How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year.

Effect of Sex on the Oncological Outcomes in Response to Immunotherapy and Antibody-drug Conjugates in Patients with Urothelial and Kidney Cancer: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) herald a transformative era in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) treatment, amid acknowledged sex-based disparities in these cancers. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to identify sex-specific differences in the efficacy of ICI/ADC monotherapy or combination therapies for RCC and TCC survival, in metastatic and adjuvant settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted up to October 2023 for English articles on ICIs and ADCs as systemic therapies (ICIs in first-line and adjuvant treatment for RCC, ICIs and ADCs in first- and second-line treatment for TCC). Randomised clinical trials were considered. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) of ICIs and ADCs between males and females. The secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, overall response rate, disease-free survival, and recurrence-free survival. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by sex via odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals compared with controls. Log ORs were used for creating a frequentist NMA. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023468632). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Females had an advantage for RCC-adjuvant treatment for atezolizumab (log OR [SE] = -0.57 ± 0.25, p = 0.024) in OS. Males showed a survival advantage in TCC second-line treatment for ADC-Nectin 4 (log OR [SE] = 0.65 ± 0.28, p = 0.02). No other significant results were shown. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The NMA revealed gender-specific variations in ICI and ADC responses for RCC and TCC, offering insights for personalised cancer care and addressing disparities in cancer care and outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this systematic review, we looked at the sex differences for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) for antibody-drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors. In our analysis, female and male sex has better overall survival for adjuvant and second-line therapies for RCC and TCC, respectively. Urgent research on gender-specific cancer therapies is imperative.

Non-Surgical Bladder-Sparing Multimodal Management in Organ-Confined Urothelial Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trimodal therapy is considered the most validated bladder-sparing treatment in patients with organ-confined urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (T2N0M0). However, scarce evidence exists regarding cancer-specific mortality (CSM) differences between trimodal therapy and other non-extirpative multimodal treatment options such as radiotherapy alone after transurethral resection (TURBT + RT) or chemotherapy alone after transurethral resection (TURBT + CT). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2020), we identified T2N0M0 patients treated with either trimodal therapy, TURBT + CT, or TURBT + RT. Temporal trends described trimodal therapy vs. TUBRT + CT vs. TURBT + RT use over time. Survival analyses consisting of Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models addressed CSM according to each treatment modality. RESULTS: 3729 (40%) patients underwent TMT vs. 4030 (43%) TURBT + CT vs. 1599 (17%) TURBT + RT. Over time, trimodal therapy use (Estimating annual percent change, EAPC: +1.2%, p = 0.01) and TURBT + CT use increased (EAPC: +1.5%, p = 0.01). In MCR models, relative to trimodal therapy, TURBT + CT exhibited 1-14-fold higher CSM and TURBT + RT 1.68-fold higher CSM. In a subgroup analysis, TURBT + RT was associated with 1.42-fold higher CSM than TURBT + CT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Strict trimodal therapy that includes both CT and RT after TURBT offers the best cancer control. When strict trimodal therapy cannot be delivered, cancer-specific survival outcomes appear to be superior with TURBT + chemotherapy compared to TURBT + RT.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway. Objective: To systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with systematic biopsy strategies. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023). Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening. Data Extraction: Number of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa. Data Synthesis: The generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication. Results: Data were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; P ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; P = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; P = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; P = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .22). Conclusion and relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy after the implementation of the EAU guidelines recommendations for collecting and reporting complications at a high-volume referral center.

PURPOSE: No studies relied on a standardized methodology to collect postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). The aim of our study was to evaluate peri- and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing RARC adhering to the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations for reporting surgical outcomes and using a long postoperative follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 246 patients who underwent RARC with intracorporal urinary diversion at a single tertiary referral center with a postoperative follow-up ≥ 1 year for survivors. Postoperative outcomes were collected prospectively by interviews done by medical doctors. Complications were scored using the Clavien-Dindo classification (CD), grouped by type and severity (severe: CD score ≥ 3). We described peri- and post-operative outcomes and complication chronological distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 16 (6.5%) and 225 patients (91%) experienced intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively. Moreover, 139 (57%) experienced severe complications. The most common any-grade and severe complications were infectious (72%) and genitourinary (35%), respectively. Overall, 52% of complications (358/682) occurred within 10 days from surgery, and 51% of severe complications (106/207) occurred within 35 days. However, 13% of complications (90/682) and 28% of severe complications (59/207) occurred 3 months after surgery. The earliest complications were fever of unknown origins and paralytic ileus (median time-to-complication [mTTC]: 4 days), the latest complications were urinary tract infection (mTTC: 40 days) and hydronephrosis/ureteral obstruction (mTTC: 70 days). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of postoperative complications after RARC is > 90% when a standardized collection method and a long follow-up is implemented. These results should be used to identify potential areas of improvement and for preoperative patient counseling.

Identifying low cancer-specific mortality risk lymph node-positive radical prostatectomy patients.

OBJECTIVES: To identify low cancer-specific mortality (CSM) risk lymph node-positive (pN1) radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015) pN1 RP patients were identified. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox-regression (MCR) models were used. Pathological characteristics were used to identify patients at lowest CSM risk. RESULTS: Overall, 2197 pN1 RP patients were identified. Overall, 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate was 93.3%. In MCR models ISUP GG1-2 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.12, p < 0.001), GG3 (HR: 0.14, p < 0.001), GG4 (HR: 0.35, p = 0.002), pT2 (HR: 0.27, p = 0.012), pT3a (HR: 0.28, p = 0.003), pT3b (HR: 0.39, p = 0.009), and 1-2 positive lymph nodes (HR: 0.64, p = 0.04) independently predicted lower CSM. Pathological characteristics subgroups with the most protective hazard ratios were used to identify low-risk (ISUP GG1-3 and pT2-3a and 1-2 positive lymph nodes) patients versus others (ISUP GG4-5 or pT3b-4 or ≥3 positive lymph nodes). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, 5-year CSS rates were 99.3% for low-risk (n = 480, 21.8%) versus 91.8% (p < 0.001) for others (n = 1717, 78.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node-positive RP patients exhibit variable CSS rates. Within this heterogeneous group, those at very low risk of CSM may be identified based on pathological characteristics, namely ISUP GG1-3, pT2-3a, and 1-2 positive lymph nodes. Such stratification scheme might be of value for individual patients counseling, as well as in design of clinical trials.

Trimodal therapy effect on survival in urothelial vs non-urothelial bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To address cancer-specific mortality free-survival (CSM-FS) differences in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (UCUB) vs non-UCUB who underwent trimodal therapy (TMT), according to organ confined (OC: T2N0M0) vs non-organ confined (NOC: T3-4NanyM0 or TanyN1-3M0) clinical stages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2020), we identified patients with cT2-T4N0-N3M0 bladder cancer treated with TMT, defined as the combination of transurethral resection of bladder tumour, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Temporal trends described TMT use over time. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models addressed CSM in UCUB vs non-UCUB according to OC vs NOC stages. RESULTS: Of 5130 assessable TMT-treated patients, 425 (8%) harboured non-UCUB vs 4705 (92%) who had UCUB. The TMT rates increased for patients with OC UCUB from 92.4% to 96.8% (estimated annual percentage change of 0.4%, P < 0.001), but not in the NOC stages (P = 0.3). In the OC stage, the median CSM-FS was 36 months in patients with non-UCUB vs 60 months in those with UCUB, respectively (P = 0.01). Conversely, in the NOC stage, the median CSM-FS was 23 months both in UCUB and non-UCUB (P = 0.9). In the MCR models addressing OC stage, non-UCUB histology independently predicted higher CSM (hazard ratio 1.45, P = 0.004), but not in the NOC stage (P = 0.9). CONCLUSION: In OC UCUB, TMT rates have increased over time in a guideline-consistent fashion. Patients with OC non-UCUB treated with TMT showed a CSM disadvantage relative to OC UCUB. In the NOC stage, use of TMT resulted in dismal CSM, regardless of UCUB vs non-UCUB histology.

The effect of race/ethnicity on cancer-specific mortality after trimodal therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Trimodal therapy (TMT) is the most validated bladder-sparing treatment for organ-confined urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder (OC UCUB, namely cT2N0M0). However, it is unknown if barriers to the use of TMT or cancer-specific mortality (CSM) differences exist according to race/ethnicity. We addressed this knowledge gap. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2020), we identified OC UCUB patients aged from 18 to 85 treated with radical cystectomy (RC) or TMT. Temporal trends described TMT versus RC use over time. Subsequently, in the subgroup of TMT-treated patients, survival analyses consisting of Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression (MCR) models addressed CSM according to race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 19,501 assessable patients, 15,336 (79%) underwent RC versus 4165 TMT (21%). Overall, of all races/ethnicities, 16,245 (83.3%) were White Americans, 1215 (6.3%) Hispanics, 1160 (5.9%) African Americans, and 881 (4.5%) Asian/Pacific Islanders. Among TMT-treated patients, 3460 (83.1%) were White Americans, 298 (7.1%) African Americans, 218 (5.3%) Hispanics, and 189 (4.5%) Asian/Pacific Islanders. The lowest rate of TMT use relative to RC and TMT patients was recorded in Hispanics (17.9%). Over time, TMT use increased in White Americans (EAPC: + 4.5%, p = 0.001) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (EAPC: + 5.2%, p = 0.003), but not in others. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed median CSM of 49 months, 41 months, and 34 months and not reached in White Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian/Pacific Islanders, respectively (p = 0.02). In MCR models, two race/ethnicity subgroups independently predicted either worse (African Americans, HR: 1.20, p = 0.02) or better CSM (Asian/Pacific Islanders, HR: 0.75, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Race/ethnicity affects both access to TMT (lower access in Hispanics) as well as survival after TMT (better in Asians/Pacific Islanders and worse in African Americans).

Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. METHODS: RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging.

Nonsurgical Interventions to Prevent Disease Progression in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Active surveillance (AS) is a standard of care for patients with low-risk and selected intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Nevertheless, there is a lack of summary evidence on how to impact disease trajectory during AS. OBJECTIVE: To assess which interventions prevent PCa progression effectively during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We queried PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies examining the impact of interventions aimed at slowing disease progression during AS. The primary endpoint was PCa progression, the definition of which must have included pathological upgrading. The secondary endpoint included treatment toxicities. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 22 studies, six randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies, which analyzed the association between different interventions and PCa progression during AS. The interventions considered in the studies included 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), statins, diet, exercise, chlormadinone, fexapotide triflutate (FT), enzalutamide, coffee, vitamin D3, and PROSTVAC. We found that administration of 5-ARIs was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.72), with no increased toxicity signals. Therapies such as vitamin D3, chlormadinone, FT, and enzalutamide have shown some efficacy. However, these anticancer drugs have been associated with treatment-related adverse events in up to 88% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of 5-ARIs in PCa patients on AS is associated with longer PFS. However, for the other interventions, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions based on the weak available evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance (AS) who are treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors have a lower risk of disease progression, with minimal adverse events. Other interventions require more studies to determine their efficacy and safety profile in men on AS.

External validation of an algorithm to personalize nerve sparing approaches during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with unilateral high-risk prostate cancer.

Limited evidence exists about preserving neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients. Hence, we validated an existing algorithm predicting contralateral extraprostatic extension (cEPE) risk in unilateral high-risk cases. This algorithm aims to assist in determining the suitability of unilateral nerve-sparing RP. Among 264 patients, 48 (18%) had cEPE. The risk of cECE varied: 8%, 17.2%, and 30.8% for the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Despite a higher risk of cECE among individuals classified as low-risk in the development group compared to the validation group, our algorithm's superiority over always/never nerve-sparing RP was reaffirmed by decision curve analysis. Therefore, we conclude that bilateral excision may not always be justified in men with unilateral HRPCa. Instead, decisions can be based on our suggested nomogram.

An updated model for predicting side-specific extraprostatic extension in the era of MRI-targeted biopsy.

PURPOSE: Accurate prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) is pivotal for surgical planning. Herein, we aimed to provide an updated model for predicting EPE among patients diagnosed with MRI-targeted biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a multi-institutional dataset of men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and subsequently underwent prostatectomy. To develop a side-specific predictive model, we considered the prostatic lobes separately. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was fitted to predict side-specific EPE. The decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the net clinical benefit. Finally, a regression tree was employed to identify three risk categories to assist urologists in selecting candidates for nerve-sparing, incremental nerve sparing and non-nerve-sparing surgery. RESULTS: Overall, data from 3169 hemi-prostates were considered, after the exclusion of prostatic lobes with no biopsy-documented tumor. EPE was present on final pathology in 1,094 (34%) cases. Among these, MRI was able to predict EPE correctly in 568 (52%) cases. A model including PSA, maximum diameter of the index lesion, presence of EPE on MRI, highest ISUP grade in the ipsilateral hemi-prostate, and percentage of positive cores in the ipsilateral hemi-prostate achieved an AUC of 81% after internal validation. Overall, 566, 577, and 2,026 observations fell in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups for EPE, as identified by the regression tree. The EPE rate across the groups was: 5.1%, 14.9%, and 48% for the low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study we present an update of the first side-specific MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of extraprostatic extension together with updated risk categories to help clinicians in deciding on the best approach to nerve-preservation.