PURPOSE In the absence of high-level evidence or clinical guidelines supporting any given active treatment approach over another for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may ...lead to substantial variation in treatment use. METHODS Data were analyzed from 36 clinical sites that contributed data to the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry. Distribution of primary treatment use was measured over time. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the D'Amico risk groups and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a hierarchical model was constructed that controlled for year of diagnosis, cancer risk variables, and other patient factors to estimate the proportion of variation in primary treatment selection explicable by practice site. Results Among 11,892 men analyzed, 6.8% elected surveillance, 49.9% prostatectomy, 11.6% external-beam radiation, 13.3% brachytherapy, 4.0% cryoablation, and 14.4% androgen deprivation monotherapy. Prostate cancer risk drives treatment selection, but the data suggest both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. The former trend appears to be improving over time, while the latter is worsening. Treatment varies with age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic status. However, treatment patterns vary markedly across clinical sites, and this variation is not explained by case-mix variability or known patient factors. Practice site explains a proportion of this variation ranging from 13% for androgen deprivation monotherapy to 74% for cryoablation. CONCLUSION Substantial variation exists in management of localized prostate cancer that is not explained by measurable factors. A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate cancer to help guide treatment decision making.
Summary Background Postoperative radiotherapy has an important role in the treatment of prostate cancer, but personalised patient selection could improve outcomes and spare unnecessary toxicity. We ...aimed to develop and validate a gene expression signature to predict which patients would benefit most from postoperative radiotherapy. Methods Patients were eligible for this matched, retrospective study if they were included in one of five published US studies (cohort, case-cohort, and case-control studies) of patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who had radical prostatectomy (with or without postoperative radiotherapy) and had gene expression analysis of the tumour, with long-term follow-up and complete clinicopathological data. Additional treatment after surgery was at the treating physician’s discretion. In each cohort, patients who had postoperative radiotherapy were matched with patients who had not had radiotherapy using Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen concentration, surgical margin status, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node invasion, and androgen deprivation therapy. We constructed a matched training cohort using patients from one study in which we developed a 24-gene Post-Operative Radiation Therapy Outcomes Score (PORTOS). We generated a pooled matched validation cohort using patients from the remaining four studies. The primary endpoint was the development of distant metastasis. Findings In the training cohort (n=196), among patients with a high PORTOS (n=39), those who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis than did patients who did not have radiotherapy, with a 10-year metastasis rate of 5% (95% CI 0–14) in patients who had radiotherapy (n=20) and 63% (34–80) in patients who did not have radiotherapy (n=19; hazard ratio HR 0·12 95% CI 0·03–0·41, p<0·0001), whereas among patients with a low PORTOS (n=157), those who had postoperative radiotherapy (n=78) had a greater incidence of distant metastasis at 10 years than did their untreated counterparts (n=79; 57% 44–67 vs 31% 20–41; HR 2·5 1·6–4·1, p<0·0001), with a significant treatment interaction (pinteraction <0·0001). The finding that PORTOS could predict outcome due to radiotherapy treatment was confirmed in the validation cohort (n=330), which showed that patients who had radiotherapy had a lower incidence of distant metastasis compared with those who did not have radiotherapy, but only in the high PORTOS group (high PORTOS n=82: 4% 95% CI 0–10 in the radiotherapy group n=57 vs 35% 95% CI 7–54 in the no radiotherapy group n=25 had metastasis at 10 years; HR 0·15 95% CI 0·04–0·60, p=0·0020; low PORTOS n=248: 32% 95% CI 19–43 in the radiotherapy group n=108 vs 32% 95% CI 22–40 in the no radiotherapy group n=140; HR 0·92 95% CI 0·56–1·51, p=0·76), with a significant interaction (pinteraction =0·016). The conventional prognostic tools Decipher, CAPRA-S, and microarray version of the cell cycle progression signature did not predict response to radiotherapy (pinteraction >0·05 for all). Interpretation Patients with a high PORTOS who had postoperative radiotherapy were less likely to have metastasis at 10 years than those who did not have radiotherapy, suggesting that treatment with postoperative radiotherapy should be considered in this subgroup. PORTOS should be investigated further in additional independent cohorts. Funding None.
Older men are more likely to be diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer and to have lower overall survival. As a result, age often plays a role in treatment choice. However, the relationships among ...age, disease risk, and prostate cancer-specific survival have not been well established.
We studied men in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database with complete risk, treatment, and follow-up information. High-risk patients were identified by using the validated Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. Competing risks regression was used to identify the independent impact of age on cancer-specific survival. We also analyzed the effect of local treatment on survival among older men with high-risk disease.
In all, 26% of men age ≥ 75 years presented with high-risk disease (CAPRA score 6 to 10). Treatment varied markedly with age across risk strata; older men were more likely to receive androgen deprivation monotherapy. Controlling for treatment modality alone, or for treatment and risk, age did not independently predict cancer-specific survival. Furthermore, controlling for age, comorbidity, and risk, older men with high-risk tumors receiving local therapy had a 46% reduction in mortality compared with those treated conservatively.
Older patients are more likely to have high-risk prostate cancer at diagnosis and less likely to receive local therapy. Indeed, underuse of potentially curative local therapy among older men with high-risk disease may in part explain observed differences in cancer-specific survival across age strata. These findings support making decisions regarding treatment on the basis of disease risk and life expectancy rather than on chronologic age.
Widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) -based screening and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer have reduced mortality rates substantially, but both remain controversial in large part because ...of high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent tumors. Active surveillance--or close monitoring of PSA levels combined with periodic imaging and repeat biopsies--is gaining acceptance as an alternative initial management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. In reported series, rates of progression to active treatment with intermediate-term follow-up have ranged from 14% to 41%, and likelihood of subsequent cure with surgery or radiation does not seem to be compromised by an initial trial of surveillance. Two related challenges to broader acceptance of surveillance are better characterization at time of diagnosis of the risk of progression (including likelihood that given tumor may have been undersampled by diagnostic biopsy) and validation of optimal end points once surveillance begins. Both are subjects of intense ongoing investigation, with emerging biomarkers and novel imaging tests expected to facilitate decision making substantially. Recent reports have suggested active surveillance can be a cost-effective approach and preserve quality of life, but these questions must be assessed more definitively in prospective cohorts. Ultimately, by minimizing the harms of overtreating low-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance may help settle the controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening and management.
The emergence of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020 created unprecedented challenges in the provision of scheduled ambulatory cancer care. As a result, there has been a renewed ...focus on video-based telehealth consultations as a means to continue ambulatory care.
The aim of this study is to analyze the change in video visit volume at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Comprehensive Cancer Center in response to COVID-19 and compare patient demographics and appointment data from January 1, 2020, and in the 11 weeks after the transition to video visits.
Patient demographics and appointment data (dates, visit types, and departments) were extracted from the electronic health record reporting database. Video visits were performed using a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant video conferencing platform with a pre-existing workflow.
In 17 departments and divisions at the UCSF Cancer Center, 2284 video visits were performed in the 11 weeks before COVID-19 changes were implemented (mean 208, SD 75 per week) and 12,946 video visits were performed in the 11-week post-COVID-19 period (mean 1177, SD 120 per week). The proportion of video visits increased from 7%-18% to 54%-72%, between the pre- and post-COVID-19 periods without any disparity based on race/ethnicity, primary language, or payor.
In a remarkably brief period of time, we rapidly scaled the utilization of telehealth in response to COVID-19 and maintained access to complex oncologic care at a time of social distancing.
Abstract Background Few studies have reported on late declines and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Objective We assessed long-term HRQOL ...following various treatments for localized PCa. Design, setting, and participants This cohort study of HRQOL up to 10 yr after treatment used a prospectively accrued, nationwide PCa registry that collects longitudinal patient-reported HRQOL. Intervention Various primary treatments for localized PCa. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The Medical Outcomes Studies 36-item Short Form and the University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index characterized physical function, mental health, and sexual, urinary, and bowel function and bother. Repeated measures mixed-model analysis assessed change in HRQOL by treatment over time, and logistic regression was used to measure the likelihood of a clinically significant decline in HRQOL. Results and limitations Among 3294 men, 1139 (34%) underwent nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP), 860 (26%) underwent non-NSRP, 684 (21%) underwent brachytherapy, 386 (12%) underwent external beam radiotherapy, 161 (5%) underwent primary androgen deprivation therapy, and 64 (2%) pursued watchful waiting/active surveillance. Median follow-up was 74 mo (interquartile range: 50–102). Most treatments resulted in early declines in HRQOL, with some recovery over the next 1–2 yr and a plateau in scores thereafter. Surgery had the largest impact on sexual function and bother and on urinary function, radiation had the strongest effect on bowel function, and androgen deprivation therapy had the strongest effect on physical function. The main limitation was attrition among the cohort. Conclusions Although most men experience initial declines in HRQOL in the first 2 yr after treatment, there is little change from 3 to 10 yr and most differences between treatments attenuated over time. Patient summary Various treatments for prostate cancer result in a distinct constellation of adverse effects on health-related quality of life, which may have a long-term impact. These findings are helpful regarding shared decision making over choice of primary treatment.
Abstract Context Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality ...of life issues surround PCa interventions. Objective To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs. Evidence acquisition A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS for PCa. The search terms used included prostate cancer and active surveillance or conservative management or watchful waiting or expectant management. Selected studies for outcomes analysis had to provide a comprehensive description of entry characteristics, criteria for surveillance, and indicators for further intervention. Evidence synthesis Data from seven large AS series were reviewed. Inclusion criteria for surveillance vary among studies, and eligibility therefore varies considerably (4–82%). PCa-specific mortality remains low (0–1%), with the longest published median follow-up being 6.8 yr. Up to one-third of patients receive secondary therapy after a median of about 2.5 yr of surveillance. Surveillance protocols and triggers for intervention vary among institutions. Most patients are treated for histologic reclassification (27–100%) or prostate-specific antigen doubling time <3 yr (13–48%), while 7–13% are treated with no evidence of progression. Repeat prostate biopsy with a minimum of 12 cores appears to be important for monitoring patients for changes in tumor histology over time. Conclusions AS for PCa offers an opportunity to limit intervention to patients who will likely benefit the most from radical treatment. This approach confers a low risk of disease-specific mortality in the short to intermediate term. An early, confirmatory biopsy is essential for limiting the risk of underestimating tumor grade and amount.
Background Although many tools for the assessment of prostate cancer risk have been published, most are designed to predict only biochemical recurrence, usually after a single specified treatment. We ...assessed the accuracy of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, which was validated previously to predict pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy, to predict metastases, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and all-cause mortality. Methods We studied 10 627 men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry, who underwent primary radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy (external beam or interstitial), androgen deprivation monotherapy, or watchful waiting/active surveillance, and had at least 6 months of follow-up after treatment. CAPRA scores were calculated at diagnosis from the prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, percentage of biopsy cores that were positive for cancer, clinical tumor stage, and age at diagnosis. Survival was studied with Kaplan–Meier analyses. Associations between increasing CAPRA scores and bone metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality were examined by use of proportional hazards regression, with adjustment for primary treatment; for all-cause mortality, the analysis also included adjustment for age and comorbidity. Accuracy of the CAPRA score was assessed with the concordance (c)-index. Results Among the 10 627 patients, 311 (2.9%) men developed bone metastases, 251 (2.4%) died of prostate cancer, and 1582 (14.9%) died of other causes. Each single-point increase in the CAPRA score was associated with increased bone metastases (hazard ratio HR for bone metastases = 1.47, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.39 to 1.56), cancer-specific mortality (HR for prostate cancer death = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.48), and all-cause mortality (HR for death = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.16). The CAPRA score was accurate for predicting metastases (c-index = 0.78), cancer-specific mortality (c-index = 0.80), and all-cause mortality (c-index = 0.71). Conclusions In a large cohort of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed with one of five primary modalities, the CAPRA score predicted clinical prostate cancer endpoints with good accuracy. These results support the value of the CAPRA score as a risk assessment and stratification tool for both research studies and clinical practice.
PDF
