Diagnostic Imaging in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: More Harm Than Good?

INTRODUCTION: Despite guidelines recommending that staging imaging is not needed in very low-risk (VLR) and low-risk (LR) prostate cancer (PCa), there is concern for overutilization in these risk groups. We investigate utilization of staging imaging and implications of findings in newly diagnosed VLR and LR PCa patients. METHODS: A total of 493 patients diagnosed with PCa between 2011 and 2017 were stratified according to American Urological Association and National Comprehensive Cancer Network® VLR and LR groups. Computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan performed at diagnosis was captured and guidelines compliance was evaluated. The significance of radiologist interpreted imaging findings, by imaging type, were classified as normal, nonurological, nonsignificant urological and PCa significant. RESULTS: Greater than 75% of patients in the VLR and LR groups underwent imaging at time of diagnosis. Bone scan was performed in 30% of patients, none of which noted PCa-significant findings, and the majority were normal. CT was utilized in 38% of patients, with only 3 showing PCa-significant findings. Ten CTs showed nonurological/nonsignificant urological findings causing further evaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging was the most utilized scan in low-risk groups, occurring in 70% of patients. Although the majority were normal, 25 scans showed nonsignificant urological findings while only 7 showed PCa-significant findings. CONCLUSIONS: Among VLR and LR PCa patients, there is high overutilization of imaging with most studies yielding minimal PCa-significant findings and further evaluation for incidental observations. This exploratory analysis gives awareness that staging imaging in VLR and LR PCa patients may do more harm than good.

Is pelvic MRI imaging sufficient cross-sectional imaging for staging intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: The American Urological Association's (AUA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) provide highly recognized guidelines for staging prostate cancer (CaP). However, both are vague as to specific type of cross-sectional imaging (CT vs. MRI) and extent (abdominal vs. pelvis), thereby raising concern for overlapping imaging. We investigated if current AUA and NCCN CaP staging guidelines can become more specific yet maintain sufficient staging. METHODS: We identified 493 patients diagnosed with CaP between 2011 and 2017 and focused analysis on those with AUA and NCCN Intermediate risk (IR) and High risk (HR) groups. Type of staging imaging was recorded and frequency of overlapping (CT + MRI) and abdominal imaging determined. Significance of radiologist findings, for both overlapping and abdominal imaging, were classified as nonurologic, nonsignificant urologic, and CaP significant. RESULTS: Among IR and HR AUA and NCCN risk groups, 82 (35.7%) and 95 (37.3%) patients, respectively, experienced overlapping imaging, of which only 7 patients in AUA and 9 patients in NCCN risk groups had an abnormal CT with normal MRI. However, only 3 of these CTs had CaP significant findings, of which 2 identified bone metastases, which were subsequently detected on bone scan. In regard to the extent of imaging, a total of 157 (68.2%) AUA and 178 (69.8%) NCCN IR and HR patients received abdominal scans, of which only 46 (20.0%) and 49 (19.2%) were abnormal among AUA and NCCN risk groups, respectively. Among these abnormal abdominal scans, only 10 showed CaP significant findings, of which half were suspected bone metastases, and confirmed on recommended bone scan. CONCLUSIONS: Due to nonspecific staging guidelines in IR and HR CaP regarding type and extent of cross-sectional imaging, patients are frequently receiving imaging of overlapping locations. Based on low occurrences of unique CaP significant findings on CT and abdominal imaging, our exploratory analysis suggests that narrowing cross-sectional imaging recommendations to pelvic MRI may reduce imaging overlap while maintaining sufficient staging.

Contemporary Patterns of Multidisciplinary Care in Patients With Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary clinics integrate the expertise of several specialties to provide effective treatment to patients. This exposure is especially relevant in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which requires critical input from urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology, among other supportive specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, we sought to catalog the different styles of multidisciplinary care models used in the management of MIBC and to identify barriers to their implementation. We surveyed providers from academic and community practices regarding their currently implemented multidisciplinary care models, available resources, and perceived barriers using the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and the Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada e-mail databases. RESULTS: Of the 101 responding providers, most practiced at academic institutions in the United States (61%) or Canada (29%), and only 7% were from community practices. The most frequently used model was sequential visits on different days (57%), followed by sequential same-day (39%) and concurrent (1 visit with all providers; 22%) models. However, most practitioners preferred a multidisciplinary clinic involving sequential same-day (41%) or concurrent (26%) visits. The lack of clinic space (58%), funding (41%), staff (40%), and time (32%) were the most common barriers to implementing a multidisciplinary clinic. CONCLUSION: Most surveyed practitioners at academic centers use some form of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with MIBC. The major barriers to more integrated multidisciplinary clinics were limited time and resources rather than a lack of provider enthusiasm. Future studies should incorporate patient preferences, further evaluate practice patterns in community settings, and assess their effects on patient outcomes.

Comparative effects of two different forms of selenium on oxidative stress biomarkers in healthy men: a randomized clinical trial.

Epidemiologic and laboratory studies indicate that dietary selenium protects against prostate cancer. Results from clinical trials suggest that selenium-enriched yeast (SY) but not selenomethionine (SeMet) may be effective at reducing prostate cancer risk. Our objectives were to directly compare for the first time the effects of SeMet and SY on prostate cancer relevant biomarkers in men. We performed a randomized double blind, placebo-controlled trial of SY (200 or 285 µg/day) and SeMet (200 µg/day) administered for 9 months in 69 healthy men. Primary endpoints included blood levels of selenium-containing compounds and oxidative stress biomarkers [urine 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and 8-iso-prostaglandin-F2α (8-iso-PGF2α) and blood glutathione (GSH)]. Secondary endpoints included plasma glucose and PSA levels. Compliance was high in all groups (>95%). Plasma selenium levels were increased 93%, 54%, and 86% after 9 months in SeMet and low- and high-dose SY groups, respectively, and returned to baseline levels after a 3-month washout (P < 0.05). Levels of 8-OHdG and 8-iso-PGF2α were decreased 34% and 28%, respectively, after 9 months in the high-dose SY group (P < 0.05). These decreases were greatest in individuals with low baseline plasma levels of selenium (<127 ng/mL). No changes in serum PSA or blood glucose and GSH were observed. Overall, we showed for the first time, reductions in biomarkers of oxidative stress following supplementation with SY but not SeMet in healthy men. These findings suggest that selenium-containing compounds other than SeMet may account for the decrease in oxidative stress.