Addressing racial disparities in prostate cancer pathology prediction models: external validation and comparison of four models of pathological outcome prediction before radical prostatectomy in the multiethnic SEARCH cohort.

BACKGROUND: Certain widely used pathological outcome prediction models that were developed in tertiary centers tend to overpredict outcomes in the community setting; thus, the Michigan Urological-Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) model was developed in general urology practice to address this issue. Additionally, the development of these models involved a relatively small proportion of Black men, potentially compromising the accuracy of predictions in this patient group. We tested the validity of the MUSIC and three widely used nomograms to compare their overall and race-stratified predictive performance. METHODS: We extracted data from 4139 (1138 Black) men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database of the Veterans Affairs health system. The predictive performance of the MUSIC model was compared to the Memorial-Sloan Kettering (MSK), Briganti-2012, and Partin-2017 models for predicting lymph-node invasion (LNI), extra-prostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). RESULTS: The median PSA of Black men was higher than White men (7.8 vs. 6.8 ng/ml), although they were younger by a median of three years and presented at a lower-stage disease. MUSIC model showed comparable discriminatory capacity (AUC:77.0%) compared to MSK (79.2%), Partin-2017 (74.6%), and Briganti-2012 (76.3%), with better calibration for LNI. AUCs for EPE and SVI were 72.7% and 76.9%, respectively, all comparable to the MSK and Partin models. LNI AUCs for Black and White men were 69.6% and 79.6%, respectively, while EPE and SVI AUCs were comparable between races. EPE and LNI had worse calibration in Black men. Decision curve analysis showed MUSIC superiority over the MSK model in predicting LNI, especially among Black men. CONCLUSION: Although the discriminatory performance of all models was comparable for each outcome, the MUSIC model exhibited superior net benefit to the MSK model in predicting LNI outcomes among Black men in the SEARCH population.

Contemporary risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether contemporary risks of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in the AS era differ from historical estimates due to changes in tumor risk case mix and improvements in risk stratification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sampled 6,682 men who underwent RP for clinically localized disease between 2000 and 2017 from the VA SEARCH database. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to calculate incidence of BCR before and after 2010 overall and within tumor risk subgroups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis including an interaction term between era and tumor risk was used to compare risk of BCR before and after 2010 overall and across tumor risk subgroups. RESULTS: About 3,492 (52%) and 3,190 (48%) men underwent RP before and after 2010, respectively. In a limited multivariable model excluding tumor risk, overall BCR risk was higher post-2010 vs. pre-2010 (HR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.05-1.25; 40% vs 36% at 8 years post-RP). However, this effect was eliminated after correcting for tumor risk (HR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.87-1.04), suggesting that differences in tumor risk between eras mediated the change. Yet, within tumor-risk subgroups, BCR risk was significantly lower for favorable intermediate-risk (HR: 0.76, 95%CI:0.60-0.96) and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC (HR: 0.78, 95%CI: 0.67-0.90), but significantly higher for high-risk PC (HR: 1.22, 95%CI: 1.07-1.38) in the post-2010 era. 8-year risks of BCR in the post-2010 era were 21% (95%CI: 16%-25%), 25% (95%CI: 20%-30%), 41% (95%CI: 37%-46%), and 60% (95%CI: 56%-64%) for low-, FIR-, UIR-, and high-risk disease, respectively. Limitations include limited long-term follow-up in the post-2010 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Overall BCR risk has increased in the AS era, driven by a higher risk case mix and increased BCR risk among high-risk patients. Physicians should quote contemporary estimates of BCR when counseling patients.

Do Hispanic Puerto Rican men have worse outcomes after radical prostatectomy? Results from SEARCH.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) were similar among non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic White Veterans Affairs (VA) patients. However, prostate cancer (PC) mortality in Puerto Rican Hispanics (PRH) may be higher than in other Hispanic groups. Data focused on PRH patients is sparse; thus, we tested the association between PR ethnicity and outcomes after RP. METHODS: Analysis included men in SEARCH cohort who underwent RP (1988-2020, n = 8311). PRH patients (n = 642) were treated at the PR VA, and outcomes were compared to patients treated in the Continental US regardless of race. Logistic regression was used to test the associations between PRH and PC aggressiveness, adjusting for demographic and clinicopathological features. Multivariable Cox models were used to investigate PRH versus Continental differences in biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastases, castration-resistant PC (CRPC), and PC-specific mortality (PCSM). RESULTS: Compared to Continental patients, PRH patients had lower adjusted odds of pathological grade group ≥2 (p < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), and positive margins (p < 0.001). In contrast, PRH patients had higher odds of extracapsular extension (p < 0.001). In Cox models, PRH patients had a higher risk for BCR (HR = 1.27, p < 0.001), metastases (HR = 1.49, p = 0.014), CRPC (HR = 1.80, p = 0.001), and PCSM (HR = 1.74, p = 0.011). Further adjustment for extracapsular extension and other pathological variables strengthened these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In an equal access setting, PRH RP patients generally had better pathological features, but despite this, they had significantly worse post-treatment outcomes than men from the Continental US, regardless of race. The reasons for the poorer prognosis among PRH men require further research.

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.

Are associations between obesity and prostate cancer outcomes following radical prostatectomy the same in smokers and non-smokers? Results from the SEARCH Cohort.

PURPOSE: Obesity and smoking have been associated with poor prostate cancer (PC) outcomes. We investigated associations between obesity and biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, castrate resistant-PC (CRPC), PC-specific mortality (PCSM), and all-cause mortality (ACM) and examined if smoking modified these associations. METHODS: We analyzed SEARCH Cohort data from men undergoing RP between 1990 and 2020. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between body mass index (BMI) as a continuous variable and weight status classifications (normal: 18.5 ≤ 25 kg/m2; overweight: 25-29.9 kg/m2; obese: ≥ 30 kg/m2) and PC outcomes. RESULTS: Among 6,241 men, 1,326 (21%) were normal weight, 2,756 (44%) overweight and 2159 (35%) obese; 1,841 (30%) were never-smokers, 2,768 (44%) former and 1,632 (26%) current-smokers. Among all men, obesity was associated with non-significant increased risk of PCSM, adj-HR = 1.71; 0.98-2.98, P = 0.057, while overweight and obesity were inversely associated with ACM, adj-HR = 0.75; 0.66-0.84, P < 0.001 and adj-HR = 0.86; 0.75-0.99, P = 0.033, respectively. Other associations were null. BCR and ACM were stratified for smoking status given evidence for interactions (P = 0.048 and P = 0.054, respectively). Among current-smokers, overweight was associated with an increase in BCR (adj-HR = 1.30; 1.07-1.60, P = 0.011) and a decrease in ACM (adj-HR = 0.70; 0.58-0.84, P < 0.001). Among never-smokers, BMI (continuous) was associated with an increase in ACM (adj-HR = 1.03; 1.00-1.06, P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: While our results are consistent with obesity as a risk factor for PCSM, we present evidence of effect modification by smoking for BCR and ACM highlighting the importance of stratifying by smoking status to better understand associations with body weight.

Diabetes and Prostate Cancer Outcomes in Men with Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the SEARCH Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of diabetic men with advanced prostate cancer is poorly understood and understudied. Hence, we studied associations between diabetes and progression to metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM) in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). METHODS: Data from men diagnosed with nmCRPC between 2000 and 2017 at 8 Veterans Affairs Health Care Centers were analyzed using Cox regression to determine HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between diabetes and outcomes. Men with diabetes were classified according to: (i) ICD-9/10 codes only, (ii) two HbA1c values > 6.4% (missing ICD-9/10 codes), and (iii) all diabetic men [(i) and (ii) combined]. RESULTS: Of 976 men (median age: 76 years), 304 (31%) had diabetes at nmCRPC diagnosis, of whom 51% had ICD-9/10 codes. During a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 613 men were diagnosed with metastases, and 482 PCSM and 741 ACM events occurred. In multivariable-adjusted models, ICD-9/10 code-identified diabetes was inversely associated with PCSM (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92) while diabetes identified by high HbA1c values (no ICD-9/10 codes) was associated with an increase in ACM (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.16-1.72). Duration of diabetes, prior to CRPC diagnosis was inversely associated with PCSM among men identified by ICD-9/10 codes and/or HbA1c values (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In men with late-stage prostate cancer, ICD-9/10 'code-identified' diabetes is associated with better overall survival than 'undiagnosed' diabetes identified by high HbA1c values only. IMPACT: Our data suggest that better diabetes detection and management may improve survival in late-stage prostate cancer.

Time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy by race in an equal-access healthcare system: Results from the SEARCH cohort.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that within an equal-access health system, race was not associated with the time between prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis and radical prostatectomy (RP). However, in the more recent time-period of the study (2003-2007), Black men had significantly longer times to RP. We sought to revisit the question in a larger study population with more contemporary patients. We hypothesized that time from diagnosis to treatment would not differ by race, even after accounting for active surveillance (AS) and the exclusion of men at very low to low risk of PC progression. METHODS: We analyzed data from 5885 men undergoing RP from 1988 to 2017 at eight Veterans Affairs Hospitals from SEARCH. Multiple linear regression was used to compare time from biopsy to RP and to examine the risk of delays (>90 and >180 days) between races. In sensitivity analyses we excluded men deemed to have initially chosen AS based on having >365 days from biopsy to RP and men at very low to low PC risk for progression according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines. RESULTS: At biopsy, Black men (n = 1959) were younger, had lower body mass index, and higher prostate specific antigen levels, (all p < 0.02), compared to White men (n = 3926). Time from biopsy to RP was longer in Black men (mean days: 98 vs. 92; adjusted ratio of mean number of days, 1.07 [95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.11], p < 0.001); however, there were no differences in delays >90 or >180 days after adjusting for confounders (all p ≥ 0.286). Results were similar following the exclusion of men potentially under on AS and at very low and low risk. CONCLUSIONS: In an equal-access healthcare system, we did not find evidence of clinically relevant differences in time from biopsy to RP in Black versus White men.

A modeling study to estimate prostate cancer-specific mortality on active surveillance for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: Results from the SEARCH cohort.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist to help surgeons decide between active surveillance (AS) versus treatment for men with favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer. To estimate the theoretical excess risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) with AS versus radical prostatectomy (RP), we determined the risk of PCSM in FIR men undergoing RP and modeled the PCSM risk for AS using a range of increased PSCM scenarios ranging from 1.25x to 2x higher relative to RP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from men undergoing RP from 1988 to 2017 at 8 Veterans Affairs hospitals within the SEARCH cohort. Men with FIR PC were identified using the NCCN risk criteria. Risk of PCSM at 5, 10, and 15 years after RP was estimated. Using these estimates, PCSM was then modeled for AS using a range of increased risk of PCSM relative to RP ranging from 1.25x to 2x higher. RESULTS: For the 920 FIR men identified, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival estimates for PCSM after RP were 99.9%, 99.0%, and 97.8%, respectively. If the risk of PCSM on AS were 1.25-2x greater than RP, there would be 0.54%-2.17% excess risk of PCSM at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death for FIR after RP is very low. Assuming even modestly increased PCSM with AS versus RP, the excess risk of death for AS in FIR is low even up to 15 years. These data support the consideration of AS as a relatively safe alternative to RP in FIR men, though prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Automated Patient-level Prostate Cancer Detection with Quantitative Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but the subjective Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) system and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) are inconsistent. Restriction spectrum imaging (RSI) is an advanced diffusion-weighted MRI technique that yields a quantitative imaging biomarker for csPCa called the RSI restriction score (RSIrs). Objective: To evaluate RSIrs for automated patient-level detection of csPCa. Design setting and participants: We retrospectively studied all patients (n = 151) who underwent 3 T mpMRI and RSI (a 2-min sequence on a clinical scanner) for suspected prostate cancer at University of California San Diego during 2017-2019 and had prostate biopsy within 180 d of MRI. Intervention: We calculated the maximum RSIrs and minimum ADC within the prostate, and obtained PI-RADS v2.1 from medical records. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We compared the performance of RSIrs, ADC, and PI-RADS for the detection of csPCa (grade group ≥2) on the best available histopathology (biopsy or prostatectomy) using the area under the curve (AUC) with two-tailed α = 0.05. We also explored whether the combination of PI-RADS and RSIrs might be superior to PI-RADS alone and performed subset analyses within the peripheral and transition zones. Results and limitations: AUC values for ADC, RSIrs, and PI-RADS were 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.58), 0.78 (0.70, 0.85), and 0.77 (0.70, 0.84), respectively. RSIrs and PI-RADS were each superior to ADC for patient-level detection of csPCa (p < 0.0001). RSIrs alone was comparable with PI-RADS (p = 0.8). The combination of PI-RADS and RSIrs had an AUC of 0.85 (0.78, 0.91) and was superior to either PI-RADS or RSIrs alone (p < 0.05). Similar patterns were seen in the peripheral and transition zones. Conclusions: RSIrs is a promising quantitative marker for patient-level csPCa detection, warranting a prospective study. Patient summary: We evaluated a rapid, advanced prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique called restriction spectrum imaging to see whether it could give an automated score that predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The automated score worked about as well as expert radiologists' interpretation. The combination of the radiologists' scores and automated score might be better than either alone.

Is time to castration resistant prostate cancer a potential intermediate end-point for time to metastasis among men initiating androgen deprivation therapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer with rapid PSA doubling time (<9 months)?

PURPOSE: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) is a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), but this endpoint may take years to develop in men with non-metastatic castrate-sensitive disease. The study objective was to examine whether progression to CRPC is a potential intermediate endpoint for developing metastatic disease in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with BCR following RP who had PSA doubling times (PSADT) < 9 months and no metastasis at the time of initiating androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n = 210) were included. The primary objective was to assess the correlation between CRPC-free survival (CRPC-FS) and MFS, and the secondary objective was to assess the correlation between time to metastasis and time to CRPC. Kendall's Tau was used to test the correlation for the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median MFS was 104 months (95% CI: 83-114) and median CRPC-FS was 100 months (95% CI: 80-114). Based on the Kaplan-Meier curve, the greatest difference in time to MFS and CRPC-FS was around 70% free survival, which was reached at 61.2 months for MFS and 49.6 months for CRPC-FS. Kendall's Tau for the correlation between CRPC-FS and MFS and between time to CRPC and time to metastasis was 0.867 (95% CI: 0.765-0.968) and 0.764 (95% CI: 0.644-0.884), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high correlation between CRPC-FS and MFS, after validation, CRPC-FS may serve as a potential intermediate endpoint in trials for men with BCR initiating ADT following local therapy.

Impact of age on treatment response in men with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy.

Objective: To analyse the effect of age at diagnosis on clinical outcomes of localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiation therapy. Subjects and methods: We identified 12 784 patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized PCa treated with radiation therapy (RT) and neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) between 2000 and 2015 from nationwide Veterans Affairs data. Patients were grouped into three age categories (≤59, 60-69, and ≥70 years old). Outcomes included immediate PSA response (3-month post-RT PSA and 2-year PSA nadir, grouped into <0.10 ng/ml, 0.10-0.49 ng/ml, and ≥0.50 ng/ml), biochemical recurrence, and PCa-specific mortality. Multivariable regression models included ordinal logistic regression for short-term PSA outcomes, Cox regression for biochemical recurrence, and Fine-Gray competing risks regression for PCa-specific mortality. Results: A total of 2136 patients (17%) were ≤59 years old at diagnosis, 6107 (48%) were 60-69 years old, and 4541 (36%) were ≥70 years old. Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Younger age was associated with greater odds of higher 3-month PSA group (≤59 vs. ≥70: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.90, 95% CI 1.64-2.20; p < 0.001) and higher 2-year PSA nadir group (≤59 vs. ≥70: aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.62-2.19, p < 0.001). Younger age was associated with greater risk of biochemical recurrence (≤59 vs. ≥70: adjusted hazard ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.26-1.67, p < 0.001) but not PCa-specific mortality (p = 0.16). Conclusion: In a large nationwide sample of US veterans treated with ADT and RT for localized PCa, younger age was associated with inferior short-term PSA response and higher risk of biochemical recurrence.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Novel Dormancy Mechanism of Castration Resistance in Bone Metastatic Prostate Cancer Organoids.

Advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients with bone metastases are treated with androgen pathway directed therapy (APDT). However, this treatment invariably fails and the cancer becomes castration resistant. To elucidate resistance mechanisms and to provide a more predictive pre-clinical research platform reflecting tumor heterogeneity, we established organoids from a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model of bone metastatic prostate cancer, PCSD1. APDT-resistant PDX-derived organoids (PDOs) emerged when cultured without androgen or with the anti-androgen, enzalutamide. Transcriptomics revealed up-regulation of neurogenic and steroidogenic genes and down-regulation of DNA repair, cell cycle, circadian pathways and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 host viral entry factors, ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Time course analysis of the cell cycle in live cells revealed that enzalutamide induced a gradual transition into a reversible dormant state as shown here for the first time at the single cell level in the context of multi-cellular, 3D living organoids using the Fucci2BL fluorescent live cell cycle tracker system. We show here a new mechanism of castration resistance in which enzalutamide induced dormancy and novel basal-luminal-like cells in bone metastatic prostate cancer organoids. These PDX organoids can be used to develop therapies targeting dormant APDT-resistant cells and host factors required for SARS-CoV-2 viral entry.

Red Blood Cell Distribution Width Is Associated with All-cause Mortality but Not Adverse Cancer-specific Outcomes in Men with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy: Findings Based on a Multicenter Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Registry.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports with a small number of patients showed an association of red blood cell distribution width (RDW) with prostate cancer (PCa) progression. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether preoperative RDW can serve as a prognostic marker in patients with PCa undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in a large, equal access, and diverse patient cohort. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were retrospectively collected on 4756 men treated with RP at eight Veteran Affairs medical centers within the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database from 1999 through 2017. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was the primary outcome, while metastasis, all-cause mortality (ACM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean (standard deviation) age was 62 yr (6.1), and 1589 (33%) men were black. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 82 mo (46-127). Preoperative RDW either as a continuous variable or when stratified by quartiles was not associated with BCR. Likewise, preoperative RDW was not associated with metastases or PCSM. However, higher RDW was significantly associated with higher ACM, both as a continuous variable (p < 0.001) and when stratified by quartiles in univariable and multivariable models (p < 0.001). RDW was found to be correlated with D'Amico risk classification of PCa. Study limitations include its retrospective nature and lack of data regarding advanced PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative RDW was not associated with PCa outcomes in men treated with RP but was associated with ACM. While RDW may be a biomarker of overall health, it is not a biomarker for PCa outcomes. These results emphasize the importance of diverse, larger sized studies in genitourinary cancer research. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer includes a wide spectrum of diseases with different genetic, pathological, and oncological behaviors. Red blood cell distribution width is helpful in predicting the overall survival for a localized prostate cancer patient, and hence, it can help inform personalized treatment decisions and operative care.

Experience with 10 years of a robotic surgery program at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined robotic surgery from a programmatic standpoint, yet this is how hospitals evaluate return on investment clinically and fiscally. This study examines the 10-year experience of a robotic program at a single academic institution. STUDY DESIGN: All robotic operations performed at our institution from August 2005 to December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the robotic system and hospital databases. RESULTS: A total of 3485 robotic operations were performed. Yearly case volume nearly quadrupled. There have been 37 robotic-trained surgeons in 5 specialties performing 53 different operations. Rate of conversion to open was 4.2%. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class increased over time, with ASA class 3 increasing from 20% of patients to 45% of patients. Average case time in 2005 was 453 min, but decreased by 46% to 246 min by 2007, then remained relatively stable (range 226-247). Operating efficiency improved, with room time and case time decreasing by 9% in the past 4 years. Average cost for robotic supplies was $1519 per case. Additional costs per case related to equipment and contracts totaled an average of $11,822. Average length of stay (LOS) for robotic cases was 3.3 days, compared to 3.0 days for laparoscopic and 7.0 for open. Cost per day for admission after robotic surgery was 1.7 times greater than the cost of open or laparoscopic surgery. Total admission costs of robotic operations were 1.5 times those of laparoscopic surgery, but less than open operations. Readmissions following robotic cases were lower than open (15% v 26%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years, the use of robotic technology has grown significantly at our institution, with good fiscal and clinical outcomes. Operating room costs are high; however, efficiency has improved, LOS is shorter, admission costs are lower than open operations, and readmission rates are lower.

Association between Delay to Radical Prostatectomy and Clinically Meaningful Outcomes among Patients with Intermediate and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There are limited data regarding the effect of treatment delays on important long-term outcomes among men with intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 3,962 men with intermediate/high-risk disease from the SEARCH cohort treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) from 1988 to 2018. Cox proportional hazard models assessed the association between time from biopsy to RP (up to 1 year) and time to castration-resistant PC (CRPC), metastasis and all-cause mortality. Interaction terms were used to test for effect modification by risk group. RESULTS: Of the 3,962 men, 167 developed CRPC, 248 developed metastases and 884 died after a median followup of 85 months. Longer delays between biopsy and RP were associated with a decreased risk of CRPC (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98, p=0.02), independent of D'Amico risk group (interaction p >0.05). In men with intermediate and high-risk disease, we found no statistically significant association between length of time to RP and risk of developing metastases (p=0.5 and 0.9, respectively) or all-cause mortality (p=0.1 and 0.1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with intermediate and high-risk PC, we found no statistically significant increased risk of adverse long-term outcomes, including CRPC, metastasis and death, for men who had treatment delays up to 1 year following PC diagnosis.

Disparities and trends in the participation of minorities, women, and the elderly in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study was done to determine the representation of minorities, women, and the elderly in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials. METHODS: This is an analysis in the NCI Clinical Data Update System. Patients were evaluated in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer trials from 2000 to 2019. Representation in a trial was determined by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Secondarily, the change in trial participation by multivariable analysis by comparing years 2000 through 2004 to 2015 through 2019 was evaluated. RESULTS: The cohort included 242,720 participants: 197,320 Non-Hispanic White (81.3%), 21,190 Black (8.7%), 11,587 Hispanic (4.8%), and 6880 Asian/Pacific Islander (2.8%). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented for colorectal (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.67; P < .001 and OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001, respectively), lung (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001 and 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77; P < .001, respectively), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001 and OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.66; P < .001) between 2015 and 2019. The odds of participation in 2015 to 2019 increased among Black patients in breast (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.07-%2.32; P < .001), lung (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.73; P < .001), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P < .001). The odds of participation in a trial among Hispanic patients increased for breast (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 3.09-3.56; P < .001), colorectal (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.04-2.96; P < .001), lung (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.20-4.69; P < .001), and prostate cancer (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.04; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that Black and Hispanic patients remain underrepresented in trials, but in recent years, participation has increased. These findings indicate that minority participation has increased over time, but further efforts are needed.