Patterns of care and treatment trends for Canadian men with localized low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of provincial cancer registry data

Treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in a remote area: A cross-sectional, observational study

INTRODUCTION

For the management of localized prostate cancer, patient treatment choice is poorly documented among people living in remote areas, where access to certain treatments offered in large centers involves travelling several hundred kilometres. This study aimed to describe and identify the determinants of treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in remote areas.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with prostate cancer were recruited from Rouyn-Noranda's urology clinic (Quebec, Canada) between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 127 men (mean age 68.34±7.23 years) constituted the study sample. Radiotherapy, a treatment not available locally, was chosen most frequently (67.7%), followed by options available locally, such as surgery (22.8%) and active surveillance (9.4%). Most patients preferred to play an active role in this choice (53.5%) and agreed with the statement, "I chose that treatment because it gives the best chance for a cure" (86.6%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that cancer stage (odds ratio [OR] 10.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.18-32.40) was the only factor associated with radiotherapy choice (patients with lower stage cancer were more likely to choose radiotherapy). The socioeconomic status was not associated with treatment choice.

CONCLUSIONS

While radiotherapy was not available locally, it was the most frequently chosen treatment, even though the available literature suggests that no one treatment option is superior in terms of cancer control. The choice of radiotherapy is not associated with patient income, but rather the cancer stage. This result could be explained by the patients' desire to avoid surgery and its adverse effects.

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.

Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare long-term (4-10 years) quality of life (QoL) of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated by different modalities and a reference group without PCa.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, four groups were sent a one-time QoL-questionnaire; PCa patients (1) following the structured Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance protocol, (2) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-section Rotterdam, (3) who underwent radiotherapy (RT) at an academic hospital in The Netherlands, and (4) an age-matched reference group of men without PCa. The QoL-questionnaire addressed prostate-specific health (EPIC), generic health (SF-12), and anxiety (STAI-6). Statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) and clinical relevance (≥0.5 SD) of differences between groups were assessed.

RESULTS

The AS, RP, RT, and reference group response rates amounted to 74% (122/165), 66% (70/106), 66% (221/335), and 75% (205/273), respectively. At a mean of 6.6 years of follow-up, active surveillance (AS)-men reported better urinary function [M = 93.0 (SD = 10.6) vs. 80.0 (SD = 19.1), p ≤ 0.001], less urinary incontinence [M = 90.0 (SD = 14.6) vs. 70.1 (SD = 28.8), p ≤ 0.001], and better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 14.8 (17.7), p ≤ 0.001, clinically relevant] than RP-men. Compared to RT, AS-men reported better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 25.8 (SD = 25.0), p = 0.069]. The four groups reported similarly low anxiety levels; the number of highly anxious men (STAI ≥ 44) ranged from 8 to 13%. For all QoL domains, men on AS and men without PCa reported very similar scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate-specific function of AS-men was significantly better than that of RP-men. When comparing AS to RT, a borderline significant difference in sexual function was seen. Men who followed an AS strategy for a long-term period were not anxious and accepted it well, suggesting that AS may be a good treatment option for men with low-risk PCa.

The Impact of Repeat Prostate Biopsies on Oncologic, Pathological and Perioperative Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

The impact of repeat biopsy sessions on radical prostatectomy remains controversial regarding perioperative, pathological and oncologic outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the records of 12,624 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2007 to 2013. The association of the number of biopsy sessions (range 1 to 3 or more) with pathological outcomes and perioperative complications was analyzed using the Wilcoxon matched pair test. To test the association between biopsy sessions and biochemical recurrence-free survival we used Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the patients 89.2% had 1 biopsy session, 7.4% had 2 sessions and 3.4% had 3 or more sessions. Median followup was 36.6 months. In patients with 1, 2 and 3 or more biopsy sessions prostate volume (38, 44 and 45 ml) and prostate specific antigen (6.7, 7.6 and 10.1 ng/ml, respectively) were greater (each p <0.001). The perioperative outcome was more favorable. Patients with 1, 2 and 3 or more biopsy sessions more often had organ confined tumors (67.6%, 72.1% and 72.9%, p = 0.003) and higher tumor volume (3.1, 3.0 and 3.6 ml, p <0.001) but a lower tumor percent (7.5%, 3.7% and 2.4%, respectively, p <0.001). More biopsy sessions were associated with fewer lymph node metastases (1, 2 and 3 sessions 0.23, 0.13 and 0.17, respectively, p <0.001). Gleason score and surgical margin status did not differ. The overall biochemical recurrence rate was 18.9% and it was comparable among the biopsy groups. No association was found between the number of biopsies and biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with multiple biopsy sessions experience a slightly more favorable pathological outcome without an impact on the oncologic outcome. The perioperative outcome was more favorable in patients with multiple biopsies.