Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer remains unclear. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® guidelines recommend active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Recent trials demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer specific mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer compared to prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The use of active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer is less clear. In this study we characterize U.S. national trends for demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 176,122 men diagnosed with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate risk prostate cancer and association with the use of active surveillance were characterized. The analysis was performed in April 2020. RESULTS: In total, 176,122 men were identified with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016. Of these men 57.3% underwent prostatectomy, 36.4% underwent radiotherapy and 3.2% underwent active surveillance. Active surveillance nearly tripled from 1.6% in 2010 to 4.6% in 2016 (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis use of active surveillance was associated with older age, diagnosis in recent years, lower Gleason score and tumor stage, type of insurance, treatment at an academic center and proximity to facility, and attaining higher education (p <0.05). Race and comorbidities were not associated with active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight increasing active surveillance use for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer demonstrating clinical and socioeconomic disparities. Prospective data and improved risk stratification are needed to guide optimal treatment for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Impact of Pelvic Radiation Therapy on Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reoperation Rates.

INTRODUCTION: Considering that radiation therapy (RT) compromises soft tissue microvasculature, impairs wound healing, and causes cavernosal fibrosis, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes may be adversely affected in men treated with RT. AIM: To compare IPP outcomes among those who had undergone prior RT vs a cohort who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) before insertion of IPP. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Database was queried for men with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent RT (n = 83,277) or RP (n = 32,608) with subsequent IPP insertion between 2002 and 2013. Men who had undergone both RT and RP were excluded from the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was reoperation, defined by removal, revision, or replacement of the IPP. RESULTS: We identified 350 men who received an IPP following RT and 653 who received an IPP following RP. Men who underwent RT were older (P < .01) and had more comorbidities (P < .01). There were no significant differences in overall reoperation rates at 90 days (P = .78), 1 year (P = .52), or 3 years (P = .48). Time-to-event analysis demonstrated that RT was not associated with an increased likelihood of overall reoperation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-2.29, P = .09). There was no association between time from RT to IPP and overall reoperation rates. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Prior RT for the treatment of PCa does not impact the revision or removal rates of IPPs as compared with a cohort of non-radiated patients who underwent RP. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: The strength includes the analysis of outcomes among a contemporary, nationwide cohort with robust follow-up. Using diagnosis and procedure codes, we were thoroughly able to capture reoperations. Limitations include the lack of specific indications for reoperation and inability to control for surgeon experience or technique. CONCLUSION: IPP is a safe and effective treatment of erectile dysfunction that should be offered to men with a history of pelvic radiation who have failed medical therapy. Golan R, Patel NA, Sun T, et al. Impact of pelvic radiation therapy on inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation rates. J Sex Med 2018;15:1653-1658.