Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important.

A Urine Based Genomic Assay to Triage Patients with Hematuria for Cystoscopy.

PURPOSE: Current clinical guidelines recommend cystoscopy in patients who present with hematuria to rule out a bladder tumor. We evaluated whether our previously developed urine assay was able to triage patients with hematuria for cystoscopy in a large prospective cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A urine sample was collected before cystoscopy and mutation/methylation status of 6 genes was determined on cellular DNA. The existing diagnostic model was validated on this cohort. Logistic regression was applied to investigate other potential variables. The primary end point was the model performance as indicated by the AUC. Secondary end points were sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value. Clinical usefulness was determined by the net benefit approach. RESULTS: In 838 patients biomarker status could be determined for all genes. Urothelial cancer was observed in 112 patients (98 of 457 in the gross and 14 of 381 in the microscopic hematuria group). Validation of the existing model resulted in an AUC of 0.93. Logistic regression analysis identified type of hematuria as a significant additional variable. Adding type of hematuria resulted in an AUC of 0.95 (96% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 99% negative predictive value). The assay identified all upper tract tumors not visible by cystoscopy (in 6). Net benefit analysis showed that the urine assay should be preferred over current clinical practice. Implementing the urine assay as a triage tool could lead to a 53% reduction in cystoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: The urine assay detected urothelial cancer with a very high accuracy and can be used to triage patients presenting with hematuria for cystoscopy.

Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: a cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry.

BACKGROUND: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors' preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences. RESULTS: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse. CONCLUSION: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care.

Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term (4-10 years) quality of life (QoL) of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated by different modalities and a reference group without PCa. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, four groups were sent a one-time QoL-questionnaire; PCa patients (1) following the structured Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance protocol, (2) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer-section Rotterdam, (3) who underwent radiotherapy (RT) at an academic hospital in The Netherlands, and (4) an age-matched reference group of men without PCa. The QoL-questionnaire addressed prostate-specific health (EPIC), generic health (SF-12), and anxiety (STAI-6). Statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) and clinical relevance (≥0.5 SD) of differences between groups were assessed. RESULTS: The AS, RP, RT, and reference group response rates amounted to 74% (122/165), 66% (70/106), 66% (221/335), and 75% (205/273), respectively. At a mean of 6.6 years of follow-up, active surveillance (AS)-men reported better urinary function [M = 93.0 (SD = 10.6) vs. 80.0 (SD = 19.1), p ≤ 0.001], less urinary incontinence [M = 90.0 (SD = 14.6) vs. 70.1 (SD = 28.8), p ≤ 0.001], and better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 14.8 (17.7), p ≤ 0.001, clinically relevant] than RP-men. Compared to RT, AS-men reported better sexual function [M = 40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 25.8 (SD = 25.0), p = 0.069]. The four groups reported similarly low anxiety levels; the number of highly anxious men (STAI ≥ 44) ranged from 8 to 13%. For all QoL domains, men on AS and men without PCa reported very similar scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific function of AS-men was significantly better than that of RP-men. When comparing AS to RT, a borderline significant difference in sexual function was seen. Men who followed an AS strategy for a long-term period were not anxious and accepted it well, suggesting that AS may be a good treatment option for men with low-risk PCa.

Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Diagnostic (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? So far, few publications have shown that a prediction model influences the behaviour of both physicians and patients. To our knowledge, it was unknown whether urologists and patients are compliant with the recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator and their reasons for non-compliance. Recommendations of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC RC) about the need of a prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. In most cases of non-compliance with 'no biopsy' recommendations, a PSA level ≥ 3 ng/mL was decisive to opt for biopsy. Before implementation of the ERSPC RC in urological practices at a large scale, it is important to obtain insight into the use of guidelines that might counteract the adoption of the use of the RC as a result of opposing recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To assess both urologist and patient compliance with a 'no biopsy' or 'biopsy' recommendation of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC), as well as their reasons for non-compliance. To assess determinants of patient compliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ERSPC RC calculates the probability on a positive sextant prostate biopsy (P(posb) ) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, outcomes of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography, and ultrasonographically assessed prostate volume. A biopsy was recommended if P(posb) ≥20%. Between 2008 and 2011, eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 443 patients (aged 55-75 years) after a PSA test with no previous biopsy. Urologists calculated the P(posb) using the RC in the presence of patients and completed a questionnaire about compliance. Patients completed a questionnaire about prostate cancer knowledge, attitude towards prostate biopsy, self-rated health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory-6, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) and decision-making measures (Decisional Conflict Scale). RESULTS: Both urologists and patients complied with the RC recommendation in 368 of 443 (83%) cases. If a biopsy was recommended, almost all patients (96%; 257/269) complied, although 63 of the 174 (36%) patients were biopsied against the recommendation of the RC. Compliers with a 'no biopsy' recommendation had a lower mean P(posb) than non-compliers (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001). Urologists opted for biopsies against the recommendations of the RC because of an elevated PSA level (≥ 3 ng/mL) (78%; 49/63) and patients because they wanted certainty (60%; 38/63). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations of the ERSPC RC on prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. The RC hence may be a promising tool for supporting clinical decision-making.

Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series). Level of Evidence 2a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients. OBJECTIVES: • To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance. • To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011. • The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy. • Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤ 20 mm cancer tissue, ≥ 40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤ 3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise. • After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety. RESULTS: • Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%). • The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS (n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage (n= 19). • Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply. CONCLUSIONS: • AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead. • Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa.

Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term outcomes of the prospective international Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance ('PRIAS') study (Dutch Trial Register NTR1718), as active surveillance (AS) for early prostate cancer might provide a partial solution to the current overtreatment dilemma in this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 500 (of >950) participants with asymptomatic T1c/T2 prostate cancer, with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of < or =10.0 ng/mL, a PSA density of <0.2 ng/mL/mL, a Gleason score of < or =3 + 3 = 6, and one or two positive biopsy cores, were analysed. The follow-up protocol consisted of frequent PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations, and standard repeat biopsies (the first after 1 year). The primary outcome is survival free of active therapy; the secondary endpoints are reasons for stopping AS, findings in 1-year repeat biopsies, and outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). RESULTS: Patients were included between December 2006 and July 2008. The median (25-75th percentile) follow-up after diagnosis was 1.02 (0.6-1.5) years. The 2-year survival rate free from active therapy was 73%. Of the 82 men who changed to active therapy during the follow-up, 68 (83%) did so based on the protocol. Of the 261 repeat biopsies available for analysis, 90 (34%) showed no cancer, while 57 (22%) showed a Gleason score of >6 or more than two positive biopsy cores. There was a relatively unfavourable PSA doubling time of 0-10 years in 53% (102/194) and 62% (33/53) of men with favourable and unfavourable re-biopsy results, respectively. After RP, four of 24 (17%) men had T3 disease and 12 (50%) had a Gleason score of >6. CONCLUSION: AS seems feasible, but mortality outcomes are unknown. A strict follow-up protocol including standard 1-year repeat biopsies resulted in a quarter of men stopping AS after 2 years.

End-fire versus side-fire: a randomized controlled study of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for prostate cancer detection.

Objectives: To compare prostate cancer detection rates between end-fire and side-fire ultrasound guided prostate biopsy techniques.Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed in patients who underwent prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to the end-fire or side fire biopsy groups and underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The overall prostate cancer detection rate was compared between the two probe configurations. Trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov with identifier: NCT00851292.Results: A total of 730 patients were included and randomized, 371 patients underwent prostate biopsy with side-fire probe and 359 patients with the end-fire probe. Prostate cancer detection rates were 52.4% in the end fire group and 45.6% in the side fire group (p = .066).Conclusions: No significant difference was found in detection rate of prostate cancer between the end-fire and side-fire probe in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, neither for detection rate of prostate cancer in the apex.

Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort.

BACKGROUND: Prediction models need validation to assess their value outside the development setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the external validity of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC) in a contemporary clinical cohort. METHODS: The RC calculates the probability of a positive sextant prostate biopsy (P(posb)) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), results of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and ultrasound assessed prostate volume. We prospectively validated the RC in 320 biopsied men (55-75 years), with no previous prostate biopsy, included in five Dutch hospitals in 2008-2011. If the P(posb) was ≥ 20% a biopsy was recommended. The performance of the RC was tested by comparing the observed outcomes to predicted probabilities, using the area under the curve (AUC) and decision curves analyses. RESULTS: Compared to the screening cohort, men in the clinical cohort differed. They had higher PSA levels (median 6.8 versus 4.3 ng/ml, p<0.01), less TRUS-lesions (27% versus 34%, p = 0.01) and more prostate cancer (PCa) at biopsy (43% versus 25%, p<0.01). Mainly eight biopsy cores were taken. Despite the differences between these cohorts, the mean observed probability agreed with the mean predicted probability (43% versus 40%). The RC predicted P(posb) better than a model with PSA and digital rectal examination, AUC 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.83) and 0.71 (95%CI 0.65-0.76, p<0.01), respectively. This was confirmed by the decision curves analysis. Under the 20% threshold, 17% (11/63) of the biopsied men were diagnosed with PCa. Two of 11 men had an important cancer (Gleason 3+4). CONCLUSIONS: The ERSPC RC performs well in a Dutch clinical cohort in men with previous PSA tests and contemporary biopsy schemes, and outperforms a PSA and DRE-based approach in the decision to perform a biopsy.