A Model for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer using Prostate MRI and Risk Factors.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a predictive model for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using prostate MRI and patient risk factors. METHODS: We identified 960 men who underwent MRI from 2015-2019 and biopsy either 6 months prior or 6 months following the MRI. We identified men diagnosed with csPCa and modeled csPCa risk using known patient factors (age, race, PSA) and prostate MRI findings (location, PI-RADS score, extraprostatic extension, dominant lesion size, PSA density [PSAD]). csPCa was defined as Gleason Sum ≥ 7. Using a derivation cohort, a multivariable logistic regression model and point-based scoring system were developed to predict csPCa. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in a separate independent validation cohort. RESULTS: 552 of 960 MRI reports (57.5%) were from men diagnosed with csPCa. Using the derivation cohort (n=632), variables that predicted csPCa were PI-RADS 4 and 5, presence of extraprostatic extension, and elevated PSAD. Evaluation using the validation cohort (n=328) resulted in AUC of 0.77, with adequate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.58). At a risk threshold of >2 points, the model identified csPCa with sensitivity of 98.4%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 78.6%, but only prevented 4.3% (0-2 points; 14/328) potential biopsies. At a higher threshold of >5 points, the model identified csPCA with sensitivity of 89.5%, NPV of 70.1%, and avoided 20.4% (0-5 points; 67/328) of biopsies. DISCUSSION: Our point-based model can potentially identify a vast majority of men at risk for csPCa, while sparing ∼ 1 in 5 men with an elevated PSA, a biopsy.

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.

Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS: The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION: There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS: We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS: All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion. Objective: To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis. Results: The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (ß-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (ß-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (ß-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (ß-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (ß-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging with a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score to improve identification of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has emerged as an important tool for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. We examined if the addition of a 400-variant multi-ancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) to mpMRI has the potential to improve identification. Based on data from 24 617 men from the Mass General Brigham Biobank, we identified 1243 men who underwent mpMRI. Men in the top PRS quartile were more likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer (47.1% vs 28.6% in the bottom PRS quartile, adjusted relative proportion 1.72 [95% CI = 1.35 to 2.19]). Both among men with a positive and a negative mpMRI, men in the top PRS quartile had the highest frequency of clinically significant cancer. In a constructed scenario for selecting men to undergo biopsy, use of the PRS lowered the frequency of missed clinically significant cancers from 9.1% to 5.9%. Our study provides initial support for using the PRS to improve identification of potentially lethal prostate cancer.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2. METHODS: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL). RESULTS: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

A Phase II Prospective Blinded Trial of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and In-Bore Biopsy in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the added benefit of multiparametric (mp)MRI risk stratification during active surveillance. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized study included 82 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We compared two biopsy strategies in parallel. The first biopsy strategy was an in-bore and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy in men with suspicious mpMRI findings. The second was a TRUS biopsy in all 82 men, blinded to the results of the previously performed mpMRI. RESULTS: We identified 27/82 men with suspicious mpMRI. Of those 27 men, we detected 8/27 with csPCa on biopsy, and we identified two men with in-bore biopsy exclusively, three men with TRUS biopsy exclusively, and three men with both biopsy strategies. Of the 55/82 men with nonsuspicious mpMRI (who only received TRUS biopsies), two men had csPCa. TRUS biopsy of the entire cohort of 82 men would have led to the correct diagnosis of 80% men with csPCa, requiring all 82 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 10% of the 82 biopsies). Conducting in-bore biopsies plus TRUS biopsies in men with suspicious mpMRI would have also led to the detection of 80% of men with csPCa, requiring only 27 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 30% of the 27 biopsies). CONCLUSION: The combination of TRUS and in-bore biopsies, limited to men with suspicious mpMRI, resulted in a similar detection rate of csPCa compared to TRUS biopsies of all men but required only one-third of men to undergo biopsy. Our results indicate that in-bore and TRUS biopsies continue to complement each other.

The effect of limited english proficiency on prostate-specific antigen screening in American men.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how limited English proficiency (LEP) impacts the prevalence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in a contemporary, nationally representative cohort of men in the USA. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey was utilized to identify the prevalence of PSA screening between 2013 and 2016 among men ≥ 55. Men who speak a language other than English at home were stratified by self-reported levels of English proficiency (men who speak English very well, well, not well, or not at all). Survey weights were applied, and groups were compared using the adjusted Wald test. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of PSA screening adjusting for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: The cohort included 2,889 men, corresponding to a weighted estimate of 4,765,682 men. 79.6% of men who speak English very well reported receiving at least one lifetime PSA test versus 58.4% of men who do not speak English at all (p < 0.001). Men who reported not speaking English at all had significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening (aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.91; p = 0.019). Other significant predictors of PSA screening included older age, income > 400% of the federal poverty level, insurance coverage, and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Limited English proficiency is associated with significantly lower prevalence of PSA screening among men in the USA. Interventions to mitigate disparities in prostate cancer outcomes should account for limited English proficiency among the barriers to guideline-concordant care.

Climate change perception and its association with cancer screening intent.

As the climate crisis deepens, its adverse effects on human health are becoming evident, including impacts on cancer pathogenesis and treatment. This study explored the link between individuals' awareness of the health impacts of climate change and interest in cancer screening. Using the 2021 Health Information National Trends Survey, our study demonstrated a statistically significant association between recognition of climate change as a personal health threat and interest in cancer screening. Although the study's retrospective nature and self-reported data pose some limitations, these findings signal a promising avenue for future research on the intersection of climate and cancer risk. This research supports the development of public health interventions that incorporate components of environmental health literacy alongside cancer screening efforts.

Racial differences in knowledge, attitudes, and sources of information about germline cancer genetic testing in the U.S.A.: An analysis of the health information National Trends Survey System.

PURPOSE: To understand racial disparities in germline cancer genetic testing and the role of prior knowledge, attitudes, and sources of information. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (HINTS 5) was conducted between February 24th and June 15th, 2020. The study aimed to investigate knowledge and receipt of genetic testing, attitudes toward the importance of genetic testing in preventing, detecting, and treating cancer, and information sources of genetic testing in the United States of America. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic race/ethnicity were associated with lower odds of being informed about genetic testing, whereas those of NHB race were more likely to endorse the importance of genetic testing in cancer prevention and treatment. Regarding sources of information about genetic testing: Non-Hispanic Asians were less likely to be informed about genetic testing from television (Mean Predicted Probability (MPP) 0.38 95%CI; 0.21-0.55, (Adjusted Risk Difference) ARD vs. Non-Hispanic White (NHW); -0.228, p = 0.01), NHB were less likely to report being informed about genetic testing from social media (MPP 0.27 95%CI; 0.20-0.34, ARD vs. NHW; -0.139, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: NHB and Hispanic groups face unequal access to information about genetic testing. There are significant race-based differences in information sources. These differences could be used to promote equitable access to cancer genetic testing.

Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance-guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Localized Kidney Cancer: Early Outcomes from a Prospective Phase 1 Trial and Supplemental Cohort.

Stereotactic magnetic resonance (MR)-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for renal cell carcinoma may result in more precise treatment delivery through the capabilities for improved image quality, daily adaptive planning, and accounting for respiratory motion during treatment with real-time MR tracking. In this study, we aimed to characterize the safety and feasibility of SMART for localized kidney cancer. Twenty patients with localized kidney cancer (ten treated in a prospective phase 1 trial and ten in the supplemental cohort) were treated to 40 Gy in five fractions on a 0.35 T MR-guided linear accelerator with daily adaptive planning and a cine MR-guided inspiratory breath hold technique. The median follow-up time was 17 mo (interquartile range: 13-20 months). A single patient developed local failure at 30 mo. No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported. The mean decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate was -1.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval or CI [-6.6 to 3.1 ml/min/1.73 m2]), and the mean decrease in tumor diameter was -0.20 cm (95% CI [-0.6 to 0.2 cm]) at the last follow-up. Anterior location and overlap of the 25 or 28 Gy isodose line with gastrointestinal organs at risk were predictive of the benefit from online adaptive planning. Kidney SMART is feasible and, at the early time point evaluated in this study, was well tolerated with minimal decline in renal function. More studies are warranted to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of this technique. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with localized renal cell carcinoma who are not surgical candidates, stereotactic magnetic resonance--guided adaptive radiotherapy is a feasible and safe noninvasive treatment option that results in minimal impact on kidney function.

Changes in Prostate-specific Antigen Screening after the 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and Through the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We analyzed trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer, with a focus on the impact of the 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations and the COVID-19 outbreak. Using National Health Interview Survey data, we performed difference-in-difference (DID) analyses to examine the PSA screening trend for men aged 55-69 yr, the target population in the 2018 USPSTF update, with men aged >69 yr included as the reference and adjustment for sociodemographic factors. We found that PSA screening increased for men aged 55-69 yr (+4.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-7.5%) or >69 yr (+6.5%, 95% CI 2.7-10.4%) in 2019 (after the 2018 recommendations) in comparison to 2015. There was a decrease in PSA screening for men aged 55-69 yr in 2021 in comparison to 2019 (after the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020) of -3.1% (95%CI -0.4% to -5.8%). Adjusted DID analysis revealed no significant variations in the rate of change in PSA screening between the two age groups following both events. Despite its observational nature, our design mitigates major challenges in inferring causal relationships. Our results suggest a causal relationship between the 2018 screening guidelines and an increase in screening rates for men aged 55-69 yr. Conversely, they also indicate that preventive care disruptions related to COVID-19 may have induced deceleration or potentially reversal of these advances. PATIENT SUMMARY: We used data from a large national survey to study the rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in the USA in response to the 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and to the COVID-19 pandemic. We found an increase in PSA screening in 2019 among men aged 55-69 yr, the target population in the 2018 recommendations, as well as men aged >69 yr. However, this increase was reduced after the COVID-19 outbreak. It remains to be seen how PSA screening continues to change as the world recovers from COVID-19.

Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer Screening: The Role of Shared Decision Making.

INTRODUCTION: The 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations endorsed shared decision making for men aged 55-69 years, encouraging consideration of patient race/ethnicity for prostate-specific antigen screening. This study aimed to assess whether a proxy shared decision-making variable modified the impact of race/ethnicity on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of men aged between 55 and 69 years, who responded to the prostate-specific antigen screening portions of the 2020 U.S.-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, was performed between September and December 2022. Complex sample multivariable logistic regression models with an interaction term combining race and estimated shared decision making were used to test whether shared decision making modified the impact of race/ethnicity on screening. RESULTS: Of a weighted sample of 26.8 million men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening, 25.7% (6.9 million) reported for prostate-specific antigen screening. In adjusted analysis, estimated shared decision making was a significant predictor of prostate-specific antigen screening (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=2.36, 2.98, p<0.001). The interaction between race/ethnicity and estimated shared decision making on the receipt of prostate-specific antigen screening was significant (pint=0.001). Among those who did not report estimated shared decision making, both non-Hispanic Black (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.61, 0.97, p=0.026) and Hispanic (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.39, 0.68, p<0.001) men were significantly less likely to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening than non-Hispanic White men. On the contrary, among respondents who reported estimated shared decision making, no race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although much disparities research focuses on race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening, research on strategies to mitigate these disparities is needed. Shared decision making might attenuate the impact of race/ethnic disparities on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in African American men, yet prostate cancer screening regimens in this group are poorly guided by existing evidence, given underrepresentation of African American men in prostate cancer screening trials. It is critical to optimize prostate cancer screening and early detection in this high-risk group because underdiagnosis may lead to later-stage cancers at diagnosis and higher mortality while overdiagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment. METHODS: We performed a review of the literature related to prostate cancer screening and early detection specific to African American men to summarize the existing evidence available to guide health-care practice. RESULTS: Limited evidence from observational and modeling studies suggests that African American men should be screened for prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to initiating screening of African American men at younger ages (eg, 45-50 years) and at more frequent intervals relative to other racial groups in the United States. Screening intervals can be optimized by using a baseline prostate-specific antigen measurement in midlife. Finally, no evidence has indicated that African American men would benefit from screening beyond 75 years of age; in fact, this group may experience higher rates of overdiagnosis at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for prostate cancer screening in African American men is limited by the lack of large, randomized studies. Our literature search supported the need for African American men to be screened for prostate cancer, for initiating screening at younger ages (45-50 years), and perhaps screening at more frequent intervals relative to men of other racial groups in the United States.

Long-Term Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Prostate Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in men. The updated PSA testing 2018 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend shared decision-making for men ages 55 to 69. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage to childless adults earning < 138% of the federal poverty level. Thereafter, individual states have chosen to adopt or defer Medicaid expansion at different times. This allows for the opportunity to study the effects of expansion on a population that did not previously qualify for Medicaid. We examine the long-term association of Medicaid expansion on prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were extracted for childless men earning less than 138% of the federal poverty level in states with different Medicaid expansion statuses from 2012 to 2020. States were classified into 4 expansion categories: very early expansion states, early expansion states, late expansion states, and nonexpansion states. Prevalence of PSA screening was determined for each category of expansion. Difference-in-difference analyses were used to understand variations in very early expansion states, early expansion states, and late expansion states trends with reference to nonexpansion states. RESULTS: PSA screening prevalence decreased in very early expansion states (27.76% vs 18.50%), early expansion states (33.79% vs 18.09%), late expansion states (36.08% vs 19.14%), and nonexpansion states (38.82% vs 24.40%) from 2012 to 2020. However, the difference-in-difference analyses did not show statistically significant results among any of the years and expansion category groups in our study period. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening prevalence decreased in all states, regardless of expansion category. No long-term effect of Medicaid expansion on PSA screening prevalence was observed among states with different expansion statuses.

Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after neoadjuvant therapy and radical prostatectomy for high-risk localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe patterns of delivery of adjuvant (aRT) and salvage RT (sRT) in patients who underwent RP after receiving neoadjuvant androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) before radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC). METHODS: Two hundred eighteen patients treated on phase 2 neoadjuvant trials between 2006 and 2018 at two academic centers were evaluated. aRT and sRT were defined as receipt of RT with a PSA of ≤0.1 or >0.1 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR), defined as time from aRT/sRT to a PSA rising to >0.1 ng/mL, and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after RT. RESULTS: Twenty-three (11%) and 55 (25%) patients received aRT and sRT respectively. Median PSA at start of aRT and sRT was 0.01 and 0.16 ng/mL, and median duration from RP to RT was 5 and 14 months, respectively. All aRT patients had NCCN high-risk disease, 30% were pN1 and 43% had positive surgical margins; 52% had prostate bed RT. Fifty-one percent of sRT patients had biopsy Gleason 9-10, 29% were pT2 and 9% had positive surgical margins; 63% had RT to the prostate bed/pelvis. At a median follow-up of 5.3 and 3.0 years after aRT and sRT, 3-year freedom from BCR was 55% and 47%, and 3-year MFS was 56% and 53%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: aRT was infrequently used in patients who received neoadjuvant ARPI before RP for HRLPC. Outcomes of aRT and sRT were similar but generally poor. Studies evaluating intensified systemic therapy approaches with postoperative RT in this high-risk population are needed.