Rates of metastatic prostate cancer in newly diagnosed patients: Numbers needed to image according to risk level.

BACKGROUND: The numbers needed to image to identify pelvic lymph node and/or distant metastases in newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients according to risk level are unknown. METHODS: Relying on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2016), we tabulated rates and proportions of patients with (a) lymph node or (b) distant metastases according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk level and calculated the number needed to image (NNI) for both endpoints. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 145,939 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of pelvic lymph node metastases (cN1), 4559 (3.1%) harbored cN1 stage: 13 (0.02%), 18 (0.08%), 63 (0.3%), 512 (2.8%), and 3954 (14.9%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk levels. These resulted in NNI of 4619, 1182, 319, 35, and 7, respectively. Of 181,109 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of distant metastases (M1a-c ), 8920 (4.9%) harbored M1a-c stage: 50 (0.07%), 45 (0.1%), 161 (0.5%), 1290 (5.1%), and 7374 (22.0%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk. These resulted in NNI of 1347, 602, 174, 20, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations perfectly validated the NCCN recommendations for imaging in newly diagnosed high and very high-risk PCa patients. However, in unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa patients, in whom bone and soft tissue imaging is recommended, the NNI might be somewhat elevated to support routine imaging in clinical practice.

Differences in rates of pelvic lymph node dissection in National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable, unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer across United States SEER registries.

Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in NCCN high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We tested for PLND nonadherence (no-PLND) rates within the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (2010-2015). Materials and methods: We identified all radical prostatectomy patients who fulfilled the NCCN PLND guideline criteria (n = 23,495). Nonadherence rates to PLND were tabulated and further stratified according to NCCN risk subgroups, race/ethnicity, geographic distribution, and year of diagnosis. Results: Overall, the no-PLND rate was 26%; it was 41%, 25%, and 11% in the NCCN intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, and high-risk prostate cancer patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Over time, the no-PLND rates declined in the overall cohort and within each NCCN risk subgroup. Georgia exhibited the highest no-PLND rate (49%), whereas New Jersey exhibited the lowest (15%). Finally, no-PLND race/ethnicity differences were recorded only in the NCCN intermediate unfavorable subgroup, where Asians exhibited the lowest no-PLND rate (20%) versus African Americans (27%) versus Whites (26%) versus Hispanic-Latinos (25%). Conclusions: The lowest no-PLND rates were recorded in the NCCN high-risk patients followed by NCCN intermediate unfavorable and favorable risk in that order. Our findings suggest that unexpectedly elevated differences in no-PLND rates warrant further examination. In all the NCCN risk subgroups, the no-PLND rates decreased over time.

Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in National Comprehensive Cancer Network High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Some high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may show more favorable Gleason pattern at radical prostatectomy (RP) than at biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To test whether downgrading could be predicted accurately. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2016), 6690 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk PCa patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: We randomly split the overall cohort between development and validation cohorts (both n = 3345, 50%). Multivariable logistic regression models used biopsy Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive prostate biopsy cores, and cT stage to predict downgrading. Accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) tested the model in the external validation cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 6690 patients, 50.3% were downgraded at RP, and of 2315 patients with any biopsy pattern 5, 44.1% were downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Downgrading rates were highest in biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 5 (84.1%) and lowest in 3 + 4 (4.0%). In the validation cohort, the logistic regression model-derived nomogram predicted downgrading with 71.0% accuracy, with marginal departures (±3.3%) from ideal predictions in calibration. In DCA, a net benefit throughout all threshold probabilities was recorded, relative to treat-all or treat-none strategies and an algorithm based on an average downgrading rate of 50.3%. All steps were repeated in the subgroup with any biopsy Gleason pattern 5, to predict RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Here, a second nomogram (n = 2315) yielded 68.0% accuracy, maximal departures from ideal prediction of ±5.7%, and virtually the same DCA pattern as the main nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: Downgrading affects half of all high-risk PCa patients. Its presence may be predicted accurately and may help with better treatment planning. PATIENT SUMMARY: Downgrading occurs in every second high-risk prostate cancer patients. The nomograms developed by us can predict these probabilities accurately.

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage). RESULTS: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19-0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21-1.39, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. RESULTS: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.

Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores.

BACKGROUND: Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores. RESULTS: In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively -5.5% (32.4%-24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%-48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%-9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%-16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%-29.7% for low risk, 47.9%-47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%-9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%-13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates.

BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians. METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

North American population-based validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Practice Guideline Recommendations for locoregional lymph node and bone imaging in prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines provide recommendations for staging of prostate cancer patients in the objective regarding presence of locoregional lymph node metastases (LNM) and bone metastases. We tested the performance characteristics of these recommendations in a community setting. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2014), we identified patients with available Gleason, clinical stage and prostatic specific antigen. Performance characteristics endpoints consisted of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NVP), overall accuracy and the number needed to image (NNI). RESULTS: Totally, 191,308 patients were assessable for the validation of the LNM staging recommendations. Sensitivity ranged from 80.6 to 86.3%, specificity from 74.7 to 79.3%, PPV from 7.8 to 8.0%, overall accuracy from 75.0 to 79.3% and NPV was 99.5%. The respective NNI values were 12.5 and 12.8. 197,408 patients were assessable for the validation of bone scan recommendations. These recommendations resulted in 90.8% sensitivity, 76.3% specificity, PPV of 5.7%, NPV of 99.8% and overall accuracy of 76.5%. The NNI was 17.5. CONCLUSION: The NCCN recommendations for locoregional LNM miss few patients with clinical LNM (0.3-0.4%) and provide a virtually perfect NPV of 99.5%. Also, the recommendations for bone scan miss a marginal number of patients with established bone metastases (0.14%) and yield a virtually perfect NPV of 99.8%.

Biopsy Based Proteomic Assay Predicts Risk of Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Current clinicopathological parameters are insufficient to predict the likelihood of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Such information may help identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy rather than active surveillance. A multiplex proteomic assay, previously tested on biopsies and found to be predictive of favorable or unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy, was assessed for its predictive value to identify patients at higher risk for biochemical relapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Proteomic assays from core needle biopsies of 288 men who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy at CHUM (Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) were evaluated for the prediction of subsequent biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 288 men, biochemical relapse was observed in 47 (16.3%) and metastases were found in 5 (1.7%). Median followup was 68.5 months. The proteomic assay clearly separated patients into 3 categories, including those at low, intermediate and high risk for biochemical relapse (p = 0.0007). Assay scores predicted biochemical relapse on univariate analysis (HR 1.724, p = 0.0002 per 20% change in score), significantly better than other preoperative prognostic parameters. Additionally, the assay score had a significantly higher p value when combined with clinical National Comprehensive Cancer Network® stage compared to stage alone (HR 1.579, p = 0.0017 per 20% change in score). CONCLUSIONS: A protein based assay score derived from diagnostic needle biopsy has strong predictive ability for biochemical relapse after surgery. These results suggest that this assay score can be used at the diagnostic stage to identify patients in whom prostate cancer is potentially more biologically aggressive and active treatment should be considered.

A comparative study of radical prostatectomy and permanent seed brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the outcomes between radical prostatectomy (RP) and permanent seed prostate brachytherapy (PB) in patients with low- and low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer from a single tertiary care centre. METHODS: Patients were selected from our institute's internal database based on preoperative selection criteria from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (2015) for low- and intermediate-risk patients. No patient had received any neo-adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy. The endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR) or any salvage treatment for both RP and PB at 48 ± 4 months after treatment. The biochemical relapse threshold was set at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.5 ng/mL for PB and two PSA values of ≥0.2 ng/mL for RP. Patients from both treatment groups were compared using non-parametric tests. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine an association of treatment and pretreatment factors with a BCR at 48 months. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients were included in this study; 254 were treated with RP and 321 with PB. BCR was not different between both groups (p=0.84, Chi-square test), and occurred in 21.2% of patients treated with RP and in 20.6% with PB. Based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, younger age, higher percentage of positive biopsies, and initial PSA were predictive of BCR. Treatment modality was not predictive in either univariate (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.44; p=0.84) or multivariate (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.89-2.30; p=0.14) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Using closely related cutoff values for BCR, both RP and PB did not have significantly different outcomes at four years post-treatment. A longer followup may be necessary to detect a difference between treatments.

Suboptimal use of pelvic lymph node dissection: Differences in guideline adherence between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of either robot-assisted (RARP) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP). METHODS: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database and focused on localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients who were treated with either RARP or ORP between October 2008 and December 2009. Categorical and multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted two endpoints: 1) probability of guideline-recommended PLND; and 2) probability of no PLND, when not guideline-recommended. RESULTS: Among 5268 PCa patients, adherence to NCCN PLND guideline was 56.9% during RARP and 76.5% during ORP (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3‒0.6). AUA PLND guideline adherence was 68.1% during RARP and 82.4% during ORP (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5‒0.9). When PLND was not recommended, it was more frequently performed during ORP according to either NCCN (OR 3.7, 95% CI 3.5‒3.9) or AUA (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.6‒2.8). According to the NCCN guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 6.3% harboured lymph node invasion (LNI) (number needed to treat [NNT] 16) vs. 3.2% at RARP (NNT 31). According to the AUA guideline, at recommended PLND in ORP patients, 12.3% harboured LNI (NNT 8) vs. 5.1% RARP (NNT 19). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to NCCN and AUA PLND guidelines was lower during RARP than during ORP when PLND was recommended. The rate of non-recommended PLND was also higher during ORP than during RARP. Technical considerations may be at play.

Assessment of the Rate of Adherence to International Guidelines for Androgen Deprivation Therapy with External-beam Radiation Therapy: A Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Association of Urology guidelines recommend using radiation therapy (RT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree of adherence to these guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2003 and 2009, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, 14 180 patients were diagnosed with high-risk (T1-T2 with World Health Organization histologic grade 3) or locally advanced (T3-T4 with any histologic grade) prostatic adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTION: Administration of RT-ADT versus RT alone. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed the rate of adherence to guidelines with respect to use of RT-ADT in the overall population and after stratification according to stage-grade groupings (T1-T2 G3 vs T3-T4 any grade), age (66-69, 70-74, 75-79, ≥80 yr), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (0, 1, ≥2), and preexisting baseline cardiovascular (CV) disease. We depicted the rate of RT-ADT administration graphically over the study period. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the predictors of RT-ADT use. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: RT-ADT rates and guideline adherence were 58-75%, with the highest rate (75%) in 2003 and the lowest (58%) in 2009. When stratified according to stage-grade groupings, age, CCI, and preexisting baseline CV disease, similar results were obtained. In multivariable analyses, year of diagnosis (p<0.001), patient age (p<0.001), stage-grade groupings (p<0.001), CCI (p=0.036), race (p<0.001), marital status (p<0.001), population density (p<0.001), and US regions (p<0.001) were independent predictors of RT-ADT use. The limitations of our study include age >65 yr and exclusive Medicare coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of guideline adherence regarding the use of RT-ADT is suboptimal and decreases with time instead of increasing. PATIENT SUMMARY: This population-based study provides evidence of low adherence to international urologic guidelines regarding the combination of radiation therapy (RT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Despite the increasing number of randomized controlled trials over time that showed a survival benefit for patients with high-risk and locally advanced PCa treated with RT-ADT compared with RT alone, the rate of adherence to guidelines decreased with time.

A Practical Approach to the Management of Radiation-Induced Hemorrhagic Cystitis.

Radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis (HC) is a complication of pelvic radiotherapy, mainly for prostate and uterine cancers. In the acute phase, patients feel urinary urgency and bladder pain. This phase is reversible after radiotherapy. In the chronic stage, an irritative syndrome is coupled with hematuria during the 2-10 years following radiotherapy. Cystoscopy shows white and frosted mucosa with telangiectasia. The incidence is estimated at 5 % or less. It is suggested that the radiation oncologist reviews the dosimetry plan to validate that the lesions coincide with significant radiation exposure confirming diagnosis of radiation-induced HC. The treatment for HC is first symptomatic, with bladder lavage, clot evacuation, coagulation via cystoscopy and blood transfusions if necessary. Subsequently, hyaluronic acid bladder instillation can be done with little toxicity. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy delivers pure oxygen to patients in a pressurized cabin, promoting angio-neogenesis and lowering hypoxia to the irradiated tissues. The clinical response rate is estimated to be around 80 %. Nevertheless, this approach is limited by the low availability, and length of treatment. While surgery remains an effective treatment for HC, it is the last option because of the high morbidity and mortality risks. Prospective studies need to be conducted to identify and evaluate new interventions, particularly for HC.

Hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease treated with denosumab.

BACKGROUND: This analysis was performed to further characterise treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia in patients with bone metastases receiving denosumab. METHODS: Laboratory abnormalities and adverse events of hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease were analysed using data from three identically designed phase 3 trials of subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 2841) versus intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 2836). RESULTS: The overall incidence of laboratory events of hypocalcaemia grade ⩾ 2 was higher with denosumab (12.4%) than with zoledronic acid (5.3%). Hypocalcaemia events were primarily grade 2 in severity and usually occurred within the first 6 months of treatment. Patients who reported taking calcium and/or vitamin D supplements had a lower incidence of hypocalcaemia. Prostate cancer or small-cell lung cancer, reduced creatinine clearance and higher baseline bone turnover markers of urinary N-telopeptide of type I collagen (uNTx; > 50 versus ⩽ 50 nmol/mmol) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP; > 20.77 µg/L [median] versus ⩽ 20.77 µg/L) values were important risk factors for developing hypocalcaemia. The risk associated with increased baseline BSAP levels was greater among patients who had > 2 bone metastases at baseline versus those with ⩽ 2 bone metastases at baseline. CONCLUSION: Hypocalcaemia was more frequent with denosumab versus zoledronic acid, consistent with denosumab's greater antiresorptive effect. Low serum calcium levels and potential vitamin D deficiency should be corrected before initiating treatment with a potent osteoclast inhibitor, and corrected serum calcium levels should be monitored during treatment. Adequate calcium and vitamin D intake appears to substantially reduce the risk of hypocalcaemia.

Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer aggressiveness and appropriate therapy are routinely determined following biopsy sampling. Current clinical and pathologic parameters are insufficient for accurate risk prediction leading primarily to overtreatment and also missed opportunities for curative therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: An 8-biomarker proteomic assay for intact tissue biopsies predictive of prostate pathology was defined in a study of 381 patient biopsies with matched prostatectomy specimens. A second blinded study of 276 cases validated this assay's ability to distinguish "favorable" versus "nonfavorable" pathology independently and relative to current risk classification systems National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN and D'Amico). RESULTS: A favorable biomarker risk score of ≤0.33, and a nonfavorable risk score of >0.80 (possible range between 0 and 1) were defined on "false-negative" and "false-positive" rates of 10% and 5%, respectively. At a risk score ≤0.33, predictive values for favorable pathology in very low-risk and low-risk NCCN and low-risk D'Amico groups were 95%, 81.5%, and 87.2%, respectively, higher than for these current risk classification groups themselves (80.3%, 63.8%, and 70.6%, respectively). The predictive value for nonfavorable pathology was 76.9% at biomarker risk scores >0.8 across all risk groups. Increased biomarker risk scores correlated with decreased frequency of favorable cases across all risk groups. The validation study met its two coprimary endpoints, separating favorable from nonfavorable pathology (AUC, 0.68; P < 0.0001; OR, 20.9) and GS-6 versus non-GS-6 pathology (AUC, 0.65; P < 0.0001; OR, 12.95). CONCLUSIONS: The 8-biomarker assay provided individualized, independent prognostic information relative to current risk stratification systems, and may improve the precision of clinical decision making following prostate biopsy.

Radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To better understand the mechanism of radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis and the advantages and disadvantages of available treatment options for bladder hemorrhage as well as preventive measures. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several attempts recently to manage hemorrhagic cystitis with hyperbaric oxygen therapy, transurethral coagulation using Greenlight potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser and other different treatment modalities, but we still need more investigation on larger cohort studies. SUMMARY: Hemorrhagic cystitis is an uncommon urological problem. It is most often caused by radiation therapy and cyclophosphamide, but can be associated with other contributing factors. Technological advances in radiation therapy have resulted in greater treatment efficacy, with significant reduction in side-effects such as hemorrhagic cystitis. Higher dose radiation treatment, however, is more often associated with problematic hemorrhagic cystitis. Treatment of hemorrhagic cystitis is multifactorial and can range from simple bladder irrigation to cystectomy with urinary diversion.

Toxicities following treatment with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitors in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with skeletal complications, both as a result of bone metastases and because of fractures associated with fragility due to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Osteoclast inhibitors are commonly used to reduce skeletal complications but are associated with a number of potential adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To review clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa, to discuss the adverse event profile of these agents, and to discuss strategies to address specific adverse events. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched for reports of clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa. As zoledronic acid and denosumab are used most commonly in this disease, these trials were the focus. The literature was reviewed to identify key publications addressing the prevention and management of adverse events associated with these drugs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The major findings of the trials and the adverse events are discussed. Prevention and management of common adverse events are addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid prevents loss of bone mineral density associated with ADT and delays skeletal-related events in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). Denosumab reduces the incidence of fragility fractures associated with ADT, delays the onset of bone metastases in nonmetastatic castration-resistant disease, and is superior to zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal complications in mCRPC. Adverse events associated with both agents include osteonecrosis of the jaw and hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia is more common with denosumab. Zoledronic acid requires dose modifications for renal insufficiency, is contraindicated in severe renal insufficiency, and has been associated with deterioration of renal function. Appropriate patient selection with close attention to dental health, supplementation with calcium and vitamin D, and monitoring of laboratory values are effective strategies to minimize the impact of adverse events associated with osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa.

Efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate in an elderly patient subgroup (aged 75 and older) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a disease that primarily affects older men. Abiraterone acetate (AA), a selective androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, in combination with low-dose prednisone (P) improved overall survival (OS) in a randomised trial in mCRPC progressing after docetaxel versus placebo (PL) plus P. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of AA plus P versus PL plus P in subgroups of elderly (aged ≥ 75 yr) (n=331) and younger patients (<75 yr) (n=863). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a randomised double-blind PL-controlled study in mCRPC patients progressing after docetaxel chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 2:1 to AA (1000 mg) plus low-dose P (5mg twice daily) (n=797) or PL plus P (n=398). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (TTPP), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and PSA response rate. Treatment differences were compared using the stratified log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The key limitation was the post hoc analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Elderly patients treated with AA plus P showed improved OS (HR: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.478-0.853; p=0.0022), TTPP (HR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.503-1.155; p=0.1995), and rPFS (HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.506-0.859; p=0.0019), and higher PSA response rate with relative risk (HR: 4.15; 95% CI, 2.2-8.0]; p ≤ 0.0001) compared with patients treated with PL plus P. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 62% of elderly patients and in 60% of patients aged <75 yr treated with AA plus P. Incidences of hypertension and hypokalaemia, although increased in the AA plus P arm, were similar in both age subgroups and readily managed. CONCLUSIONS: AA improves OS and is well tolerated in both elderly patients and younger patients with mCRPC following docetaxel, hence providing an important treatment option for elderly patients who may not tolerate alternative therapies with greater toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00638690.