Incidence, Prevalence, and Survival of Prostate Cancer in the UK.

Importance: Incidence, prevalence, and survival are pertinent measures to inform the management and provision of prostate cancer care. Objective: To calculate the incidence, prevalence, and survival rates for prostate cancer in the UK from 2000 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study uses routinely collected primary care data from the UK. Male patients aged 18 years or older with at least 1 year of history registered in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD or Aurum were included. Data were analyzed from January 2023 to March 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer incidence rates (IR), period prevalence (PP), and 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival after diagnosis between 2000 and 2021, stratified by age and calendar years. Results: This study included 64 925 and 133 200 patients with prostate cancer in CPRD GOLD and Aurum, respectively, with a median age of 72 (65-78) years. The overall IR of prostate cancer was 151.7 (95% CI, 150.6 to 152.9) per 100 000 person-years in GOLD to 153.1 (95% CI, 152.3 to 153.9) per 100 000 person-years for Aurum and increased with age. The incidence of prostate cancer increased from 109 per 100 000 person-years in 2000 to 159 per 100 000 person-years in 2021. Peaks of incidence occurred in 2004 and 2018, before a decline in 2020. PP increased 3.5 times over the study period for both databases, from 0.4% in 2000 to 1.4% in 2021. IR and PP were highest in those aged 80 to 89 years. Median (95% CI) survival was similar in both databases (GOLD: 10.9 [95% CI, 10.7-11.1] years and Aurum: 11.1 [95% CI, 11.0-11.2] years). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years after diagnosis were 93.4% (95% CI, 93.2%-93.6%), 71.8% (95% CI, 71.4%-72.2%), 53.2% (95% CI, 52.6%-53.7%) in GOLD and 93.9% (95% CI, 93.7%-94.0%), 72.7% (95% CI, 72.5%-73.0%), 53.7% (95% CI, 53.3%-54.1%) in AURUM, respectively. Survival increased over time: 1-year survival was 94.8% (95% CI, 94.5%-95.2%) in those diagnosed between 2015 to 2019 compared with 90.8% (95% CI, 90.2%-91.3%) from 2000 to 2004; 5-year survival improved from 65.3% (95% CI, 64.4%-66.3%) from 2000 to 2004 to 75.3% (95% CI, 74.4%-76.3%) in 2015 to 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, incidence and prevalence increased with older age, with high survival rates reflecting a high burden of disease, particularly in the management of cancer survivorship in an aging population. Health care systems should consider this when managing the increasing numbers of people with prevalent prostate cancer.

Collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on endocrine treatments for breast and prostate cancer in the UK: a cohort study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected cancer screening, diagnosis and treatments. Many surgeries were substituted with bridging therapies during the initial lockdown, yet consideration of treatment side effects and their management was not a priority. Objectives: To examine how the changing social restrictions imposed by the pandemic affected incidence and trends of endocrine treatment prescriptions in newly diagnosed (incident) breast and prostate cancer patients and, secondarily, endocrine treatment-related outcomes (including bisphosphonate prescriptions, osteopenia and osteoporosis), in UK clinical practice from March 2020 to June 2022. Design: Population-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Methods: There were 13,701 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and 12,221 prostate cancer patients with ⩾1-year data availability since diagnosis between January 2017 and June 2022. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated across multiple time periods before and after lockdown to examine the impact of changing social restrictions on endocrine treatments and treatment-related outcomes, including osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. Results: In breast cancer patients, aromatase inhibitor (AI) prescriptions increased during lockdown versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.34)], followed by a decrease post-first lockdown [IRR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69-0.89)]. In prostate cancer patients, first-generation antiandrogen prescriptions increased versus pre-pandemic [IRR: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.08-1.4)]. For breast cancer patients on AIs, diagnoses of osteopenia, osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions were reduced across all lockdown periods versus pre-pandemic (IRR range: 0.31-0.62). Conclusion: During the first 2 years of the pandemic, newly diagnosed breast and prostate cancer patients were prescribed more endocrine treatments compared to pre-pandemic due to restrictions on hospital procedures replacing surgeries with bridging therapies. But breast cancer patients had fewer diagnoses of osteopenia and osteoporosis and bisphosphonate prescriptions. These patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning. Evidence of poorer management of treatment-related side effects will help assess resource allocation for patients at high risk for bone-related complications.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hormone treatments for breast and prostate cancer in the UK: implications for bone health The COVID-19 pandemic has had a big impact on health, going beyond just causing illness. One area it has influenced is how patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer are treated. Surgeries and radiotherapies were delayed from the first lockdown as hospitals reduced non-covid related procedures. Some patients with breast or prostate cancer were instead given some medications to help stop their cancers from growing until they were able to have surgery or radiotherapy. These medications (called endocrine treatments) have important side effects, such as conditions that affect the bones. Patients on these medications should be monitored by doctors for signs of bone thinning and should, in some cases, be given other medications to help stop this happening. This study used doctors' records from more than 5 million people to find out whether the pandemic affected the number of endocrine medications being prescribed in patients with breast or prostate cancer, and also looked at the number of these patients that were diagnosed with conditions that affect their bones and whether they were given medications that could protect their bone health. We found that during the first lockdown, patients with breast cancer or prostate cancer had more of some types of endocrine treatments compared to before the lockdown. However, they had fewer diagnoses of conditions related to bone health and fewer medications to protect their bones. It is possible that appointments and tests that are usually carried out to diagnose conditions relating to bone health were not performed in the months after the first lockdown, and so these conditions were underdiagnosed. The use of medications to protect their bones was also reduced, likely because this was not considered a priority during the pandemic. This highlights that such patients should be followed up in the coming years for signs of bone thinning, given the relatively poorer management of these side effects in these people after the pandemic.

IROCA-TES: Improving Quality in Radiation Oncology through Clinical Audits - Training and Education for Standardization.

Background: Clinical audits are an important tool to objectively assess clinical protocols, procedures, and processes and to detect deviations from good clinical practice. The main aim of this project is to determine adherence to a core set of consensus- based quality indicators and then to compare the institutions in order to identify best practices. Materials and methods: We conduct a multicentre, international clinical audit of six comprehensive cancer centres in Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, and Romania as a part of the project, known as IROCATES (Improving Quality in Radiation Oncology through Clinical Audits - Training and Education for Standardization). Results: Radiotherapy practice varies from country to country, in part due to historical, economic, linguistic, and cultural differences. The institutions developed their own processes to suit their existing clinical practice. Conclusions: We believe that this study will contribute to establishing the value of routinely performing multi-institutional clinical audits and will lead to improvement of radiotherapy practice at the participating centres.