Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.

Multinational Prospective Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Prostate Radiation Therapy: Detailed Assessment of Rectal Bleeding.

PURPOSE: The new short Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) tool has removed the rectal bleeding question from the previous much longer version, EPIC-26. Herein, we assess the impact of losing the dedicated rectal bleeding question in 2 independent prospective multicenter cohorts. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective multicenter test cohort (n=865), EPIC-26 patient-reported HRQOL data were collected for 2 years after treatment from patients treated with prostate radiation therapy from 2003 to 2011. A second prospective multicenter cohort (n=442) was used for independent validation. A repeated-effects model was used to predict the change from baseline in bowel summary scores from longer EPIC instruments using the change in EPIC-CP bowel summary scores with and without rectal bleeding scores. RESULTS: Two years after radiation therapy, 91% of patients were free of bleeding, and only 2.6% reported bothersome bleeding problems. Correlations between EPIC-26 and EPIC-CP bowel scores were very high (r2=0.90-0.96) and were statistically improved with the addition of rectal bleeding information (r2=0.94-0.98). Considering all patients, only 0.2% of patients in the test cohort and 0.7% in the validation cohort reported bothersome bleeding and had clinically relevant HRQOL changes missed with EPIC-CP. However, of the 2.6% (n=17) of men with bothersome rectal bleeding in the test cohort, EPIC-CP failed to capture 1 patient (6%) as experiencing meaningful declines in bowel HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: Modern prostate radiation therapy results in exceptionally low rates of bothersome rectal bleeding, and <1% of patients experience bothersome bleeding and are not captured by EPIC-CP as having meaningful HRQOL declines after radiation therapy. However, in the small subset of patients with bothersome rectal bleeding, the longer EPIC-26 should strongly be considered, given its superior performance in this patient subset.

Symptom burden and information needs in prostate cancer survivors: a case for tailored long-term survivorship care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between long-term prostate cancer survivors' symptom burden and information needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used population-based data from the Michigan Prostate Cancer Survivor Study (2499 men). We examined unadjusted differences in long-term information needs according to symptom burden and performed multivariable logistic regression to examine symptom burden and information needs adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: High symptom burden was reported across all domains (sexual 44.4%, urinary 14.4%, vitality 12.7%, bowel 8.4%, emotional 7.6%) with over half of respondents (56%) reporting they needed more information. Top information needs involved recurrence, relationships, and long-term effects. Prostate cancer survivors with high symptom burden more often searched for information regardless of domain (P < 0.05). High sexual burden was associated with greater need for information about relationships [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-2.72] and long-term effects (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.23-2.07). High bowel burden was associated with greater information need for long-term effects (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.43-3.63). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prostate cancer survivors with high symptom burden need more supportive information. Tailoring information to these needs may be an efficient approach to support the growing population of long-term prostate cancer survivors.

Limitations of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) Prognostic Tool for Prediction of Metastases and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality in Patients Treated With External Beam Radiation Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) prognostic tool for freedom-from-metastases (FFM) and cause-specific survival (CSS) in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and to determine whether the performance of CAPRA is influenced by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use or the presence of Gleason pattern 5 (GP-5). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 612 patients from a prospective database of 718 patients treated with dose-escalated EBRT from 1998 to 2008 who met CAPRA scoring criteria were included in the study. Performance of CAPRA and association of CAPRA score, GP-5 and short-term or long-term ADT use (STAD or LTAD, respectively) with FFM and CSS were evaluated using Cox models. The impact of ADT use on accuracy of the CAPRA-based CaPSURE model for CSS was assessed. The discriminatory ability of the CAPRA model and modified models incorporating GP-5 and ADT use were compared using the C-index. RESULTS: Increasing CAPRA score correlated with worse FFM and CSS, and was prognostic for FFM and CSS for the overall cohort. CAPRA showed poorer discrimination for FFM and CSS in patients treated with EBRT+LTAD than those who received EBRT alone or EBRT+STAD. The addition of GP-5 and ADT use to CAPRA score increased the predictive accuracy of the CAPRA model for both FFM (C-index 0.809 vs. 0.779, P<0.001) and CSS (C-index 0.864 vs. 0.796, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The CAPRA score should be modified to incorporate GP-5 and ADT use for risk adjustment and risk prediction in prostate cancer patients who receive EBRT.

The Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) in patients treated with external beam radiation therapy: evaluation and optimization in patients at higher risk of relapse.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) was developed to predict freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Its utility following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has not been externally evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective study of 612 patients treated with dose-escalated EBRT at the University of Michigan Medical Center. RESULTS: Compared to the derivation cohort, EBRT treated patients had higher-risk disease (28% with CAPRA of 6-10 vs. 5%, respectively). A total of 114 patients (19%) had BF with 5-year BF ranging from 7% with CAPRA 0-3 to 35% with CAPRA 7-10. For RT patients the risk of BF at 5-year was similar to 4 surgical cohorts for CAPRA scores 0-2 but lower for all CAPRA scores ≥ 3. The difference favoring RT increased with increasing CAPRA score reaching a 27-50% absolute improved at 5-years for CAPRA scores of 6-10. On multivariate analysis each CAPRA point increased the risk of BF (p<0.0001) while Gleason pattern 5 in the biopsy also increased BF (p=0.01) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly reduced the risk of BF (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surgical series the risk of BF was lower with dose-escalated EBRT with the greatest difference at the highest CAPRA scores.

Prospective analysis of parametric response map-derived MRI biomarkers: identification of early and distinct glioma response patterns not predicted by standard radiographic assessment.

PURPOSE: Currently, radiologic response of brain tumors is assessed according to the Macdonald criteria 10 weeks from the start of therapy. There exists a critical need to identify nonresponding patients early in the course of their therapy for consideration of alternative treatment strategies. Our study assessed the effectiveness of the parametric response map (PRM) imaging biomarker to provide for an earlier measure of patient survival prediction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-five high-grade glioma patients received concurrent chemoradiation. Quantitative MRI including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) maps were acquired pretreatment and 3 weeks midtreatment on a prospective institutional-approved study. PRM, a voxel-by-voxel image analysis method, was evaluated as an early prognostic biomarker of overall survival. Clinical and conventional MR parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that PRM(ADC+) in combination with PRM(rCBV-) obtained at week 3 had a stronger correlation to 1-year and overall survival rates than any baseline clinical or treatment response imaging metric. The composite biomarker identified three distinct patient groups, nonresponders [median survival (MS) of 5.5 months, 95% CI: 4.4-6.6 months], partial responders (MS of 16 months, 95% CI: 8.6-23.4 months), and responders (MS has not yet been reached). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of PRM(ADC+) and PRM(rCBV-) into a single imaging biomarker metric provided early identification of patients resistant to standard chemoradiation. In comparison to the current standard of assessment of response at 10 weeks (Macdonald criteria), the composite PRM biomarker potentially provides a useful opportunity for clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies.

Adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: evidence and analysis.

Although surgery provides excellent control for localized prostate cancer, pathologic examination of more than one-third of specimens will reveal positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, and/or extracapsular extension, thus putting these patients at increased risk of cancer recurrence. "Adjuvant" radiotherapy (ART) refers to treatment of patients with an undetectable PSA that is delivered after surgery (usually less than 12-16 weeks from the time of surgery). Currently, there are no standardized guidelines for the use of ART and the bulk of patients are solely monitored for signs of recurrence after prostatectomy. In this article, we review the evidence for ART from three randomized clinical trials. Although radiation therapy in the adjuvant setting has generally been well tolerated, we also examine the complication data associated with treatment. In addition, we discuss the technical aspects of treatment, including dose escalation and treatment target volume. The ability to increase dose and limit target volume would likely result in higher cure rates and decreased side effects, thus ensuring a better clinical outcome and increasing quality of life. Finally, we discuss the cost-effectiveness of ART, in the context of other medical interventions.