Prostate cancer outcomes following whole-gland and focal high-intensity focused ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) following high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational cohort study used linked National Cancer Registry data, radiotherapy data, administrative hospital data and mortality records of 1381 men treated with HIFU for clinically localised prostate cancer in England. The primary outcome, FFS, was defined as freedom from local salvage treatment and cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were freedom from repeat HIFU, prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was used to determine whether baseline characteristics, including age, treatment year, T stage and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group were associated with FFS. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 37 (20-62) months. The median (IQR) age was 65 (59-70) years and 81% had an ISUP Grade Group of 1-2. The FFS was 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.4%-97.4%) at 1 year, 86.0% (95% CI 83.7%-87.9%) at 3 years and 77.5% (95% CI 74.4%-80.3%) at 5 years. The 5-year FFS for ISUP Grade Groups 1-5 was 82.9%, 76.6%, 72.2%, 52.3% and 30.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). Freedom from repeat HIFU was 79.1% (95% CI 75.7%-82.1%), CSS was 98.8% (95% CI 97.7%-99.4%) and OS was 95.9% (95% CI 94.2%-97.1%) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Four in five men were free from local salvage treatment at 5 years but treatment failure varied significantly according to ISUP Grade Group. Patients should be appropriately informed with respect to salvage radical treatment following HIFU.

Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study.

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

A low prostate specific antigen predicts a worse outcome in high but not in low/intermediate-grade prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer (PCa) grade was traditionally thought to be linear but recent reports suggest this is not true in high-grade cancers. We aimed to compare the association between PSA and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in clinically localised low/intermediate and high-grade PCa. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the National Prostate Cancer Audit database in England of men treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), EBRT and brachytherapy boost (EBRT + BT), radical prostatectomy or no radical local treatment between 2014 and 2018. Multivariable competing-risk regression was used to examine the association between PSA, Gleason, and PCSM. Multivariable restricted cubic spline regression was used to explore the non-linear associations of PSA and PCSM. RESULTS: 102,089 men were included, of whom 71,138 had low/intermediate-grade and 22,425 had high-grade PCa. In high-grade, 4-year PCSM was higher with PSA ≤5 than PSA 5.1-10 for men treated with EBRT (hazard ratio 1.96 (95% confidence interval 1.15-3.34) or no radical local treatment (hazard ratio 1.99 (95% confidence interval 1.33-2.98). Restricted cubic spline regression showed that PSA and PCSM have a non-linear association in high-grade but a linear association in low/intermediate-grade PCa. CONCLUSION: The low-PSA/high-grade combination in M0 PCa treated with EBRT has a higher PCSM than those with high-grade and intermediate PSA levels. In high-grade disease, the PSA association was non-linear; by contrast, low/intermediate-grade had a linear relationship. This confirms a more aggressive biology in low PSA secreting high-grade PCa and a worse outcome following treatment.

Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term. RESULTS: We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

Determinants of variation in radical local treatment for men with high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Many factors are implicated in the potential 'under-treatment' of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation. METHODS: The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: 53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P < 0.001) for patients aged ≥80 years (ICC: 0.235) compared to patients aged 75-79 years (ICC: 0.070), 70-74 years (ICC: 0.041), and <70 years (ICC: 0.048). Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation did not influence the between-hospital variation. CONCLUSIONS: Radical local treatment of high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer depended strongly on age and comorbidity, but also on socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, with the between-hospital variation being highest in older patients.

Interventions for obstructive uropathy in advanced prostate cancer: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a coding framework to identify interventions for upper tract obstructive uropathy (UTOU) in men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) using administrative hospital data to assess clinical outcomes. There are no population-based studies on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and March 2019 were identified in the English cancer registry. A coding framework based on procedure (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures fourth edition) and diagnostic (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition) codes was developed and validated. Subsequent clinical outcomes were determined using Hospital Episodes Statistics to determine the utility of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 77 010 patients newly diagnosed with locally advanced, and 30 083 patients with metastatic PCa were identified. Of these, 1951 (1.8%) patients underwent an intervention for UTOU according to our coding framework: 830 (42.5%) had locally advanced disease and 1121 (57.5%) had metastatic disease. In all, 844 (43.3%) had a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), 473 (24.2%) had a PCN with antegrade stent, and 634 (32.5%) had a retrograde stent. The mean follow-up was 43.2 months. The cumulative incidence of the use of these interventions at 1, 3, and 5 years was 2.5%, 3.6% and 4.2% in men with metastases compared to 0.5%, 0.9% and 1.4% in men with locally advanced disease. CONCLUSION: A new coding framework, developed to identify procedures for UTOU was applied in the largest study to date of UTOU in men with primary locally advanced and metastatic PCa. Results demonstrated that 2% of men with locally advanced PCa and 4% of men with metastatic PCa require an intervention to resolve UTOU within 5 years of their PCa diagnosis.

Urinary incontinence and use of incontinence surgery after radical prostatectomy: a national study using patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether patient-reported urinary incontinence (UI) and bother scores after radical prostatectomy (RP) result in subsequent intervention with UI surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and January 2016 were identified. Administrative data were used to identify men who had undergone a RP and those who subsequently underwent a UI procedure. The National Prostate Cancer Audit database was used to identify men who had also completed a post-treatment survey. These surveys included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index (EPIC-26). The frequency of subsequent UI procedures, within 6 months of the survey, was explored according to EPIC-26 UI scores. The relationship between 'good' (≥75) or 'bad' (≤25) EPIC-26 UI scores and perceptions of urinary bother was also explored (responses ranging from 'no problem' to 'big problem' with respect to their urinary function). RESULTS: We identified 11 290 men who had undergone a RP. The 3-year cumulative incidence of UI surgery was 2.5%. After exclusions, we identified 5165 men who had also completed a post-treatment survey after a median time of 19 months (response rate 74%). A total of 481 men (9.3%) reported a 'bad' UI score and 207 men (4.0%) also reported that they had a big problem with their urinary function. In all, 47 men went on to have UI surgery within 6 months of survey completion (0.9%), of whom 93.6% had a bad UI score. Of the 71 men with the worst UI score (zero), only 11 men (15.5%) subsequently had UI surgery. CONCLUSION: In England, there is a significant number of men living with severe, bothersome UI after RP, and an unmet clinical need for UI surgery. The systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could be used to identify men who may benefit from UI surgery.

Resolving the immune landscape of human prostate at a single-cell level in health and cancer.

The prostate gland produces prostatic fluid, high in zinc and citrate and essential for the maintenance of spermatozoa. Prostate cancer is a common condition with limited treatment efficacy in castration-resistant metastatic disease, including with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Using single-cell RNA-sequencing to perform an unbiased assessment of the cellular landscape of human prostate, we identify a subset of tumor-enriched androgen receptor-negative luminal epithelial cells with increased expression of cancer-associated genes. We also find a variety of innate and adaptive immune cells in normal prostate that were transcriptionally perturbed in prostate cancer. An exception is a prostate-specific, zinc transporter-expressing macrophage population (MAC-MT) that contributes to tissue zinc accumulation in homeostasis but shows enhanced inflammatory gene expression in tumors, including T cell-recruiting chemokines. Remarkably, enrichment of the MAC-MT signature in cancer biopsies is associated with improved disease-free survival, suggesting beneficial antitumor functions.

Impact of High-Dose-Rate and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost on Toxicity, Functional and Cancer Outcomes in Patients Receiving External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy boost reduces cancer recurrence in patients with prostate cancer compared with EBRT monotherapy. However, randomized controlled trials or large-scale observational studies have not compared brachytherapy boost types directly. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This observational cohort study used linked national cancer registry data, radiation therapy data, administrative hospital data, and mortality records of 54,642 patients with intermediate-risk, high-risk, and locally advanced prostate cancer in England. The records of 11,676 patients were also linked to results from a national patient survey collected at least 18 months after diagnosis. Competing risk regression analyses were used to compare gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, skeletal-related events (SRE), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) at 5 years with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics. Linear regression was used to compare Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores (scale, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better function). RESULTS: Five-year GI toxicity was significantly increased after low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-BB) (32.3%) compared with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BB) (16.7%) or EBRT monotherapy (18.7%). Five-year GU toxicity was significantly increased after both LDR-BB (15.8%) and HDR-BB (16.6%), compared with EBRT monotherapy (10.4%). These toxicity patterns were matched by the mean patient-reported bowel function scores (LDR-BB, 77.3; HDR-BB, 85.8; EBRT monotherapy, 84.4) and the mean patient-reported urinary obstruction/irritation function scores (LDR-BB, 72.2; HDR-BB, 78.9; EBRT monotherapy, 83.8). Five-year incidences of SREs and PCSM were significantly lower after HDR-BB (2.4% and 2.7%, respectively) compared with EBRT monotherapy (2.8% and 3.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT monotherapy, LDR-BB has worse GI and GU toxicity and HDR-BB has worse GU toxicity. HDR-BB has a lower incidence of SREs and PCSM than EBRT monotherapy.

Patient-reported functional outcomes following external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer with and without a high-dose rate brachytherapy boost: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little is known about the functional outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with a high-dose rate brachytherapy boost (EBRT-BB) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes of EBRT to those of EBRT-BB. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk, high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer (April 2014 to September 2016), who received EBRT in the English National Health Service within 18 months of diagnosis and responded to a national patient questionnaire, were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Adjusted linear regression was used to estimate differences in functional EPIC-26 domains and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L) between treatment groups. Non-inferiority of EBRT-BB was determined if the lower 95% confidence limit did not exceed the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Of the 13,259 included men, 12,503 (94.3%) received EBRT and 756 (5.7%) received EBRT-BB. EBRT-BB was non-inferior compared to EBRT for the urinary incontinence, sexual, bowel and hormonal EPIC-26 domains. EBRT-BB resulted in significantly worse urinary irritation/obstruction scores than EBRT (-6.1; 95% CI: -8.8 to -3.4) but uncertainty remains as to whether this difference is clinically important (corresponding MCID of 5). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest that EBRT-BB results in any clinically important detriment in functional outcomes or HRQoL compared to men receiving EBRT only. Whilst statistically significantly worse urinary irritation/obstruction outcomes were reported in the EBRT-BB cohort, the threshold for a clinically significant difference was not exceeded and further research is required for confirmation.

Toxicity of Pelvic Lymph Node Irradiation With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for High-Risk and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study Using Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life.

Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the complications of transrectal (TR) compared to transperineal prostate (TP) biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 in England were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Administrative hospital data were then used to categorize the type of prostate biopsy and subsequent complications requiring hospital admission. Administrative hospital data were used to identify patients staying overnight immediately after biopsy and those readmitted separately for hospital admissions because of sepsis, urinary retention or haematuria. Procedure-related mortality and total length of hospital stay within 30 days were also recorded. Generalized linear models were used to calculate adjusted risk differences (aRDs). RESULTS: A total of 73 630 patients undergoing prostate biopsy were identified. Those undergoing TP biopsy (n = 13 723) were more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (12.3% vs 2.4%; aRD 9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-12.3), were less likely to be readmitted because of sepsis (1.0% vs 1.4%; aRD -0.4%, CI -0.6 to -0.2), and were more likely to be readmitted with urinary retention (1.9% vs 1.0%; aRD 1.1%, CI 0.7-1.4) than those undergoing a TR biopsy (n = 59 907). There were no significant differences in the risk of haematuria or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that TP biopsy had a lower risk of readmission for sepsis but a higher risk of readmission for urinary retention than TR biopsy. Use of the TP route would prevent one readmission for sepsis in 278 patients at the cost of three additional patients readmitted for urinary retention.

Identifying skeletal-related events for prostate cancer patients in routinely collected hospital data.

BACKGROUND: Non-osteoporotic skeletal-related events (SREs) are clinically important markers of disease progression in prostate cancer. We developed and validated an approach to identify SREs in men with prostate cancer using routinely-collected data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2010 and December 2013 were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit, based on English cancer registry data. A coding framework was developed based on diagnostic and procedure codes in linked national administrative hospital and routinely-collected radiotherapy data to identify SREs occurring before December 2015. Two coding definitions of SREs were assessed based on whether the SRE codes were paired with a bone metastasis code ('specific definition') or used in isolation ('sensitive definition'). We explored the validity of both definitions by comparing the cumulative incidence of SREs from time of diagnosis according to prostate cancer stage at diagnosis with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: We identified 40,063, 25,234 and 13,968 patients diagnosed with localised, locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. Using the specific definition, we found that the 5-year cumulative incidence of SREs was 1.0 % in patients with localised disease, 6.0 % in patients with locally advanced disease, and 42.3 % in patients with metastatic disease. Using the sensitive definition, the corresponding cumulative incidence figures were 9.0 %, 14.9 %, and 44.4 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: The comparison of the cumulative incidence of SREs identified in routinely collected hospital data, based on a specific coding definition in patients diagnosed with different prostate cancer stage, supports their validity as a clinically important marker of cancer progression.

Models predicting survival to guide treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer require standardised and robust long-term prognostic information to help them decide on management. Most currently-used tools use short-term and surrogate outcomes. We explored the evidence base in the literature on available pre-treatment, prognostic models built around long-term survival and assess the accuracy, generalisability and clinical availability of these models. DESIGN: Systematic literature review, pre-specified and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018086394). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 through February 2018, using previously-tested search terms. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion required a multivariable model prognostic model for non-metastatic prostate cancer, using long-term survival data (defined as ≥5 years), which was not treatment-specific and usable at the point of diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Title, abstract and full-text screening were sequentially performed by three reviewers. Data extraction was performed for items in the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Individual studies were assessed using the new Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. RESULTS: Database searches yielded 6581 studies after deduplication. Twelve studies were included in the final review. Nine were model development studies using data from over 231 888 men. However, only six of the nine studies included any conservatively managed cases and only three of the nine included treatment as a predictor variable. Every included study had at least one parameter for which there was high risk of bias, with failure to report accuracy, and inadequate reporting of missing data common failings. Three external validation studies were included, reporting two available models: The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score and the Cambridge Prognostic Groups. Neither included treatment effect, and both had potential flaws in design, but represent the most robust and usable prognostic models currently available. CONCLUSION: Few long-term prognostic models exist to inform decision-making at diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer. Improved models are required to inform management and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer.