Moving persistence assessments into the 21st century: A role for weight-of-evidence and overall persistence.

Assessing the persistence of chemicals in the environment is a key element in existing regulatory frameworks to protect human health and ecosystems. Persistence in the environment depends on many fate processes, including abiotic and biotic transformations and physical partitioning, which depend on substances' physicochemical properties and environmental conditions. A main challenge in persistence assessment is that existing frameworks rely on simplistic and reductionist evaluation schemes that may lead substances to be falsely assessed as persistent or the other way around-to be falsely assessed as nonpersistent. Those evaluation schemes typically assess persistence against degradation half-lives determined in single-compartment simulation tests or against degradation levels measured in stringent screening tests. Most of the available test methods, however, do not apply to all types of substances, especially substances that are poorly soluble, complex in composition, highly sorptive, or volatile. In addition, the currently applied half-life criteria are derived mainly from a few legacy persistent organic pollutants, which do not represent the large diversity of substances entering the environment. Persistence assessment would undoubtedly benefit from the development of more flexible and holistic evaluation schemes including new concepts and methods. A weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach incorporating multiple influencing factors is needed to account for chemical fate and transformation in the whole environment so as to assess overall persistence. The present paper's aim is to begin to develop an integrated assessment framework that combines multimedia approaches to organize and interpret data using a clear WoE approach to allow for a more consistent, transparent, and thorough assessment of persistence. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:868-887. © 2021 ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Cancer Surgery Scheduling During and After the COVID-19 First Wave: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the multi-specialty strategy and initial guidelines of a Case Review Committee in triaging oncologic surgery procedures in a large Comprehensive Cancer Center and to outline current steps moving forward after the initial wave. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impetus for strategic rescheduling of operations is multifactorial and includes our societal responsibility to minimize COVID-19 exposure risk and propagation among patients, the healthcare workforce, and our community at large. Strategic rescheduling is also driven by the need to preserve limited resources. As many states have already or are considering to re-open and relax stay-at-home orders, there remains a continued need for careful surgical scheduling because we must face the reality that we will need to co-exist with COVID-19 for months, if not years. METHODS: The quality officers, chairs, and leadership of the 9 surgical departments in our Division of Surgery provide specialty-specific approaches to appropriately triage patients. RESULTS: We present the strategic approach for surgical rescheduling during and immediately after the COVID-19 first wave for the 9 departments in the Division of Surgery at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer surgeons should continue to use their oncologic knowledge to determine the window of opportunity for each surgical procedure, based on tumor biology, preoperative treatment sequencing, and response to systemic therapy, to safely guide patients through this cautious recovery phase.

Downgrading from Biopsy Grade Group 4 Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for High or Very High Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We examined rates of Grade Group 4 downgrading at radical prostatectomy among men diagnosed with high and very high risk prostate cancer at biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pooled cohort of 1,776 patients from 3 tertiary referral centers who underwent radical prostatectomy for National Comprehensive Cancer Network® high risk (prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, or Grade Group 4-5, or clinical stage T3 or greater) or very high risk (primary Gleason pattern 5, or more than 4 biopsy cores with Grade Group 4-5, or 2 or more high risk features) disease from 2005 to 2015 were reviewed. Overall 893 patients with Grade Group 4 disease at biopsy were identified and 726 patients were available for analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to determine factors associated with downgrading to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Overall 333 (45%) cases were downgraded to Grade Group 3 or less at radical prostatectomy. Of these cases 198 (27%) had concordant Grade Group 4 biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology and 195 (27%) were upgraded at radical prostatectomy to Grade Group 5. Of high risk cases with biopsy Grade Group 4 disease 49% had any downgrading vs 29% of very high risk cases (p <0.0001). Downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in 16% (98 of 604) of high risk and 7% (8 of 122) of very high risk cases (p <0.01). Downgraded cases had a lower prostate specific antigen, fewer positive biopsy cores and lower clinical stage (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis fewer positive biopsy cores were significantly associated with downgrading at radical prostatectomy (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with high risk/very high risk prostate cancer, downgrading from biopsy Grade Group 4 at radical prostatectomy occurred less frequently than in other published reports. Any downgrading was significantly less common in very high risk compared to high risk patients, and downgrading to Grade Group 2 or less occurred in a minority of cases in high risk and very high risk patients.

Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance.

ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Many men diagnosed with prostate cancer are active surveillance (AS) candidates. However, AS may be associated with increased risk of disease progression and metastasis due to delayed therapy. Genomic classifiers, e.g., Decipher, may allow better risk-stratify newly diagnosed prostate cancers for AS. METHODS: Decipher was initially assessed in a prospective cohort of prostatectomies to explore the correlation with clinically meaningful biologic characteristics and then assessed in diagnostic biopsies from a retrospective multicenter cohort of 266 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) very low/low and favorable-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Decipher and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) were compared as predictors of adverse pathology (AP) for which there is universal agreement that patients with long life-expectancy are not suitable candidates for AS (primary pattern 4 or 5, advanced local stage [pT3b or greater] or lymph node involvement). RESULTS: Decipher from prostatectomies was significantly associated with adverse pathologic features (p-values < 0.001). Decipher from the 266 diagnostic biopsies (64.7% NCCN-very-low/low and 35.3% favorable-intermediate) was an independent predictor of AP (odds ratio 1.29 per 10% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.61, p-value 0.025) when adjusting for CAPRA. CAPRA area under curve (AUC) was 0.57, (95% CI 0.47-0.68). Adding Decipher to CAPRA increased the AUC to 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.70). NPV, which determines the degree of confidence in the absence of AP for patients, was 91% (95% CI 87-94%) and 96% (95% CI 90-99%) for Decipher thresholds of 0.45 and 0.2, respectively. Using a threshold of 0.2, Decipher was a significant predictor of AP when adjusting for CAPRA (p-value 0.016). CONCLUSION: Decipher can be applied to prostate biopsies from NCCN-very-low/low and favorable-intermediate risk patients to predict absence of adverse pathologic features. These patients are predicted to be good candidates for active surveillance.

The role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan in biochemical recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer is one of the major challenges facing urologists. Biochemical recurrence is not rare and occurs in up to one third of the patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Management of biochemical recurrence is tailored according to the site and the burden of recurrence. Therefore, developing an imaging technique to early detect recurrent lesions represents an urgent need. Positron emission tomography (PET) of 68Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) is an emerging imaging modality that seems to be a promising tool with capability to localize recurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review of literature was done to evaluate the role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after primary radical treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic and comprehensive review of literature was performed in September 2017 analyzing the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The following key terms were used for the search "PSMA," "prostate-specific membrane antigen," "positron emission tomography," "PET," "recurrent," "prostate cancer," "prostate neoplasm," "prostate malignancy," and "68Ga." Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis of this systematic review. Of the 37 articles selected for analysis only four studies were prospective. The overall detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET scan ranged from 47% up to 96.6%. The main advantage of this imaging technique is its relatively high detection rates at low serum PSA levels below 0.5 ng/mL (ranging from 11.1% to 75%). Higher serum PSA level was strongly associated with increased positivity on 68Ga-PSMA PET scan. 68Ga-PSMA PET scan was found superior to conventional imaging techniques (CT and MRI) in this setting of patients and even it seems to outperform choline-based PET scan. This technique provided significant changes in the therapeutic management of 28.6-87.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: After biochemical recurrence, the primary goal is to locate the recurrent lesions' site. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT seems to be effective in identifying recurrence localization also for very low levels of PSA (<0.5 ng/mL) thus permitting to choose the best therapeutic strategy as early as possible. However, data available cannot be considered exhaustive and prospective randomized trials are needed.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

Ability of a Genomic Classifier to Predict Metastasis and Prostate Cancer-specific Mortality after Radiation or Surgery based on Needle Biopsy Specimens.

BACKGROUND: Decipher is a validated genomic classifier developed to determine the biological potential for metastasis after radical prostatectomy (RP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of biopsy Decipher to predict metastasis and Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in primarily intermediate- to high-risk patients treated with RP or radiation therapy (RT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-five patients treated with either RP (n=105) or RT±androgen deprivation therapy (n=130) with available genomic expression profiles generated from diagnostic biopsy specimens from seven tertiary referral centers. The highest-grade core was sampled and Decipher was calculated based on a locked random forest model. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Metastasis and PCSM were the primary and secondary outcomes of the study, respectively. Cox analysis and c-index were used to evaluate the performance of Decipher. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 6 yr among censored patients, 34 patients developed metastases and 11 died of prostate cancer. On multivariable analysis, biopsy Decipher remained a significant predictor of metastasis (hazard ratio: 1.37 per 10% increase in score, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.78, p=0.018) after adjusting for clinical variables. For predicting metastasis 5-yr post-biopsy, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score had a c-index of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), while Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60-0.82). National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group had a c-index of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.53-0.77), while National Comprehensive Cancer Network plus biopsy Decipher had a c-index of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82). Biopsy Decipher was a significant predictor of PCSM (hazard ratio: 1.57 per 10% increase in score, 95% CI: 1.03-2.48, p=0.037), with a 5-yr PCSM rate of 0%, 0%, and 9.4% for Decipher low, intermediate, and high, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and PCSM from diagnostic biopsy specimens of primarily intermediate- and high-risk men treated with first-line RT or RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsy Decipher predicted metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality risk from diagnostic biopsy specimens.

Robotic or Open Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Previous Transurethral Resection of Prostate.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic and open radicalprostatectomy (RP) in patients with history of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Total of 48 patients with mean ± SD age of 64.5 ± 6.0 years who had undergone TURPprior to RP were included. Thirty-one (64.58%) patients underwent robotic RP (group I) and 17 patients underwentopen RP (group II). Variables evaluated included demographic characteristics, perioperative complications, functionaland oncological outcomes. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as a detectable level of serum PSAafter RP. Continence was defined as being pad free and potency as erection with or without medication enough forpenetration. RESULTS: All patients had undetectable PSA after RP. Four patients (12.9%) from group I and 2 patients (11.8%)from group II had positive margins (P = .9). The rates of continence were 70% and 80.81% for group I and groupII respectively (P = .47). Potency rate was 68.2% in group I and 46.1% in group II (P =. 31). The PSA value at thelast follow-up was undetectable except in 2 patients who had PSA values of 0.2 and 1ng/mL respectively. CONCLUSION: Robotic or open RP can be performed safely and effectively after TURP without compromising theoncological results. The outcomes of robotic RP are comparable to that of open RP. The patients who undergorobotic or open RP should be informed about increased likelihood of intra operative complications and worse postoperative functional outcomes with respect to continence and erectile function.