The development of brain metastases in patients with different therapeutic strategies for metastatic renal cell cancer.

A diagnosis of brain metastasis (BM) significantly affects quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Although systemic treatments have shown efficacy in mRCC, active surveillance (AS) is still commonly used in clinical practice. In this single-center cohort study, we assessed the impact of different initial treatment strategies for metastatic RCC (mRCC) on the development of BM. All consecutive patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2011 and 2022 were included at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, and a subgroup of patients with BM was selected. In total, 381 patients with mRCC (ECM, BM, or both) were identified. Forty-six patients had BM of whom 39 had metachronous BM (diagnosed ≥1 month after ECM). Twenty-five (64.1%) of these 39 patients with metachronous BM had received prior systemic treatment for ECM and 14 (35.9%) patients were treatment naive at BM diagnosis. The median BM-free survival since ECM diagnosis was significantly longer (p = .02) in previously treated patients (29.0 [IQR 12.6-57.0] months) compared to treatment naive patients (6.8 [IQR 1.0-7.0] months). In conclusion, patients with mRCC who received systemic treatment for ECM prior to BM diagnosis had a longer BM-free survival as compared to treatment naïve patients. These results emphasize the need for careful evaluation of treatment strategies, and especially AS, for patients with mRCC.

Other-cause mortality in incidental prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In incidental prostate cancer (IPCa), elevated other-cause mortality (OCM) may obviate the need for active treatment. We tested OCM rates in IPCa according to treatment type and cancer grade and we hypothesized that OCM is significantly higher in not-actively-treated patients. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2015), IPCa patients were identified. Smoothed cumulative incidence plots as well as multivariable competing risks regression models were fitted to address OCM after adjustment for cancer-specific mortality (CSM). RESULTS: Of 5121 IPCa patients, 3655 (71%) were not-actively-treated while 1466 (29%) were actively-treated. Incidental PCa not-actively-treated patients were older and exhibited higher proportion of Gleason sum (GS) 6 and clinical T1a stage. In smoothed cumulative incidence plots, 5-year OCM was 20% for not-actively-treated versus 8% for actively-treated patients. Conversely, 5-year CSM was 5% for not-actively-treated versus 4% for actively-treated patients. No active treatment was associated with 1.4-fold higher OCM, even after adjustment for age, cancer characteristics, and CSM. According to GS, OCM reached 16%, 27%, and 35% in GS 6, 7, and 8-10 not-actively-treated IPCa patients, respectively and exceeded CSM recorded for the same three groups (2%, 6%, and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results quantified OCM rates, confirming that in not-actively-treated IPCa patients OCM is indeed significantly higher than in their actively-treated counterparts (HR: 1.4). These observations validate the use of no active treatment in IPCa patients, in whom OCM greatly surpasses CSM (20% vs. 5%).

Life Expectancy in High-Grade Incidental Prostate Cancer Patients Versus Population-Based Controls According to Treatment Type.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the differences in 5-year overall survival (OS) between high-grade (Gleason sum 8-10) incidental prostate cancer (IPCa) patients and age-matched male population-based controls, according to treatment type: no active versus active treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015) to identify not actively treated and actively treated high-grade IPCa patients. For each case, we simulated an age-matched male control (Monte Carlo simulation), relying on Social Security Administration Life Tables (2004-2020) with 5 years of follow-up. Additionally, we relied on Kaplan-Meier plots to display OS for each treatment type. Multivariable Cox regression models were fitted to predict overall mortality (OM). RESULTS: Of 564 high-grade IPCa patients, 345 (61%) were not actively treated versus 219 (39%) were actively treated, either with radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Median OS was 3 years for not actively treated high-grade IPCa patients, with OS difference at 5 years follow-up of 27% relative to their age-matched male population-based controls (37% vs. 64%). Median OS was 8 years for actively treated high-grade IPCa patients, with OS difference at 5 years follow-up of 6% relative to their age-matched male population-based controls (68% vs. 74%). In the multivariable Cox regression model, active treatment independently predicted lower OM (hazard ratio = 0.6; 95% confidence interval = 0.4-0.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative to Life Tables' derived age-matched male controls, not actively treated high-grade IPCa patients exhibit drastically worse OS than their actively treated counterparts. These observations may encourage clinicians to consider active treatment in newly diagnosed high-grade IPCa patients.

Cumulative cancer locations on prostate biopsy and active surveillance outcomes in the MRI era.

BACKGROUND: To validate the use of a cumulative cancer locations (CCLO) score, a measurement of tumor volume on biopsy, and to develop a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-informed CCLO (mCCLO) score to predict clinical outcomes on active surveillance (AS). METHODS: The CCLO score is a sum of uniquely involved sextants with prostate cancer on diagnostic + confirmatory biopsy. The mCCLO score incorporates MRI findings into the CCLO score. Participants included 1284 individuals enrolled on AS between 1994 and 2022, 343 of whom underwent prostate MRI. The primary outcome was grade reclassification (GR) to grade group ≥2 disease; the secondary outcome was receipt of definitive treatment. RESULTS: Increasing CCLO and mCCLO risk groups were associated with higher risk of GR and undergoing definitive treatment (both p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, increasing mCCLO score was associated with higher risk of GR and receipt of definitive treatment (hazard ratios [HRs] per 1-unit increase: 1.26 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.41] and 1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36], respectively). The model using mCCLO score to predict GR (c-index: 0.671; 95% CI: 0.621-0.721) performed at least as well as models using the number of cores positive for cancer (0.664 [0.613-0.715]; p = 0.7) and the maximum percentage of cancer in a core (0.641 [0.585-0.696]; p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The CCLO score is a valid, objective metric to predict GR and receipt of treatment in a large AS cohort. The ability of the MRI-informed mCCLO to predict GR is on par with traditional metrics of tumor volume but is more descriptive and may benefit from greater reproducibility. The mCCLO score can be implemented as a shorthand, informative tool for counseling patients about whether to remain on AS.

Real-world utilization, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among men with localized prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene genomic prostate score® (GPSTM) assay.

OBJECTIVES: Descriptive study focusing on real-world utilization and characteristics of men with prostate cancer tested with the 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score® (GPS™) assay by linking administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data with GPS results. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study (January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020) included men aged 40-80 years with localized prostate cancer claims, continuous enrollment in Optum's Integrated Claims data set, ≥1 day of EHR clinical activity, and a GPS result. Men were classified as undergoing definitive therapy (DT) (prostatectomy, radiation, or focal therapy) or active surveillance (AS). AS and DT distribution were analyzed across GPS results, National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) risk, and race. Costs were assessed 6 months after the first GPS result (index); clinical outcomes and AS persistence were assessed during the variable follow-up. All variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 834 men, 650 (77.9%) underwent AS and 184 (22.1%) DT. Most men had Quan-Charlson comorbidity scores of 1-2 and a tumor stage of T1c (index). The most common Gleason patterns were 3 + 3 (79.6%) (AS cohort) and 3 + 4 (55.9%) (DT cohort). The mean (standard deviation) GPS results at index were 23.2 (11.3) (AS) and 30.9 (12.9) (DT). AS decreased with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk. Differences between races were minimal. Total costs were substantially higher in the DT cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Most men with GPS-tested localized prostate cancer underwent AS, indicating the GPS result can inform clinical management. Decreasing AS with increasing GPS result and NCCN risk suggests the GPS complements NCCN risk stratification.

The impact of genomic biomarkers on a clinical risk prediction model for upgrading/upstaging among men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of distinguishing indolent from aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) complicates decision-making for men considering active surveillance (AS). Genomic classifiers (GCs) may improve risk stratification by predicting end points such as upgrading or upstaging (UG/US). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of GCs on UG/US risk prediction in a clinicopathologic model. METHODS: Participants had favorable-risk PCa (cT1-2, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤15 ng/mL, and Gleason grade group 1 [GG1]/low-volume GG2). A prediction model was developed for 864 men at the University of California, San Francisco, with standard clinical variables (cohort 1), and the model was validated for 2267 participants from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (cohort 2). Logistic regression was used to compute the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to develop a prediction model for UG/US at prostatectomy. A GC (Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score [GPS] or Prolaris) was then assessed to improve risk prediction. RESULTS: The prediction model included biopsy GG1 versus GG2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.73-9.10); PSA (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; per 1 ng/mL), percent positive cores (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; per 1%), prostate volume (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; per mL), and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; per year), with AUC 0.70 (cohort 1) and AUC 0.69 (cohort 2). GPS was associated with UG/US (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; p < .01) and AUC 0.72, which indicates a comparable performance to the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: GCs did not substantially improve a clinical prediction model for UG/US, a short-term and imperfect surrogate for clinically relevant disease outcomes.

Risk model-based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model (called SPLC-RAT) was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT was evaluated in a hospital-based cohort of lung cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever-smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997-2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC-RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model-based surveillance using SPLC-RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. RESULTS: Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person-years. The application of SPLC-RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10-year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC-RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high-risk versus low-risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10-6 ). The risk-based surveillance through SPLC-RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow-ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). CONCLUSION: In a large, hospital-based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC-RAT in identifying high-risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk-based surveillance. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence-based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk-prediction model was developed and validated using data from population-based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real-world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real-world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk-stratification ability of the SPLC risk-prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model-based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus-based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The Prostate Cancer Active Lifestyle Study (PALS): A randomized controlled trial of diet and exercise in overweight and obese men on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly used to monitor patients with lower risk prostate cancer (PCa). The Prostate Cancer Active Lifestyle Study (PALS) was a randomized controlled trial to determine whether weight loss improves obesity biomarkers on the causal pathway to progression in patients with PCa on AS. METHODS: Overweight/obese men (body mass index >25 kg/m2) diagnosed with PCa who elected AS were recruited. The intervention was a 6-month, individually delivered, structured diet and exercise program adapted from the Diabetes Prevention Program with a 7% weight loss goal from baseline. Control participants attended one session reviewing the US Dietary and Physical Activity Guidelines. The primary outcome was change in glucose regulation from baseline to the end of the 6-month intervention, which was measured by fasting plasma glucose, C-peptide, insulin, insulin-like growth factor 1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, adiponectin, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance. RESULTS: Among 117 men who were randomized, 100 completed the trial. The mean percentage weight loss was 7.1% and 1.8% in the intervention and control arms, respectively (adjusted between-group mean difference, -6.0 kg; 95% confidence interval, -8.0, -4.0). Mean percentage changes from baseline for insulin, C-peptide, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance in the intervention arm were -23%, -16%, and -25%, respectively, compared with +6.9%, +7.5%, and +6.4%, respectively, in the control arm (all p for intervention effects ≤ .003). No significant between-arm differences were detected for the other biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Overweight/obese men with PCa undergoing AS who participated in a lifestyle-based weight loss intervention successfully met weight loss goals with this reproducible lifestyle intervention and experienced improvements in glucose-regulation biomarkers associated with PCa progression.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS).

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men. METHODS: Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake. RESULTS: Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

Donor-derived carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Active surveillance enhances recipient safety.

Donor-derived infections (DDIs) caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CR-GNB) in solid organ transplant recipients are potentially life-threatening. In this prospective study, we evaluated the incidence, factors associated with transmission, and the outcome of recipients with unexpected CR-GNB DDIs after the implementation of our local active surveillance system (LASS). LASS provides for early detection of unexpected donor CR-GNB infections, prophylaxis of recipients at high risk, and early diagnosis and treatment of DDIs. Whole genome sequencing confirmed DDI. Among 791 recipients, 38 (4.8%) were at high risk of unexpected CR-GNB DDI: 25 for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and 13 for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). Transmission did not occur in 27 (71%) cases, whereas DDIs occurred in 9 of 25 of CRE and 2 of 13 of CRAB cases. Incidence of CR-GNB DDI was 1.4%. Recipients of organs with CR-GNB-positive preservation fluid and liver recipients from a donor with CRE infection were at the highest risk of DDI. There was no difference in length of hospital stay or survival in patients with and without CR-GNB DDI. Our LASS contains transmission and mitigates the negative impacts of CR-GNB DDI. Under well-defined conditions, organs from donors with CR-GNB may be considered after a thorough evaluation of the risk/benefit profile.

Association of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score With Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Early Biopsy Reclassification: Data From the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC).

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the association of baseline MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score with biopsy reclassification in a multicenter active surveillance (AS) cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry (46 hospital-based/academic/private practice urology groups) with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent MRI within 6 months before or after initial biopsy and enrolled in AS from June 2016 to January 2021. The primary objective was to determine the association of baseline MRI PI-RADS score (≥4 lesion) with reclassification to high-grade prostate cancer (≥grade group 3) on surveillance biopsy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed and adjusted for pathologic, MRI, and clinical/biopsy factors, with landmark time of 6 months from diagnostic biopsy. We included an interaction term between PI-RADS score and NCCN group in the Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 1491 men were included with median age 64 years (IQR: 59-69) with median follow-up 11.0 months (IQR: 6.0-23.0) after landmark. Baseline PI-RADS ≥ 4 lesion was associated with an increased hazard of biopsy reclassification (HR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6-3.2], P < .001), along with grade group 2 vs 1 (HR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.7-3.7], P < .001), and increasing age (per 10 years; HR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.4-2.4], P < .001). The interaction between NCCN risk group with MRI findings was not significant (P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort study of real-world data, baseline MRI PI-RADS score was significantly associated with early biopsy reclassification in men undergoing AS with NCCN low- or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Targeted Biopsy Is Sufficient for Men on Active Surveillance for Early-Stage Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Serial biopsy is a mainstay for patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. mpMRI targeting has become a standard. It is unclear whether targeted biopsy alone reliably identifies the dominant lesion, thereby obviating the need for systematic sampling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants enrolled in AS with early-stage prostate cancer (PSA < 20, cT1-2, GG1-2) and underwent 2+ systematic biopsy sessions with or without MR-targeted sampling. The findings for dominant Gleason Grade (GG) and tumor localization were assessed. RESULTS: Among 821 men who underwent MR fusion biopsies, 82% were diagnosed with GG1 and 18% with GG2. Sixty-two percent had their first MR fusion biopsy as diagnostic or confirmatory. Across all fusion biopsies, MRI-targeted detection of GG and/or tumor location overlapped with systematic sampling for 95% of cases. For 5% of cases, systematic biopsy was unique in detecting GG and location outside the target. Most unique lesions detected outside the target had marginally aggressive features: 73% GG2 of low-volume and favorable histologic subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: In men with MR fusion biopsies, targeting alone identified the dominant GG and location most of the time (95%); 25% of dominant lesions were contiguous to the target, suggesting that better sampling of the target improves detection. The remaining 5% of men had higher-grade, low-volume disease outside the targeted lesion of which only 2% had aggressive risk features. MR fusion targeting, without systematic sampling, may be sufficient to monitor men on AS. Few high-risk cancers are missed, all of limited volume and favorable histology.

Is Confirmatory Biopsy Still Necessary for Active Surveillance of Men With Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric MRI?

PURPOSE: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) considering active surveillance (AS) are recommended confirmatory biopsy (CBx). Whether this is necessary in the era of MRI-informed biopsies is questionable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied men with grade group (GG) 1 PCa at diagnostic biopsy (DBx) considering AS who underwent MRI and CBx (systematic + targeted) within 18 months. Outcomes were grade reclassification to GG ≥ 2 and GG ≥ 3 and reclassification to unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) disease. Subset analyses were performed for men with (1) MRI before DBx and (2) MRI after DBx. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-two men had GG1 PCa at DBx. At CBx, 20% reclassified to GG ≥ 2, 12% to UIR disease, and 5.6% to GG ≥ 3. Of the 306 with positive MRI (PI-RADS > 3), 27% reclassified to GG ≥ 2 and 16% to UIR disease; men with negative MRI experienced these outcomes at rates of 9.2% and 5.5%, respectively. There were no differences in reclassification outcomes based on MRI timing (group A vs B), and neither PSA density nor prostate volume added to MRI information. In men with MRI targets, approximately one-third of GG > 2 reclassification events were only captured by systematic biopsy core(s). CONCLUSIONS: Reclassification rates at CBx were high in men with positive MRI, but < 10% for all reclassification outcomes in men with negative MRI (95% CI, 5.8%-14% for GG > 2; 95% CI, 2.9%-10% for UIR; 95% CI, 0.8%-5.3% for GG > 3). Our data support systematic + targeted CBx for men with positive MRI considering AS, whereas men with GG1 cancer and negative MRI should be able to defer CBx.

Impact of Family History and Germline Genetic Risk Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on Long-Term Outcomes of Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Family history and germline genetic risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been separately shown to stratify lifetime risk of prostate cancer. Here, we evaluate the combined prognostic value of family history of prostate and other related cancers and germline risk SNPs among patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1367 participants from the prospective Health Professionals Follow-up Study diagnosed with low- or favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 1986 to 2017 underwent genome-wide SNP genotyping. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the association between family history, specific germline risk variants, and a 269 SNP polygenic risk score with prostate cancer‒specific death. RESULTS: Family history of prostate, breast, and/or pancreatic cancer was observed in 489 (36%) participants. With median follow-up from diagnosis of 14.9 years, participants with favorable-risk prostate cancer with a positive family history had a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15-3.32, P = .014) compared to those without any family history. The rs2735839 (19q13) risk allele was associated with prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.81 per risk allele, 95% CI 1.04-3.17, P = .037), whereas the polygenic risk score was not. Combined family history and rs2735839 risk allele were each associated with an additive risk of prostate cancer‒specific death (HR 1.78 per risk factor, 95% CI 1.25-2.53, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Family history of prostate, breast, or pancreatic cancer and/or a 19q13 germline risk allele are associated with an elevated risk of prostate cancer‒specific death among favorable-risk patients. These findings have implications for how family history and germline genetic risk SNPs should be factored into clinical decision-making around favorable-risk prostate cancer.

Development and Optimization of a Subtraction-Normalized Immunocyte Profiling Signature for Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Risk Stratification.

PURPOSE: Less invasive decision support tools are desperately needed to identify occult high-risk disease in men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). For a variety of reasons, many men on AS with low- or intermediate-risk disease forgo the necessary repeat surveillance biopsies needed to identify potentially higher-risk PCa. Here, we describe the development of a blood-based immunocyte transcriptomic signature to identify men harboring occult aggressive PCa. We then validate it on a biopsy-positive population with the goal of identifying men who should not be on AS and confirm those men with indolent disease who can safely remain on AS. This model uses subtraction-normalized immunocyte transcriptomic profiles to risk-stratify men with PCa who could be candidates for AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men were eligible for enrollment in the study if they were determined by their physician to have a risk profile that warranted prostate biopsy. Both training (n = 1017) and validation cohort (n = 1198) populations had blood samples drawn coincident to their prostate biopsy. Purified CD2+ and CD14+ immune cells were obtained from peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and RNA was extracted and sequenced. To avoid overfitting and unnecessary complexity, a regularized regression model was built on the training cohort to predict PCa aggressiveness based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network PCa guidelines. This model was then validated on an independent cohort of biopsy-positive men only, using National Comprehensive Cancer Network unfavorable intermediate risk and worse as an aggressiveness outcome, identifying patients who were not appropriate for AS. RESULTS: The best final model for the AS setting was obtained by combining an immunocyte transcriptomic profile based on 2 cell types with PSA density and age, reaching an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.77). The model significantly outperforms (P < .001) PSA density as a biomarker, which has an AUC of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.73). This model yields an individualized patient risk score with 90% negative predictive value and 50% positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: While further validation in an intended-use cohort is needed, the immunocyte transcriptomic model offers a promising tool for risk stratification of individual patients who are being considered for AS.

Patients' Preferences Towards Decision Counseling for Active Surveillance After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision counseling (DC) is offered to enable patients to reflect on their treatment preferences and to think through the consequences of alternative treatment options. However, the timing of DC is debatable. In this study, patients who underwent DC at different times were interviewed about their experiences, specifically focusing on the timing of DC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer eligible for participation in a prospective cohort study on active surveillance (SANO-2 study) were offered DC either before or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Structured interviews were conducted by phone 1 week after DC, and responses were analyzed using frequency counts for the answers to set response categories. The primary outcome was the preferred time to receive DC, while the secondary outcome was the overall experience of patients with DC. RESULTS: Overall, 40 patients were offered DC between 2021 and 2023. Patients who had counseling before the start of nCRT (n = 20) were satisfied with the timing of DC. Of the 20 patients who had DC after nCRT, 6 would have preferred counseling at an earlier time point. Patients who had DC both before or after the completion of nCRT reflected positively on DC. CONCLUSION: It is recommended to introduce the option of DC as early as possible and discuss with the patient at which moment during the decision-making process they prefer to discuss all treatment options more extensively.

International Expert Consensus on Semantics of Multimodal Esophageal Cancer Treatment: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. METHODS: In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION(S): Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.

Evolution of Initial Treatment for Desmoid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Desmoid tumors (DTs) are rare, fibroblastic cell proliferations that can exhibit locally aggressive behavior but lack metastatic potential. Initial management has traditionally involved upfront resection; however, contemporary guidelines and expert panels have increasingly advocated for prioritizing active surveillance strategies. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective chart review identified all patients diagnosed with a primary DT at any site from 2007 to 2020. The primary outcome was the initial management strategy over time. Secondary outcomes included treatment-free survival (TFS) and time to treatment (TTT) for those undergoing active surveillance, as well as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and time to recurrence for those undergoing resection. RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients were included, with 68% female and a median follow-up of 44 months [24-74]. The most common tumor locations included the abdominal wall (27%), intra-abdominal/mesenteric (25%), chest wall (19%), and extremity (10%). Initial management included resection (60%), systemic therapy (20%), active surveillance (18%), and cryoablation (2%). Rates of surgical resection significantly decreased (p < 0.001) over time, from 69.6% prior to 2018 to 29.2% after 2018. For those treated with upfront resection, 5-year RFS was 41.2%, and for patients undergoing initial active surveillance, TFS was 66.7% at 2 years, with a median TTT of 4 months [4-10]. CONCLUSIONS: This single-institution cohort at a tertiary medical center spanning over a decade demonstrates the transition to active surveillance for initial management of DTs, and highlights salient metrics in the era of surveillance. This trend mirrors recommended treatment strategies by expert panels and consensus guidelines.

Large cribriform glands (> 0.25 mm diameter) as a predictor of adverse pathology in men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer.

AIMS: A recent outcome-based, radical prostatectomy study defined > 0.25 mm diameter to distinguish large versus small cribriform glands, with > 0.25 mm associated with worse recurrence-free survival. This study evaluates whether identification of > 0.25 mm cribriform glands in Grade Group 2 patients at biopsy is associated with adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tumours containing biopsy slides for 133 patients with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer with subsequent radical prostatectomy were re-reviewed for large cribriform glands (diameter > 0.25 mm). The primary outcome was adverse pathology (Grade Groups 3-5; stage pT3a or greater, or pN1). The secondary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Cribriform pattern was present in 52 of 133 (39%) patients; of these, 16 of 52 (31%) had large cribriform glands and 36 of 52 (69%) had only small cribriform glands. Patients with large cribriform glands had significantly more adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy compared to patients with small cribriform glands and no cribriform glands (large = 11 of 16, 69%; small = 12 of 36, 33%; no cribriform = 25 of 81, 31%; χ2 P-value 0.01). On multivariate analysis, large cribriform glands were also associated with adverse pathology, independent of age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)/PSA density at diagnosis, year of diagnosis and biopsy cores percentage positive (global P-value 0.02). Large cribriform glands were also associated with increased CAPRA-S surgical risk score (Kruskal-Wallis P-value 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Large cribriform glands using a diameter > 0.25 mm definition in Grade Group 2 patients on biopsy are associated with increased risk of adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. The presence of large cribriform histology should be considered when offering active surveillance for those with Grade Group 2 disease.

Prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer by [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: a potential tool for selecting patients for active surveillance.

PURPOSE: In our study, our aim was to investigate the role of [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET /CT imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (ISUP GG 2 and higher) in patients initially diagnosed with ISUP GG 1 and 2 after prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 147 patient records in whom [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging was performed preoperatively. All patients were initially diagnosed with ISUP GG 1 and 2 PCa by biopsy. Final pathology reports were obtained after radical prostatectomy. The [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT images were evaluated to determine the PRIMARY score. Patients' mpMRI-PIRADS scores were also recorded when available and analyzed in correlation with the pathology results. RESULTS: For the 114 patients scored using PRIMARY, 19 out of 37 patients with scores of 1 and 2 (51%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Of the 77 patients with PRIMARY scores between 3 and 5, 64 (83%) had csPCa. Notably, every patient with a PRIMARY score of 5 had csPCa. PRIMARY scoring had a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 58%, with a positive predictive value of 83%. A moderate correlation was observed between PRIMARY scores and ISUP GG (Rho = 0.54, p < 0.001). In contrast, the PIRADS score displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 25% respectively, with a positive predictive value of 68%. No substantial correlation was found between PIRADS and ISUP GG. Statistical analysis revealed a significant correlation between PRIMARY and ISUP GG (p < 0.001), but not between PIRADS and ISUP GG (p = 0.281). Comparatively, PRIMARY scoring was significantly more reliable than PIRADS scoring in identifying csPCa. CONCLUSION: [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging is promising for distinguishing high-risk prostate cancer patients from those apt for active surveillance, potentially aiding in the identification of csPCa.