 months (7.4%). In the adjusted cox model, initial delays up to 6 months did not adversely affect the outcome; however, time to treatment >6 months had significantly higher risk of biochemical recurrence (HR, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.60; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The initial delays up to 6 months in prostate cancer primary treatment may be sustainable without adversely affecting the outcome. However, significant delays beyond 6 months can unfavorably affect biochemical disease control.

IMPACT

Time to treatment can aid clinicians in the decision-making of prostate cancer treatment recommendation and educate patients against unintentional treatment delays.

[Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence?]

INTRODUCTION

The influence of the delay between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy for patients with localized prostate cancer is controversial. The objective of this study was to establish a time limit between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy beyond which the risks of upgradging and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are increased.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and January 2017, a retrospective analysis of the clinical, biological and histological data of 513 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was performed in a single center. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the risk of BCR by the difference between post-biopsy USCF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of the upgrading by the difference between the Gleason score on biopsy and on surgical specimen. The risks of BCR and upgrading were compared by Student test according to different delays between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The shortest delays for which a significant difference was found were reported.

RESULTS

In this study, 513 patients were included. The median age at the time of the biopsy was 65 years (IQR: 60-69). The median preoperative PSA was 7.30ng/mL (IQR: 5.60-9.94). The median time between biopsy and surgery was 108 days (IQR: 86-141). For the entire cohort, the risk of BCR was significantly higher above a threshold of 90 days (P=0.039). No threshold was found for Gleason 6(3+3) patients. A 90-day threshold was found for Gleason 7(3+4) patients (P=0.038). Gleason patients≥8 had more upgrading beyond a 60-day threshold (P=0.040).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that after a 3 months delay, the risk of BCR was significantly higher for localized prostate cancer. It seemed possible to extend this period for low-risk patients, whereas it seemed necessary to keep it for intermediate-risks and to reduce it to 2 months for high-risks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Time between diagnosis and surgical treatment on pathological and clinical outcomes in prostate cancer: does it matter?

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PC) most of the time presents with an indolent course. Thus, delays in treatment due to any causes might not affect long-term survival and may not affect cancer cure rates.

PURPOSE

In this study, we evaluated the effect of delay-time between PC diagnosis and radical prostatectomy regarding oncological outcomes: Gleason score upgrade on surgical specimen, pathologic extracapsular extension (ECE) on surgical specimen, and postoperative biochemical recurrence (BCR) on follow-up.

METHODS

We evaluated PC patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) regarding clinical and pathological findings and theirs respective interval between diagnosis and surgical treatment measured in days and months. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the impact of interval-time.

RESULTS

A total of 908 PC patients underwent RP between 2006 and 2014. Mean age was 61.5 years, the mean time-to-surgery was 191 days (> 6 months) and 187 (20.5%) patients had BCR, with a mean follow-up of 44 months. According to our analysis, no statistically significant maximum cut-off time interval between diagnostic biopsy and surgery could be established (p = 0.215). Regardless of interval-time: ≤ 6 months (56.5%), 6-12 months (38.5%), and > 12 months (5.1%) after biopsy, we found no time interval correlated with poor oncological outcomes. This study has several limitations. It was retrospective and had a mean follow-up of 4 years. Additional follow-up is necessary to determine whether these findings will be maintained over time.

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that the time between diagnosis and surgical treatment did not affect the oncological outcomes in our study.

No clinical significance of the time interval between biopsy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on biochemical recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

To investigate the impact of the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 793 consecutive patients who were treated with RARP at our institution. Patients were divided into three groups, according to TI, to compare BCR-free survival (BCRFS) rates: Group 1 (n = 196), TI < 3 months; Group 2 (n = 513), 3 ≤ TI < 6 months; Group 3 (n = 84), TI ≥ 6 months. Eighty-three patients with TI ≥ 6 months were matched with an equal number of patients with TI < 6 months based on propensity scores by using four preoperative factors: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), primary (pGS) and secondary (sGS) Gleason score and positive prostate biopsy.

Results

The 5-year BCRFS rates for TI Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 76%, 80.7% and 82.6% (P = 0.99), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that PSA, pGS, sGS and a positive prostate biopsy were independent preoperative risk factors for BCR. The propensity adjusted 5-year BCRFS for patients with TI ≥ 6 months was 84.0%. This was not worse than that of patients with TI < 6 months (71.0%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions

In our cohorts, a delay in the time from biopsy to RARP did not significantly affect recurrence. Therefore, hasty treatment decisions are unnecessary for at least 6 months after diagnosis of early prostate cancer.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect biochemical recurrence? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

AIM

We sought to explore the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHOD

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database between 2006 and 2015 was conducted on all RARP cases. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on BCR, which was defined as two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/dl, or salvage external beam radiation therapy and/or salvage androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariable analysis (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) with a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on BCR, in each D'Amico risk group and on the overall collective sample.

RESULTS

Patients eligible for analysis were 619. Mean SWT was 153, 169, 150, and 125 days, for overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis on the overall cohort did not show a significant relation between SWT and BCR. On subgroup analysis of D'Amico risk group, SWT was positively correlated to BCR for high-risk group (p = 0.001). On threshold analysis, cut-off was found to be 90 days. SWT did not significantly affect BCR on UVA and MVA in the low- and intermediate-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Increased delay to surgery could affect the BCR, as there was a positive association in high-risk group. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the impact of wait time on BCR, cancer specific survival and overall survival.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect patient pathological outcome? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on final pathological outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RARP patient records operated between 2006 and 2015 was conducted. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on postoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) score. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis with a generalized linear model was used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on pathological outcome in individual risk group and on the overall sample.

RESULTS

A total of 835 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean SWT was significantly different between the three D'Amico groups, with mean SWT of 180.22 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 169.03; 191.41), 159.14 days (95% CI 152.38; 165.90), and 138.96 days (95% CI 124.60; 153.33) for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). After stratification by D'Amico risk group, no significant association was observed between SWT and CAPRA-S score in the three risk categories on UVA and MVA. Predictors of higher CAPRA-S score in the multivariable model in the overall cohort were: older age (p=0.014), biopsy Gleason score (p<0.001), percentage of positive cores (p<0.001), and clinical stage (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study evaluating SWT for RARP in a Canadian socialized system, increased delay for surgery does not appear to impact the pathological outcome. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of wait time on biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.

Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely?

OBJECTIVE

To test the prognostic role of treatment delay in patients affected by prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 2,653 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at a single institution between 2006 and 2011. The evaluated outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to test the association between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Nonparametric curve fitting methods were used to graphically explore the relationship between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were repeated in the subgroups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 56 months (interquartile range: 26, 92), 283 patients experienced BCR, and 84 patients developed CR. Median time from PCa diagnosis to surgery was 2.8 months (interquartile range: 1.6, 4.7). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, time from biopsy to RP was significantly associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.02, P = 0.0005) and CR (hazard ratio = 1.03, P = 0.0002). Using Nonparametric curve fitting methods, a significant increased risk of BCR and CR after approximately 18 months was observed. However, when sensitivity analyses were repeated according to risk groups, this effect was maintained in high-risk patients only, and such time interval was reduced to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall trend on higher rate of cancer relapse after RP, the effect of treatment delay from biopsy to RP was significantly evident in high-risk patients only. Even in high-risk patients surgical treatment can be postponed safely, but not beyond the 12-month landmark.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.

CONCLUSION

TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

Delay from biopsy to radical prostatectomy influences the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine maximum wait times between biopsy diagnosis and surgery for localized prostate cancer, beyond which the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes is increased.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 4,610 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 1990 and 2011. Patients were stratified by biopsy Gleason score and PSA value. For each stratification, χ2 analysis was used to determine the smallest 15-day multiple of surgical delay (e.g., 15, 30, 45…180 days) for which adverse pathologic outcomes were significantly more likely after the time interval than before. Adverse outcomes were defined as positive surgical margins, upgrading from biopsy, upstaging, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred twelve patients met inclusion criteria. Median delay was 64 days (mean 76, SD 47). One thousand six hundred seventy-five (75.7%), 537 (24.3%), and 60 (2.7%) patients had delays of <=90, >90, and >180 days, respectively. Twenty-six percent were upgraded on final pathology and 23% were upstaged. The positive surgical margin rate was 24.2% and the positive lymph node rate was 1.1%. Significant increases in the proportion of adverse pathological outcomes were found beyond 75 days in the overall cohort (P = 0.03), 150 days for patients with Gleason <=6, and PSA 0-10 (P = 0.038), 60 days for patients with Gleason 7 and PSA >20 (P = 0.032), and 30 days for patients with Gleason 8-10 and PSA 11-20 (0.041).

CONCLUSION

In low-risk disease, there is a considerable but not unlimited surgical delay which will not adversely impact the rate of adverse pathologic features found. In higher risk disease, this time period is considerably shorter.

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Can delayed time to referral to a tertiary level urologist with an abnormal PSA level affect subsequent Gleason grade in the opportunistically screened population?

PURPOSE

There is growing conflict in the literature describing the effect of delayed treatment on outcomes following radical prostatectomy. There is also evidence to suggest progression of low-risk prostate cancer to develop higher grades and volumes of prostate cancer during active surveillance. It is unknown as to what affect a delay in referral of those men with abnormal screened-PSA levels have on subsequent Gleason grade.

METHODS

We identified 350 men through our rapid access prostate clinic who underwent TRUS biopsy for abnormal age-related PSA and/or abnormal clinical examination. Clinicopathological findings were compared for those with positive versus negative TRUS biopsies, and for those with initial delays in referral (<12 months, 12-18 months, and >18 months). We used ANOVA and Student's t-tests amongst other statistical tools to examine significance of clinical findings.

RESULTS

Of the 350 men who underwent TRUS biopsy, those with a delay in referral of 12 months or more were significantly associated with higher PSA titers, clinically palpable disease and likelihood of diagnosis with prostate cancer. A delay of 18 months or more led to a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with a leading grade 4 prostate cancer, which was further supported using PSA velocity as a diagnostic tool (change >0.4 ng/ml/year).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that repeated asymptomatic abnormal age-related PSA readings and/or abnormal clinical examination in the screened population be referred without delay to a urologist for further assessment, enrolment into an active surveillance program or definitive subsequent treatment.

Fifteen-year mortality after radical prostatectomy: which factors are available for patient counselling?

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to establish 15-year postprostatectomy prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), explore the time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse and identify clinically available prognostic factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 1987 to 2004, 309 men (median age 62 years, range 40-74 years) were prostatectomized for localized prostate cancer at a tertiary referral cancer centre. Slightly modified D'Amico risk groups were identified. PSA relapse was defined as PSA ≥ 4 μg/l before 2000, and thereafter as PSA > 0.2 μg/l. Radical prostatectomy (RP) 3-12 months after diagnosis represented "deferred" RP. PCSM was assessed with competing risk modelling. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

After a median of 12 years, 41 men were dead from prostate cancer and 68 due to other causes [15-year PCSM 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10-19%], with no significant difference in PCSM between the low- and intermediate-risk groups, and the "conventional" high-risk group having 24% PCSM (95% CI 16-32%). PCSM was 33% (95% CI 20-46%) for men with two high-risk factors. The median time to PSA relapse (n = 152) was 5 (range 0-17) years, with a median of 7 (range 0-17) years' survival thereafter. Deferral of RP for up to 1 year had no impact on PCSM for all patients combined.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one in seven men with localized prostate cancer, prostatectomized before the PSA era, will die from the disease within the 15 years post-RP. Men with two high-risk criteria have a particularly poor prognosis. After PSA relapse the median survival is 7 years. The data on deferral of RP need confirmation, taking into account risk group allocation.

Impact of the length of time between diagnosis and surgical removal of urologic neoplasms on survival

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the effect of surgical wait time on the survival of patients with urological neoplasms, including prostate, bladder, penile, and testicular cancers and upper tract tumours (UTUC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Current, relevant studies were identified from the literature. Keywords used for article retrieval were as follows: delay; surgery; prostate cancer; urothelial carcinoma; renal cell carcinoma; testicular cancer; bladder; renal pelvis; ureter; and survival.

RESULTS

Regarding the length of surgical wait time, it does not matter in cases of incidental T1a renal cell carcinomas. In other cases of renal cell carcinomas, surgery should be considered within <1 month; it is of crucial importance in bladder cancer and should be <1 month for a TURBT in cases of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer and <1 month for a radical cystectomy in cases of muscle-invasive bladder cancer; it is important in invasive UTUC and should be <1 month for a radical nephroureterectomy; it is not crucial in cases of low-risk prostate cancer. In any other case, radical prostatectomy should be considered within <2 months; it is important in testicular cancer and should be fewer than 10 days for an orchiectomy.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged surgical wait times have an impact on the overall quality of life and anxiety of the patient. Extending the wait time beyond a given threshold can also have a negative impact on the patient's clinical outcomes, but this threshold differs between urological neoplasms.

Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Delaying definitive therapy unfavourably affects outcomes in many malignancies. Diagnostic, psychological, and logistical reasons but also active surveillance (AS) strategies can lead to treatment delay, an increase in the interval between the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the current literature on the impact of treatment delay on PCa oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases until 30 September 2012 was performed. Studies comparing pathologic, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and mortality outcomes between patients receiving direct and delayed curative treatment were included. Studies presenting single-arm results following AS were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventeen studies were included: 13 on radical prostatectomy, 3 on radiation therapy, and 1 combined both. A total of 34 517 PCa patients receiving radical local therapy between 1981 and 2009 were described. Some studies included low-risk PCa only; others included a wider spectrum of disease. Four studies found a significant effect of treatment delay on outcomes in multivariate analysis. Two included low-risk patients only, but it was unknown whether AS was applied or repeat biopsy triggered active therapy during AS. The two other studies found a negative effect on BCR rates of 2.5-9 mo delay in higher risk patients (respectively defined as any with T ≥ 2b, prostate-specific antigen >10, Gleason score >6, >34-50% positive cores; or D'Amico intermediate risk-group). All studies were retrospective and nonrandomised. Reasons for delay were not always clear, and time-to-event analyses may be subject to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delay of several months or even years does not appear to affect outcomes of men with low-risk PCa. Limited data suggest treatment delay may have an impact on men with non-low-risk PCa. Most AS protocols suggest a confirmatory biopsy to avoid delaying treatment in those who harbour higher risk disease that was initially misclassified.