Active Surveillance with Selective Delayed Intervention: A Biologically Nuanced Approach to Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer

Preoperative exercise interventions to optimize continence outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Urinary incontinence is a common and predictable consequence among men with localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Despite advances in the surgical technique, urinary continence recovery time remains variable. A range of surgical and patient-related risk factors contributing to urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy have been described, including age, BMI, membranous urethral length and urethral sphincter insufficiency. Physical activity interventions incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training and pelvic floor muscle training programmes can positively influence the return to continence in men after radical prostatectomy. Traditional approaches to improving urinary continence after radical prostatectomy have typically focused on interventions delivered during the postoperative period (rehabilitation). However, the limited efficacy of these postoperative approaches has led to a shift from the traditional reactive model of care to more comprehensive interventions incorporating exercise-based programmes that begin in the preoperative period (prehabilitation) and continue after surgery. Comprehensive prehabilitation interventions include appropriately prescribed aerobic exercise, resistance training and specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and exercise training programmes. Transperineal ultrasonography is a non-invasive and validated method for the visualization of the action of the pelvic floor musculature, providing real-time visual biofeedback to the patient during specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and training. Importantly, the waiting time before surgery can be used for the delivery of comprehensive prehabilitation exercise-based interventions to increase patient preparedness in the lead-up to surgery and optimize continence and health-related quality-of-life outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up.

SETTING

Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy.

TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy).

LIMITATIONS

A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture.

DESIGN

We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation.

SETTING

Five NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa.

INTERVENTIONS

Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The randomisation of 80 men.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted.

FUTURE WORK

Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate (1) the time interval between a decision to commence on active surveillance (AS) and grade progression in community practice; (2) factors predicting grade progression in localised prostate cancer (CaP) patients apparently undergoing AS.

METHODS

Data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria were used to analyze men with Gleason 3 + 3 CaP or less who had at least one repeat biopsy. Unadjusted and adjusted 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess the time to grade progression. Both univariate and multivariate analyses for grade progression were performed using Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

The cohort included 951 men. Overall, 39% of men had Gleason grade reclassified to a higher risk disease state with median of 2.2 years [IQR 1.2-3.7 years]. Men who harboured cT2 disease were 30% more likely to have upgrading compared to men with cT1 disease (adjusted HR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.048). Half of the men with cT2 in our cohort had their Gleason grade reclassified within 1.6 years from diagnosis as compared with 2.7 years for the cT1 group. The presence of percentage of core involvement >25.0% and a PSA velocity of >1.01 ng/mL/year remained significant for a higher progression rate. The adjusted HR: 1.6; 95% CI [1.2-2.3], p = 0.004; adjusted HR: 1.6, 95% CI [1.2-2.4], p = 0.021, for percent of core involvement of 25.1-37.5%, and ≥37.6%, respectively. The adjusted HRs and p value associated with PSA velocity were 1.5; 95% CI [1.1-2.1], p = 0.016 and 1.6; 95% CI [1.2-2.3], p = 0.003 for PSA velocity values of 1.01-2 ng/mL per year and >2 ng/mL per year, respectively. Men who were diagnosed in regional hospital and subsequently had biopsy in metropolitan hospital were twice at risk of having Gleason upgrade compared to those whom both diagnostic and surveillance biopsies were carried out in metropolitan hospitals (adjusted HR: 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

When placing men on AS and considering time to histologic progression, clinicians should pay particular attention to the likely accuracy of the diagnostic specimen, their tumour stage, volume of tumour (percent of core involvement), and rising PSA. Those diagnosed with T2 disease and had >25.0% of core involvement, and a PSA velocity greater than 1 ng/mL per year is at particular risk for more rapid disease progression and, for this reason, should be counselled on the importance of following the recommended surveillance regimen. For half of these men, their disease will have 'progressed' according to biopsy results in 2 years.

Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

The frequently indolent nature of early-stage prostate cancer in older men and in men with low- or moderate-grade tumors and the demonstration that the survival benefits of radical prostatectomy are primarily among men younger than 65 years have led to concerns about prostate cancer overtreatment.

METHODS

Using data from 13 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 71,602 men who were diagnosed with localized or regional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2002. We quantified the incidence of initial curative therapy (i.e., surgery or radiation therapy) among men with lower-risk cancers as defined by their limited likelihood of either dying from expectantly managed prostate cancer or achieving a survival benefit from local therapy. Stratified analyses and multinomial logistic regression models were used to quantify the absolute and relative rates of curative therapy among men in various age-grade strata. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 24,405 men with lower-risk prostate cancers and complete data for the first course of treatment. Initial curative therapy was undertaken in 13,537 of these men (55%); 81% of treated men received radiation therapy. The likelihood of curative therapy, relative to expectant management, varied statistically significantly among lower-risk age-grade strata (all P<.05). Assuming that initial expectant management is appropriate for all lower-risk cancers, 2564 men (10%) in this population-based sample were overtreated with radical prostatectomy and 10,973 (45%) with radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These data quantify a target population for whom greater use of expectant approaches may reduce overtreatment and improve the quality of localized prostate cancer care.

Communicating prostate cancer risk: what should we be telling our patients?

Until definitive evidence of the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is available, most guidelines advocate that men make their own decisions about testing, after being fully informed. A man's perception of his personal risk is a key element in the decision-making process. In this decision-making, the current routine use of population risk estimates may be misleading. Risk estimates need to be relevant to the man making the choice. In particular, they should be age-specific and, where possible, include adjustments for known risk factors such as family history. As an example, although the population risk of lung cancer mortality is twice that of prostate cancer, for a non-smoking man with a family history of prostate cancer the direction of this comparison would be reversed. A man aged 50 diagnosed with prostate cancer has a greater likelihood (60%) of dying prematurely (before 80 years) from prostate cancer than a man diagnosed when aged 70 (38%). This can be attributed to the longer time available for the prostate cancer to progress, and the increased effect of competing causes of death among older men. This suggests that the oft-used statement "men are more likely to die with prostate cancer than from prostate cancer" is misleading, particularly for men diagnosed in their 50s or 60s. Decisions need to be made by men based on the best possible understanding of their personal vulnerability, and the individualisation of risk provides a more realistic appraisal of potential threat posed by the disease.