179 research outputs found
Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review.
Full text linkCONTEXT
The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed.
OBJECTIVE
To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact
Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients
No full textItem does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To test the expandability of active surveillance (AS) to Gleason score 3+4 cancers by assessing the unfavorable disease risk in a large multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis including 2,323 patients with localized Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2013 from 6 academic centers. We analyzed the rates of biopsy downgrading/upgrading and advanced stage in the overall cohort by employing standardized AS criteria (using biopsy Gleason score 3+4). RESULTS: The final pathologic Gleason score was 3+3 = 6 in 8%, 3+4 = 7 in 67%, 4+3 = 7 in 20%, and 8 to 10 in 5% cases. The overall rate of unfavorable disease (upgrading or advanced stage or both) was 46%. In multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>10ng/ml, PSA density (PSAD) >0.15ng/ml/g, clinical stage >T1, and>2 positive cores were predictors of unfavorable disease. According to the AS criteria used, the risk of unfavorable disease ranged from 30% to 42%. In patients without any risk factor (PSA level</=10ng/ml, PSAD </=0.15ng/ml/g, T1c, and</=2 positive cores), the unfavorable disease rate was 19%. The main limitations of this study are the retrospective design and nonstandardization of pathologic assessment between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 cancer have unfavorable disease at final pathology. Nevertheless, expanding AS eligibility to these patients may be acceptable provided adherence to strict selection criteria leading to a<20% risk of unfavorable disease. Future tools for selection such as magnetic resonance imaging, early rebiopsy, and serum markers may be especially beneficial in this group of patients
The Contemporary Use of Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.
Full text linkRadium-223 dichloride (radium-223) was approved for the treatment of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and symptomatic bone metastases in the United States and Europe in 2013. This followed a reported overall survival benefit for patients treated with radium-223 and best standard of care (BSoC) when compared with placebo and BSoC in the ALpharadin in SYMptomatic Prostate CAncer (ALSYMPCA) trial. At that time, docetaxel was the standard first-line choice for patients with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Since then, the treatment landscape has changed dramatically with new hormonal agents (abiraterone and enzalutamide) considered to be the first-line choice for many patients. The optimal patient profile for radium-223 in the modern setting, and its best use either in sequence or in combination with other approved agents are unclear, with few definitive guidelines available. This article reports on the views of a group of urologists and medical oncologists experienced in treating patients with mCRPC with radium-223 in routine clinical practice. The aim is to provide an overview of the current use of radium-223 in the treatment of patients with mCRPC, and to discuss best practices for patient selection and on-treatment monitoring. Where agreement was reached, guidance on the optimal use of radium-223 is provided
Preferences in the management of high-risk prostate cancer among urologists in Europe: results of a web-based survey.
Full text linkOBJECTIVE: To explore preferences in the management of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) among urologists in Europe through a web-based survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted between 15 August and 15 September 2013 by members of the Prostate Cancer Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party of the European Association of Urology (EAU). A specific, 29-item multiple-choice questionnaire covering the whole spectrum of diagnosis, staging and treatment of high-risk PCa was e-mailed to all urologists included in the mailing list of EAU members. Europe was divided into four geographical regions: Central-Eastern Europe (CEE), Northern Europe (NE), Southern Europe (SE) and Western Europe (WE). Descriptive statistics were used. Differences among sample segments were obtained from a z-test compared with the total sample. RESULTS: Of the 12 850 invited EAU members, 585 urologists practising in Europe completed the survey. High-risk PCa was defined as serum PSA ≥20 ng/mL or clinical stage ≥ T3 or biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8 by 67% of responders, without significant geographical variations. The preferred single-imaging examinations for staging were bone scan (74%, 81% in WE and 70% in SE; P = 0.02 for both), magnetic resonance imaging (53%, 72% in WE and 40% in SE; P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively) and computed tomography (45%, 60% in SE and 23% in WE; P = 0.01 for both). Pre-treatment predictive tools were routinely used by 62% of the urologists, without significant geographical variations. The preferred treatment was radical prostatectomy as the initial step of a multiple-treatment approach (60%, 40% in NE and 70% in CEE; P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively), followed by external beam radiation therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (29%, 45% in NE and 20% in CEE; P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), and radical prostatectomy as monotherapy (4%, 7% in WE; P = 0.04). When surgery was performed, the open retropubic approach was the most popular (58%, 74% in CEE, 37% in NE; P < 0.01 for both). Pelvic lymph node dissection was performed by 96% of urologists, equally split between a standard and extended template. There was no consensus on the definition of disease recurrence after primary treatment, and much heterogeneity in the administration of adjuvant and salvage treatments. CONCLUSION: With the limitation of a low response rate, the present study is the first survey evaluating preferences in the management of high-risk PCa among urologists in Europe. Although the definition of high-risk PCa was fairly uniform, wide variations in patterns of primary and adjuvant/salvage treatments were observed. These differences might translate into variations in quality of care with a possible impact on ultimate oncological outcome
A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer
Full text linkContext
The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain.
Objective
To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT.
Evidence acquisition
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Evidence synthesis
Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40–0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5–6 yr of 4.9–16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53–1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63–1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5–6 yr of 6.4–7% across the two RCTs.
Conclusions
EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control.
Patient summary
We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear
Working Paper 10-08 - The PLANET Model: Methodological Report
Full text linkFreight and passenger transport model, Transport externalities
MP33-17 POTENTIAL ROLE OF A NOVEL URINARY BIOMARKER-BASED RISK SCORE TO SELECT PATIENTS FOR MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI FOR PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION.
No full textPD47-05 ELDERLY PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS HAVE A WORSE PROGNOSIS THAN YOUNGER PATIENTS: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY IN THE NETHERLANDS.
No full text
Nationwide treatment patterns and survival of older patients with prostate cancer
No full textObjectives: To examine the clinical features, applied treatments, and survival of older patients with prostate cancer compared with younger patients. Material and Methods: All patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the Netherlands were identified from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Patient and tumour characteristics, as well as applied treatments, were described by age groups and prognostic risk groups. Relative survival rates were determined, including multivariable relative survival regression analyses. Additionally, to assess if age was associated with receiving curative treatment, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: In total, 48% of all patients were 70 years of age or older. Older patients had a higher prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, a higher Gleason score, as well as a higher disease stage at diagnosis. The 10-year relative survival decreased with increasing age, and after adjustment for disease stage, Gleason score, PSA level, and comorbidities, older patients had a worse survival rate. Older patients with intermediate- or high-risk disease appeared to be treated less often with curative intent compared with younger patients after adjustment for tumour stage, Gleason score, PSA level, and comorbidities. Older patients with intermediate/high risk prostate cancer treated with curative intent showed a 10-year relative survival rate similar to younger patients. Conclusion: The survival of older patients was worse than younger patients. This might be due to suboptimal treatment, as older patients were less often treated with curative intent. Although the increased risk of treatment complications should be considered, age alone should not be a decisive factor when offering a treatment
- …
