Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Diagnostic Imaging in the Evaluation of Asymptomatic Microhematuria: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Microhematuria is a highly prevalent condition with a low associated risk of urothelial and upper tract malignancy. The AUA Guidelines recently changed recommendations for imaging favoring renal ultrasound for low- and intermediate-risk patients with microhematuria. We summarize the diagnostic test characteristics of computed tomography urography, renal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance urography in comparison with surgical pathology for the diagnosis of upper urinary tract cancer in microhematuria and gross hematuria patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines from evidence collected for the 2020 AUA Microhematuria Guidelines report, including studies assessing imaging following diagnosis of hematuria published from January 2010 through December 2019. RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies which reported the prevalence of malignant and benign diagnoses in relation to imaging modality, of which 6 were included in the quantitative analysis. For the detection of renal cell carcinoma and upper urinary tract carcinoma in patients with microhematuria and gross hematuria, computed tomography urography had a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI, 84%-98%) and a specificity of 99% (95%CI, 97%-100%) with a certainty of evidence rating of very low and low, respectively when 4 studies were pooled. In comparison, ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity ranging from 14%-96% (low certainty of evidence) and a specificity of 99%-100% in 2 studies (moderate certainty of evidence), while magnetic resonance urography demonstrated a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 86% in 1 study with a low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In a limited data set for each individual imaging modality, computed tomography urography appears the most sensitive imaging modality for the diagnostic evaluation of microhematuria. Future studies will be needed to evaluate the clinical and health system financial impacts of the change in guideline recommendations from computed tomography urography to renal ultrasound in evaluating low- and intermediate-risk patients with microhematuria.

The Impact of Medicare Low-income Subsidy on Access to Treatment, Treatment Choice, and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients eligible for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy have lower cost-sharing for both IV and oral cancer therapies. We evaluated associations between low-income subsidy and treatment choice, treatment initiation, and overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer between 2010 and 2017 included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data set. Using linear probability models, we evaluated the impact of low-income subsidy on type of first supplementary treatment (oral vs IV) among patients who received nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy, and initiation of any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy. Overall survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 5,929 patients included, 1,766 (30%) had low-income subsidy. On multivariable analysis, those with low-income subsidy were more likely to receive oral as opposed to IV treatments compared to patients without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 17%, 95% CI 12, 22). However, patients with low-income subsidy were less likely to initiate any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy (oral or IV) compared to those without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 7.9%, 95% CI 4.8-11). Additionally, patients with low-income subsidy experienced worse overall survival than those without low-income subsidy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: While low-income subsidy was associated with increased use of more expensive oral therapies in men with metastatic prostate cancer, barriers to accessing these treatments still exist. These findings stress the importance of continued efforts to improve health care access to low-income individuals.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.

Impact of Maximal Transurethral Resection on Pathological Outcomes at Cystectomy in a Large, Multi-institutional Cohort.

PURPOSE: While the presence of residual disease at the time of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer is an established prognostic indicator, controversy remains regarding the importance of maximal transurethral resection prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We characterized the influence of maximal transurethral resection on pathological and survival outcomes using a large, multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 785 patients from a multi-institutional cohort undergoing radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We employed bivariate comparisons and stratified multivariable models to quantify the effect of maximal transurethral resection on pathological findings at cystectomy and survival. RESULTS: Of 785 patients, 579 (74%) underwent maximal transurethral resection. Incomplete transurethral resection was more frequent in patients with more advanced clinical tumor (cT) and nodal (cN) stage (P < .001 and P < .01, respectively), with more advanced ypT stage at cystectomy and higher rates of positive surgical margins (P < .01 and P < .05, respectively). In multivariable models, maximal transurethral resection was associated with downstaging at cystectomy (adjusted odds ratio 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.5). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, maximal transurethral resection was not associated with overall survival (adjusted HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing transurethral resection for muscle-invasive bladder cancer prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, maximal resection may improve pathological response at cystectomy. However, the ultimate effects on long-term survival and oncologic outcomes warrant further investigation.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Label-Free Enhancement of Adrenal Gland Visualization Using Near-Infrared Autofluorescence for Surgical Guidance.

BACKGROUND: During adrenalectomy, surgeons have traditionally relied on their subjective visual skills to distinguish adrenal glands (AGs) from retroperitoneal fat and surrounding structures, while ultrasound and exogenous contrast agents have been employed for intraoperative AG visualization, all of which have their limitations. We present a novel label-free approach that uses near-infrared autofluorescence (NIRAF) detection, which demonstrates potential for enhanced intraoperative AG visualization and efficient tumor resection during adrenalectomies. METHODS: Patients undergoing adrenalectomy or nephrectomy were enrolled for this feasibility study. NIRAF emitted beyond 800 nm was detected in vivo from AGs and surrounding tissues during open adrenalectomies or nephrectomies. NIRAF was also measured ex vivo in excised AGs following robotic adrenalectomies. NIRAF images of tissues were captured using near-infrared (NIR) camera systems, whereas NIRAF intensities were recorded concurrently using fiber-optic probe-based NIR devices. Normalized NIRAF intensities (expressed as mean ± standard error) were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Among the 55 enrolled patients, NIRAF intensity was elevated significantly for AGs versus retroperitoneal fat and other structures. NIR images of AGs also revealed a distinct demarcation of NIRAF between adrenal cortex and other periadrenal structures. NIRAF intensity in AGs was decreased markedly in malignant adrenal tumors, while benign adrenal cortical tumors and healthy adrenal cortex exhibited the strongest NIRAF levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that NIRAF detection could be a promising label-free technology to enhance intraoperative AG visualization and holds immense potential for effective tumor demarcation during cortical-sparing adrenalectomies or adrenal-conserving surgeries.

Patient-reported Outcomes After External Beam Radiotherapy With Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost vs Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Five-year Results From a Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Data comparing radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost are lacking. To better guide shared decision making regarding treatment, we compared patient reported outcomes through 5 years following radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2011-2012, men aged <80 years with localized prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and followed longitudinally. Patient reported outcomes included the Expanded Prostate Index Composite. Regression models adjusted for baseline scores and covariates were constructed. RESULTS: The study population included 112 men treated with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost and 1,553 treated with radical prostatectomy. Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive (adjusted mean score difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.0 [-8.7, -1.3]; P = .008 at 5 years) and better urinary incontinence function (13.3 [7.7, 18.9]; P < .001 at 5 years) through 5 years. Urinary function bother was similar between groups (P > .4 at all timepoints). Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with worse bowel function (-4.0 [-6.9, -1.1]; P = .006 at 5 years) through 5 years compared to radical prostatectomy. Treatment with external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with better sexual function at 1 year (12.0 [6.5, 17.5]; P < .001 at 1 year) compared to radical prostatectomy, but there was insufficient evidence to reject the supposition that no difference was seen at 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy with low dose rate brachytherapy boost was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative/obstructive and bowel functions but better urinary incontinence function through 5 years after treatment. These patient-reported functional outcomes may clarify treatment expectations and help inform treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Association between Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Mental Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Identifying the Optimal Number of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Cycles in Patients with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated the pathological response rates and survival associated with 3 vs 4 cycles of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cohort study we analyzed clinical data of 828 patients treated with NAC and radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2020. A total of 384 and 444 patients were treated with 3 and 4 cycles of NAC, respectively. Pathological objective response (pOR; ypT0-Ta-Tis-T1 N0), pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0 N0), cancer-specific survival and overall survival were investigated. RESULTS: pOR and pCR were achieved in 378 (45%; 95% CI 42, 49) and 207 (25%; 95% CI 22, 28) patients, respectively. Patients treated with 4 cycles of NAC had higher pOR (49% vs 42%, p=0.03) and pCR (28% vs 21%, p=0.02) rates compared to those treated with 3 cycles. This effect was confirmed on multivariable logistic regression analysis (pOR OR 1.46 p=0.008, pCR OR 1.57, p=0.007). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, 4 cycles of NAC were significantly associated with overall survival (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49, 0.94; p=0.02) but not with cancer-specific survival (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50, 1.04; p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Four cycles of NAC achieved better pathological response and survival compared to 3 cycles. These findings may aid clinicians in counseling patients and serve as a benchmark for prospective trials. Prospective validation of these findings and assessment of cumulative toxicity derived from an increased number of cycles are needed.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Multicenter evaluation of neoadjuvant and induction gemcitabine-carboplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin followed by radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is recommended in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, up to 50% of patients are cisplatin ineligible. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes after ≥ 3 cycles of preoperative gemcitabine-carboplatin (gem-carbo) versus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gem-cis). METHODS: We identified 1865 patients treated at 19 centers between 2000 and 2013. Patients were included if they had received ≥ 3 cycles of neoadjuvant (cT2-4aN0M0) or induction (cTanyN + M0) gem-carbo or gem-cis followed by RC. RESULTS: We included 747 patients treated with gem-carbo (n = 147) or gem-cis (n = 600). Patients treated with gem-carbo had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.016) and more clinically node-positive disease (32% versus 20%; p = 0.013). The complete pathological response (pCR; ypT0N0) rate did not significantly differ between gem-carbo and gem-cis (20.7% versus 22.1%; p = 0.73). Chemotherapeutic regimen was not significantly associated with pCR (OR 0.99 [95%CI 0.61-1.59]; p = 0.96), overall survival (OS) (HR 1.20 [95%CI 0.85-1.67]; p = 0.31), or cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 1.35 [95%CI 0.93-1.96]; p = 0.11). Median OS of patients treated with gem-carbo and gem-cis was 28.6 months (95%CI 18.1-39.1) and 45.1 months (95%CI 32.7-57.6) (p = 0.18), respectively. Median CSS of patients treated with gem-carbo and gem-cis was 28.8 months (95%CI 9.8-47.8) and 71.0 months (95%CI median not reached) (p = 0.02), respectively. Subanalyses of the neoadjuvant and induction setting did not show significant survival differences. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a subset of cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC achieve pCR on gem-carbo and that survival outcomes seem comparable to gem-cis provided patients are able to receive ≥ 3 cycles and undergo RC.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR). METHODS: For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years. LAY SUMMARY: In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Evaluation of the New American Urological Association Guidelines Risk Classification for Hematuria.

PURPOSE: Microhematuria is a prevalent condition and the American Urological Association has developed a new risk-stratified approach for the evaluation of patients with microhematuria. Our objective was to provide the first evaluation of this important guideline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational cohort study combines contemporary patients from 5 clinical trials and 2 prospective registries who underwent urological evaluation for hematuria. Patients were stratified into American Urological Association risk strata (low, intermediate or high risk) based on sex, age, degree of hematuria, and smoking history. The primary end point was the incidence of bladder cancer within each risk stratum. RESULTS: A total of 15,779 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 727 patients (4.6%) were classified as low risk, 1,863 patients (11.8%) were classified as intermediate risk, and 13,189 patients (83.6%) were classified as high risk. The predominance of high risk patients was consistent across all cohorts. A total of 857 bladder cancers were diagnosed with a bladder cancer incidence of 5.4%. Bladder cancer was more prevalent in men, smokers, older patients and patients with gross hematuria. The cancer incidence for low, intermediate and high risk groups was 0.4% (3 patients), 1.0% (18 patients) and 6.3% (836 patients), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The new risk stratification system separates hematuria patients into clinically meaningful categories with differing likelihoods of bladder cancer that would justify evaluating the low, intermediate and high risk groups with incremental intensity. Furthermore, it provides the relative incidence of bladder cancer in each risk group which should facilitate patient counseling regarding the risks and benefits of evaluation for bladder cancer.

Factors Associated with Time to Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment for Prostate Cancer in a Multi-Institutional Cohort.

PURPOSE: We examined the demographic and clinicopathological parameters associated with the time to convert from active surveillance to treatment among men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional cohort of 7,279 patients managed with active surveillance had data and biospecimens collected for germline genetic analyses. RESULTS: Of 6,775 men included in the analysis, 2,260 (33.4%) converted to treatment at a median followup of 6.7 years. Earlier conversion was associated with higher Gleason grade groups (GG2 vs GG1 adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.82; ≥GG3 vs GG1 aHR 1.77, 95% CI 1.29-2.43), serum prostate specific antigen concentrations (aHR per 5 ng/ml increment 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.25), tumor stages (cT2 vs cT1 aHR 1.58, 95% CI 1.41-1.77; ≥cT3 vs cT1 aHR 4.36, 95% CI 3.19-5.96) and number of cancerous biopsy cores (3 vs 1-2 cores aHR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.84; ≥4 vs 1-2 cores aHR 3.29, 95% CI 2.94-3.69), and younger age (age continuous per 5-year increase aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99). Patients with high-volume GG1 tumors had a shorter interval to conversion than those with low-volume GG1 tumors and behaved like the higher-risk patients. We found no significant association between the time to conversion and self-reported race or genetic ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: A shorter time to conversion from active surveillance to treatment was associated with higher-risk clinicopathological tumor features. Furthermore, patients with high-volume GG1 tumors behaved similarly to those with intermediate and high-risk tumors. An exploratory analysis of self-reported race and genetic ancestry revealed no association with the time to conversion.

Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Associated with Contemporary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Contemporary treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer provide comparable overall and cancer-specific survival. However, the degree of financial burden imposed by treatment, the factors contributing to that burden, and how different treatments compare with regard to financial toxicity remain poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer from 2011 to 2012. Questionnaires were collected at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Differences in patient-reported financial burden were compared between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2,121 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15% reported large or very large burden of treatment costs within 6 months, declining to 3% by year 5. When controlling for age, education, income and other covariates, external beam radiotherapy was associated with greater financial burden than active surveillance and radical prostatectomy at 1 year (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, respectively) and 3 years (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.1-8.8 and OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, respectively). Radical prostatectomy and active surveillance had similar rates of financial burden at all time points. Age, race, education, and D'Amico risk group were associated with financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiotherapy was associated with the highest financial burden, even when controlling for age, education and income. Prospective studies that directly measure out-of-pocket and indirect costs and account more thoroughly for baseline socioeconomic differences are warranted in order to identify those most at risk.