Prostate Cancer Therapy Cardiotoxicity Map (PROXMAP) for Advanced Disease States: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis with Bayesian Modeling of Treatment Histories.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recommendations of first-line therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC), nonmetastatic castrate-resistant (M0CRPC), and metastatic castrate-resistant (mCRPC) prostate cancer do not account for cardiotoxicity due to a lack of clear prior evidence. This manuscript assesses cardiotoxicity of these therapies. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Elsevier Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from database inception to January 14, 2024. Network meta-analyses of first-line mHSPC, M0CRPC, and mCRPC therapies were constructed for the five cardiotoxicity metrics defined by the International Cardio-Oncology Society: heart failure, myocarditis, vascular toxicity, hypertension, and arrhythmias. Additional Bayesian network meta-analyses also accounted for prior treatment history. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Thirteen RCTs (16 292 patients) were included. For mHSPC, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel (DTX) plus abiraterone acetate (AA) with prednisone (P) demonstrated a significant increase in hypertension and arrhythmias versus ADT + DTX (risk ratio [RR] 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-4.89, and RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.17-3.44, respectively); however, no corresponding differences were observed between ADT + DTX plus darolutamide (DAR) and ADT + DTX (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.73-3.30, and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.40, respectively). For mCRPC assuming a history of mHSPC treatment, ADT + AA + P plus olaparib (OLA) demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in hypertension versus ADT + AA + P (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.16-0.26). M0CRPC results were unremarkable. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For mHSPC, ADT + DTX + DAR demonstrates less cardiotoxicity than ADT + DTX + AA + P due to a lower risk of hypertension and arrhythmias from decreased mineralocorticoid excess. In addition, OLA counterintuitively offers decreased hypertension when superimposed on ADT + AA + P for mCRPC treatment after prior androgen deprivation from mHSPC therapy.

Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality rates continue to rise, early detection of PCa remains highly controversial, and the research landscape is rapidly evolving. Existing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide valuable insights, but often focus on single aspects of early detection, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aim to fill this gap by providing a comprehensive SR of contemporary SRs covering different aspects of early detection of PCa in the European Union (EU) and the UK. METHODS: On June 1, 2023, we searched four databases (Medline ALL via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar. To avoid repetition of previous studies, only SRs (qualitative, quantitative, and/or MAs) were considered eligible. In the data, common themes were identified to present the evidence systematically. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1358 citations, resulting in 26 SRs eligible for inclusion. Six themes were identified: (1) invitation: men at general risk should be invited at >50 yr of age, and testing should be discontinued at >70 yr or with <10 yr of life expectancy; (2) decision-making: most health authorities discourage population-based screening and instead recommend a shared decision-making (SDM) approach, but implementation of SDM in clinical practice varies widely; decision aids help men make more informed and value-consistent screening decisions and decrease men's intention to attempt screening, but these do not affect screening uptake; (3) acceptance: facilitators for men considering screening include social prompting by partners and clinician recommendations, while barriers include a lack of knowledge, low-risk perception, and masculinity attributes; (4) screening test and algorithm: prostate-specific antigen-based screening reduces PCa-specific mortality and metastatic disease in men aged 55-69 yr at randomisation if screened at least twice; (5) harms and benefits: these benefits come at the cost of unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis, and subsequent overtreatment; and (6) future of screening: risk-adapted screening including (prebiopsy) risk calculators, magnetic resonance imaging, and blood- and urine-based biomarkers could reduce these harms. To enable a comprehensive overview, we focused on SRs. These do not include the most recent prospective studies, which were therefore incorporated in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By identifying consistent and conflicting evidence, this review highlights the evidence-based foundations that can be built upon, as well as areas requiring further research and improvement to reduce the burden of PCa in the EU and UK. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review of 26 reviews covers various aspects of prostate cancer screening such as invitation, decision-making, screening tests, harms, and benefits. This review provides insights into existing evidence, highlighting the areas of consensus and discrepancies, to guide future research and improve prostate cancer screening strategies in Europe.

Understanding the Barriers to Prostate Cancer Population-Based Early Detection Programs: The PRAISE-U BEST Survey.

In 2022, the European Commission updated its recommendation on cancer screening, inviting the Member States (MSs) to explore the feasibility of stepwise implementation of population-based screening for prostate cancer (PCa). In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U (Prostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (EU)) project was initiated. As part of the PRAISE-U, we aim to understand the current practice towards early detection in the EU MSs, the barriers to implementing or planning population-based screening programmes, and potential solutions to overcome these barriers. METHODS: We adapted the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) survey to the PCa context. However, it has not been validated in this context. We translated it into all spoken languages in the EU27 and disseminated it to different stakeholders across the EU using a snowballing approach. RESULTS: We received 410 responses from 55 countries, of which 301 (73%) were from the 27 EU MSs. The most represented stakeholder group was urologists (218 (54%)), followed by general practitioners (GPs) (83 (21%)), patient representatives (35 (9%)), policy stakeholders (27 (7%)), researchers (23 (6%)), oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, nurses, and others (16 (4%)) and one industry representative. Among all respondents, 286 (69%) reported the absence of a population-based screening programme, mainly attributed to resource limitations and a lack of political and medical society support. Out of these 286 respondents, 196 (69%) indicated that opportunistic screening is being applied in their country, and 199 (70%) expressed their support for population-based screening programmes (which was highest amongst patient representatives and urologists and lowest amongst GPs and policy stakeholders). The highest scored barriers were lack of political support, insufficient operational resources, and inadequate participation. Suggested solutions to overcome these included awareness campaigns, consensus meetings, political lobbying and European guidelines (to overcome political support barriers), compatible IT systems (to overcome operational barriers), and easy access (to overcome participation barriers). CONCLUSIONS: Participants have noted the presence of opportunistic screening, and particularly urologists and patient representatives expressed their support for the establishment of a population-based PCa screening programme. Nevertheless, successful implementation of population-based screening programmes is complex; it requires political and medical society support, operational resources and capacity, awareness campaigns, as well as the development of protocols, guidelines, and legal frameworks.

Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Europe, prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men. Screening may therefore be crucial to lower health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to provide a contemporary overview of the costs and benefits of PCa screening programmes. METHODS: A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted, using the PICO method. A detailed search strategy was developed in four databases based on the following key search terms: "PCa", "screening", and "cost effectiveness". Any type of economic evaluation was included. The search strategy was restricted to European countries, but no restrictions were set on the year of publication. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 7484 studies were identified initially. Of these, 19 studies described the cost effectiveness of PCa screening in Europe. Among the studies using an initially healthy study population, most focussed on risk- and/or age- and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and compared this with no screening. Incremental cost ratios (ICERs) varied from €5872 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to €372 948/QALY, with a median of €56 487/QALY. Risk-based screening followed by MRI testing seemed to be a more cost-effective strategy than no screening. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review indicates that screening programmes incorporating a risk-based approach and MRI have the potential to be cost effective. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we looked at the cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in Europe. We found that a risk-based approach and incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to be cost effective. However, there remains a knowledge gap regarding cost effectiveness of prostate cancer screening. Therefore, determinants of cost effectiveness require further investigation.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Health Policy for Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and the Impact of Opportunistic Screening: PRAISE-U Consortium.

With the new policy recommendation in 2022 to explore the possibilities of screening for prostate cancer by the European Commission, the landscape for prostate cancer early detection is evolving. In line with this recommendation, the PRAISE-U project aims to evaluate the early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through customised and risk-based screening programmes, with the goal to align protocols across European Union member states. This systematic review is part of the PRAISE-U project, with the goal to review the policy, medical guideline recommendations, and the current level of opportunistic screening presented in the scientific literature on prostate cancer early detection from 2016 to 2023 in European Union member states. An extensive literature search was performed on 1 June 2023 in a large number of databases, including Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, and Policy Commons. We identified 318 articles (qualitative, quantitative, and reviews), of which 41 were included in the full-text screening. Seventeen articles were ultimately identified as eligible for inclusion. The included articles revealed significant variations towards PSA-based early detection policies for prostate cancer in nine European countries. Despite official recommendations, opportunistic screening was prevalent across all nine countries regardless of recommendations for or against PSA-based early detection. This systematic review suggests that the current early detection policies are not fit for purpose. High levels of opportunistic screening and overdiagnosis persist, prompting policy recommendations for standardised guidelines, informed decision making, and increased awareness to improve efficiency and effectiveness in early detection.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

(Pre)treatment risk factors for late fatigue and fatigue trajectories following radiotherapy for breast cancer.

Fatigue is common in breast-cancer survivors. Our study assessed fatigue longitudinally in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and aimed to identify risk factors associated with long-term fatigue and underlying fatigue trajectories. Fatigue was measured in a prospective multicenter cohort (REQUITE) using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and analyzed using mixed models. Multivariable logistic models identified factors associated with fatigue dimensions at 2 years post-RT and latent class growth analysis identified individual fatigue trajectories. A total of 1443, 1302, 1203 and 1098 patients completed the MFI-20 at baseline, end of RT, after 1 and 2 years. Overall, levels of fatigue significantly increased from baseline to end of RT for all fatigue dimensions (P < .05) and returned to baseline levels after 2 years. A quarter of patients were assigned to latent trajectory high (23.7%) and moderate (24.8%) fatigue classes, while 46.3% and 5.2% to the low and decreasing fatigue classes, respectively. Factors associated with multiple fatigue dimensions at 2 years include age, BMI, global health status, insomnia, pain, dyspnea and depression. Fatigue present at baseline was consistently associated with all five MFI-20 fatigue dimensions (ORGeneralFatigue = 3.81, P < .001). From latent trajectory analysis, patients with a combination of factors such as pain, insomnia, depression, younger age and endocrine therapy had a particularly high risk of developing early and persistent high fatigue years after treatment. Our results confirmed the multidimensional nature of fatigue and will help clinicians identify breast cancer patients at higher risk of having persistent/late fatigue so that tailored interventions can be delivered.

European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations.

OBJECTIVES: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group-founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology-promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy. METHODS: Over a four-month period (15 May-15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. RESULTS: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental.

Impact of Epithelial Histological Types, Subtypes, and Growth Patterns on Oncological Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Curative Intent: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Comparing symptom reporting by prostate cancer patients and healthcare professionals in the international multicentre REQUITE study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies showed that healthcare professionals and patients had only moderate to low agreement on their assessment of treatment-related symptoms. We aimed to determine the levels of agreement in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Analyses were made of data from 1,756 prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (RT) and/or brachytherapy in Europe and the USA and recruited into the prospective multicentre observational REQUITE study. Eleven pelvic symptoms at the end of RT were compared after translating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into CTCAE-based healthcare professional ratings. Gwet's AC2 agreement coefficient and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each symptom. To compare severity of grading between patients and healthcare professionals, percent agreement and deviations for each symptom were graphically depicted. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify potential influencing factors and to assess heterogeneity and robustness of results. RESULTS: The agreement for the 11 pelvic symptoms varied from very good (AC2 > 0.8: haematuria, rectal bleeding, management of sphincter control) to poor agreement (AC2 ≤ 0.2: proctitis and urinary urgency). Fatigue had a negative impact on the agreement. Patients tended to grade symptoms more severely than healthcare professionals. Information on sexual dysfunction was missing more frequently in healthcare professional assessment than PROs. CONCLUSION: Agreement was better for observable than subjective symptoms, with patients usually grading symptoms more severely than healthcare professionals. Our findings emphasize that PROs should complement symptom assessment by healthcare professionals and be taken into consideration for clinical decision-making to incorporate the patient perspective.

The correlation between pre-treatment symptoms, acute and late toxicity and patient-reported health-related quality of life in non-small cell lung cancer patients: Results of the REQUITE study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the association between clinician-scored toxicities and patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in early-stage (ES-) and locally-advanced (LA-) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving loco-regional radiotherapy, included in the international real-world REQUITE study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians scored eleven radiotherapy-related toxicities (and baseline symptoms) with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. HRQoL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core HRQoL questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30). Statistical analyses used the mixed-model method; statistical significance was set at p = 0.01. Analyses were performed for baseline and subsequent time points up to 2 years after radiotherapy and per treatment modality, radiotherapy technique and disease stage. RESULTS: Data of 435 patients were analysed. Pre-treatment, overall symptoms, dyspnea, chest wall pain, dysphagia and cough impacted overall HRQoL and specific domains. At subsequent time points, cough and dysphagia were overtaken by pericarditis in affecting HRQoL. Toxicities during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy and 3-dimensional radiotherapy had the most impact on HRQoL. Conversely, toxicities in sequential chemo-radiotherapy and SBRT had limited impact on patients' HRQoL. Stage impacts the correlations: LA-NSCLC patients are more adversely affected by toxicity than ES-NSCLC patients, mimicking the results of radiotherapy technique and treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment symptoms and acute/late toxicities variously impact HRQoL of ES- and LA-NSCLC patients undergoing different treatment approaches and radiotherapy techniques. Throughout the disease, dyspnea seems crucial in this association, highlighting the additional effect of co-existing comorbidities. Our data call for optimized radiotherapy limiting toxicities that may affect patients' HRQoL.

Treatment time and circadian genotype interact to influence radiotherapy side-effects. A prospective European validation study using the REQUITE cohort.

BACKGROUND: Circadian rhythm impacts broad biological processes, including response to cancer treatment. Evidence conflicts on whether treatment time affects risk of radiotherapy side-effects, likely because of differing time analyses and target tissues. We previously showed interactive effects of time and genotypes of circadian genes on late toxicity after breast radiotherapy and aimed to validate those results in a multi-centre cohort. METHODS: Clinical and genotype data from 1690 REQUITE breast cancer patients were used with erythema (acute; n=340) and breast atrophy (two years post-radiotherapy; n=514) as primary endpoints. Local datetimes per fraction were converted into solar times as predictors. Genetic chronotype markers were included in logistic regressions to identify primary endpoint predictors. FINDINGS: Significant predictors for erythema included BMI, radiation dose and PER3 genotype (OR 1.27(95%CI 1.03-1.56); P < 0.03). Effect of treatment time effect on acute toxicity was inconclusive, with no interaction between time and genotype. For late toxicity (breast atrophy), predictors included BMI, radiation dose, surgery type, treatment time and SNPs in CLOCK (OR 0.62 (95%CI 0.4-0.9); P < 0.01), PER3 (OR 0.65 (95%CI 0.44-0.97); P < 0.04) and RASD1 (OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.35-0.89); P < 0.02). There was a statistically significant interaction between time and genotypes of circadian rhythm genes (CLOCK OR 1.13 (95%CI 1.03-1.23), P < 0.01; PER3 OR 1.1 (95%CI 1.01-1.2), P < 0.04; RASD1 OR 1.15 (95%CI 1.04-1.28), P < 0.008), with peak time for toxicity determined by genotype. INTERPRETATION: Late atrophy can be mitigated by selecting optimal treatment time according to circadian genotypes (e.g. treat PER3 rs2087947C/C genotypes in mornings; T/T in afternoons). We predict triple-homozygous patients (14%) reduce chance of atrophy from 70% to 33% by treating in mornings as opposed to mid-afternoon. Future clinical trials could stratify patients treated at optimal times compared to those scheduled normally. FUNDING: EU-FP7.

Overview of health-related quality of life and toxicity of non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving curative-intent radiotherapy in a real-life setting (the REQUITE study).

OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy-induced toxicity may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This report investigates the impact of curative-intent radiotherapy on HRQoL and toxicity in early stage and locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy enrolled in the observational prospective REQUITE study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire up to 2 years post radiotherapy. Eleven toxicities were scored by clinicians using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4. Toxicity scores were calculated by subtracting baseline values. Mixed model analyses were applied to determine statistical significance (p ≤ 0.01). Meaningful clinical important differences (MCID) were determined for changes in HRQoL. Analysis was performed on the overall data, different radiotherapy techniques, multimodality treatments and disease stages. RESULTS: Data of 510 patients were analysed. There was no significant change in HRQoL or its domains, except for deterioration in cognitive functioning (p = 0.01). Radiotherapy technique had no significant impact on HRQoL. The addition of chemotherapy was significantly associated with HRQoL over time (p <.001). Overall toxicity did not significantly change over time. Acute toxicities of radiation-dermatitis (p =.003), dysphagia (p =.002) and esophagitis (p <.001) peaked at 3 months and decreased thereafter. Pneumonitis initially deteriorated but improved significantly after 12 months (p =.011). A proportion of patients experienced meaningful clinically important improvements and deteriorations in overall HRQoL and its domains. In some patients, pre-treatment symptoms improved gradually. CONCLUSIONS: While overall HRQoL and toxicity did not change over time, some patients improved, whereas others experienced acute radiotherapy-induced toxicities and deteriorated HRQoL, especially physical and cognitive functioning. Patient characteristics, more so than radiotherapy technique and treatment modality, impact post-radiotherapy toxicity and HRQoL outcomes. This stresses the importance of considering the potential impact of radiotherapy on individuals' HRQoL, symptoms and toxicity in treatment decision-making.