Barriers and enablers of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a qualitive study of clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and explore barriers to, and enablers of, active surveillance (AS) in men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPCa), as perceived by PCa clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Urologists and radiation oncologists in Australia and New Zealand were purposively sampled for a cross-section on gender and practice setting (metropolitan/regional; public/private). Using a grounded theory approach, semi-structed interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers using open, axial, and selective coding. A constant comparative approach was used to analyse data as it was collected. Thematic saturation was reached after 18 interviews, and a detailed model of barriers to, and enablers of, AS for LRPCa, as perceived by clinicians was developed. RESULTS: A model explaining what affects clinician decision making regarding AS in LRPCa emerged. It was underpinned by three broad themes: (i) clinician perception of patients' barriers and enablers; (ii) clinician perception of their own barriers and enablers; and (iii) engagement with healthcare team and resource availability. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians unanimously agree that AS is an evidence-based approach for managing LRPCa. Despite this many men do not undergo AS for LRPCa, which is due to the interplay of patient and clinician factors, and their interaction with the wider healthcare system. This study identifies strategies to mitigate barriers and enhance enablers, which could increase access to AS by patients with LRPCa.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

The use of PSA screening has led to downstaging and downgrading of prostate cancer at diagnosis, increasing detection of indolent disease. Active surveillance aims to reduce over-treatment by delaying or avoiding radical treatment and its associated morbidity. However, there is not a consensus on the selection criteria and monitoring schedules that should be used. This article aims to summarize the evidence supporting the safety of active surveillance, the current selection criteria recommended and in use, the incidence of active surveillance, barriers existing to its uptake and future developments in patient selection.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pelvic Drain Insertion After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis and to assess the clinical benefit of prophylactic pelvic drain (PD) placement after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of databases, including Scopus, Medline, and EMbase, was conducted for articles that considered postoperative outcomes with PD placement and without PD (no drain) placement after RALP. The primary outcome was rate of symptomatic lymphocele (requiring intervention) and secondary outcomes were complications as described by the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Quality assessment was performed using the Modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment. Results: Six relevant articles comprising 1783 patients (PD = 1253; ND = 530) were included. Use of PD conferred no difference in symptomatic lymphocoele rate (risk difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.007 to 0.027), with an overall incidence of 2.2% (95% CI 0.013-0.032). No difference in low-grade (I-II; risk difference 0.035, 95% CI -0.065 to 0.148) or high-grade (III-V; risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.044) complications was observed between PD and ND groups. Low-grade (I-II) complications were 11.8% (95% CI 0-0.42) and 7.3% (95% CI 0-0.26), with similar rates of high-grade (III-V) complications, being 4.1% (95% CI 0.008-0.084) and 4.3% (95% CI 0.007-0.067) for PD and ND groups, respectively. Conclusion: PD insertion after RALP with extended PLND did not confer significant benefits in prevention of symptomatic lymphocoele or postoperative complications. Based on these results, PD insertion may be safely omitted in uncomplicated cases after consideration of clinical factors.

Indirect Comparisons of Efficacy between Combination Approaches in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: There have been substantial changes in the management of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) over the past 5 yr, with upfront combination therapies replacing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. A range of therapies have entered the space with no clear answer regarding their comparative efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to characterise the comparative efficacy of combination approaches in men with mHSPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched multiple databases and abstracts of major meetings up to June 2019 for randomised trials of patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease, a combination of ADT and one (or more) of taxane-based chemotherapy, and androgen receptor-targeted therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and we evaluated progression-free survival as a secondary outcome. We performed subgroup analysis based on the volume of disease. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found seven trials that met our eligibility criteria using either docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide in combination with ADT. All agents in combination with ADT were shown to be superior to ADT alone; enzalutamide + ADT had the lowest absolute hazard ratio compared with ADT only (hazards ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.75), and an estimated 76.9% probability that it is the preferred treatment to prolong OS compared with other combination treatments, or with ADT alone. Enzalutamide appeared to have better OS compared with docetaxel in men with low-volume disease, but there was no difference in other comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with any of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide provides a significant OS benefit when compared with ADT alone. We did not identify significant differences in OS between different combination therapies. Subtle differences between these options provide clinicians considerable flexibility when selecting options for individual patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer should be managed with upfront combination therapy instead of androgen-deprivation therapy alone. Clinicians may consider many factors during the decision-making process, and thus management should be tailored for patients individually.

Comparison between target magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in-gantry and cognitively directed transperineal or transrectal-guided prostate biopsies for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 MRI lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 abnormalities on 3-Tesla multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using in-bore MRI-guided biopsy compared with cognitively directed transperineal (cTP) biopsy and transrectal ultrasonography (cTRUS) biopsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive men attending the private practice clinic of an experienced urologist performing MRI-guided biopsy and an experienced urologist performing cTP and cTRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions identified on 3-Tesla mpMRI. RESULTS: There were 595 target mpMRI lesions from 482 men with PI-RADS 3-5 regions of interest during 483 episodes of biopsy. The abnormal mpMRI target lesion was biopsied using the MRI-guided method for 298 biopsies, the cTP method for 248 biopsies and the cTRUS method for 49 biopsies. There were no significant differences in PCa detection among the three biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (48.9%, 40.0% and 44.4%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (73.2%, 81.0% and 85.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (95.2, 92.0% and 95.0%, respectively) lesions, and there was no significant difference in detection of significant PCa among the biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (42.2%, 30.0% and 33.3%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (66.8%, 66.0% and 80.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (90.5%, 89.8% and 90.0%, respectively) lesions. There were also no differences in PCa or significant PCa detection based on lesion location or size among the methods. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the ability to detect PCa or significant PCa using targeted MRI-guided, cTP or cTRUS biopsy methods. Identification of an abnormal area on mpMRI appears to be more important in increasing the detection of PCa than the technique used to biopsy an MRI abnormality.

Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012.

CONTEXT: Photoselective vaporisation (PVP) of the prostate is being used increasingly to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, due to the associated lower morbidity. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was considered to be the treatment with the highest evidence; however, evidence for PVP has dramatically increased recently. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 evidence studies to determine the effectiveness of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Outcomes reviewed included perioperative data, complications, and functional outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Biomedical databases from 2002 to 2012 and American Urological Association and European Association of Urology conference proceedings from 2007 to 2011 were searched. Trials were included if they were randomised controlled trials, had PVP as the intervention, and TURP as control. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine trials were identified with 448 patients undergoing PVP (80 W in five trials and 120 W in four trials) and 441 undergoing TURP. Catheterisation time and length of stay were shorter in the PVP group by 1.91 d (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47-2.35; p<0.00001) and 2.13 d (95% CI, 1.78-2.48; p<0.00001), respectively. Operation time was shorter in the TURP group by 19.64 min (95% CI, 9.05-30.23; p=0.0003). Blood transfusion was significantly less likely in the PVP group (risk ratio: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.53; p=0.003). There were no significant differences between PVP and TURP when comparing other complications. Regarding functional outcomes, six studies found no difference between PVP and TURP, two favoured TURP, and one favoured PVP. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative outcomes of catheterisation time and length of hospital stay were shorter with PVP, whereas operative time was longer with PVP. Postoperative complications of blood transfusion and clot retention were significantly less likely with PVP; no difference was noted in other complications. Overall, no difference was noted in intermediate-term functional outcomes.