Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Clinical considerations for sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer.

At every stage of the cancer continuum, the management of sexual and gender minorities with prostate cancer requires a thoughtful and multidisciplinary approach. For example, it is important to recognize that receptive anal intercourse, common among sexual minority men-i.e. gay and bisexual men-can potentially elevate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Additionally, it is important to understand that sexual minority men with prostate cancer might engage in insertive and/or receptive anal intercourse, as opposed to insertive vaginal intercourse, requiring a treatment conversation that expands beyond the usual discussion of sexual health in prostate cancer patients. For gender minorities-i.e. transgender women or trans feminine individuals (those recorded male at birth with feminine gender identities)-it is important to consider gender affirming hormones and pelvic surgeries as they can cause diagnostic and treatment challenges, including PSA suppression, more aggressive disease, and anatomical changes. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that gender minorities are a diverse cohort and may or may not be on gender affirming hormone therapy and may or may not have received or intend to receive pelvic affirming surgery. In this seminar article, we highlight considerations for personalized management of prostate cancer in sexual and gender minorities to improve care for this understudied cohort and enhance health equity.

Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

A Visualization and Radiation Treatment Plan Quality Scoring Method for Triage in a Population-Based Context.

Purpose: Our purpose was to develop a clinically intuitive and easily understandable scoring method using statistical metrics to visually determine the quality of a radiation treatment plan. Methods and Materials: Data from 111 patients with head and neck cancer were used to establish a percentile-based scoring system for treatment plan quality evaluation on both a plan-by-plan and objective-by-objective basis. The percentile scores for each clinical objective and the overall treatment plan score were then visualized using a daisy plot. To validate our scoring method, 6 physicians were recruited to assess 60 plans, each using a scoring table consisting of a 5-point Likert scale (with scores ≥3 considered passing). Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to assess the association between increasing treatment plan percentile rank and physician rating, with Likert scores of 1 and 2 representing clinically unacceptable plans, scores of 3 and 4 representing plans needing minor edits, and a score of 5 representing clinically acceptable plans. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the scoring system's ability to quantify plan quality. Results: Of the 60 plans scored by the physicians, 8 were deemed as clinically acceptable; these plans had an 89.0th ± 14.5 percentile value using our scoring system. The plans needing minor edits or deemed unacceptable had more variation, with scores falling in the 62.6nd ± 25.1 percentile and 35.6th ± 25.7 percentile, respectively. The estimated Spearman correlation coefficient between the physician score and treatment plan percentile was 0.53 (P < .001), indicating a moderate but statistically significant correlation. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated discernment between acceptable and unacceptable plan quality, with an area under the curve of 0.76. Conclusions: Our scoring system correlates with physician ratings while providing intuitive visual feedback for identifying good treatment plan quality, thereby indicating its utility in the quality assurance process.

Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network.

PURPOSE: With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.

Early vocational rehabilitation and psychological support for trauma patients to improve return to work (the ROWTATE trial): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Moderately severe or major trauma (injury severity score (ISS) > 8) is common, often resulting in physical and psychological problems and leading to difficulties in returning to work. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) can improve return to work/education in some injuries (e.g. traumatic brain and spinal cord injury), but evidence is lacking for other moderately severe or major trauma. METHODS: ROWTATE is an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial of early VR and psychological support in trauma patients. It includes an internal pilot, economic evaluation, a process evaluation and an implementation study. Participants will be screened for eligibility and recruited within 12 weeks of admission to eight major trauma centres in England. A total of 722 participants with ISS > 8 will be randomised 1:1 to VR and psychological support (where needed, following psychological screening) plus usual care or to usual care alone. The ROWTATE VR intervention will be provided within 2 weeks of study recruitment by occupational therapists and where needed, by clinical psychologists. It will be individually tailored and provided for ≤ 12 months, dependent on participant need. Baseline assessment will collect data on demographics, injury details, work/education status, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic distress, disability, recovery expectations, financial stress and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed up by postal/telephone/online questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to establish whether the ROWTATE VR intervention plus usual care is more effective than usual care alone for improving participants' self-reported return to work/education for at least 80% of pre-injury hours at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other work outcomes (e.g. hours of work/education, time to return to work/education, sickness absence), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic distress, work self-efficacy, financial stress, purpose in life, health-related quality of life and healthcare/personal resource use. The process evaluation and implementation study will be described elsewhere. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide robust evidence regarding a VR intervention for a major trauma population. Evidence of a clinically and cost-effective VR intervention will be important for commissioners and providers to enable adoption of VR services for this large and important group of patients within the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 43115471. Registered 27/07/2021.

Premastectomy Radiotherapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR). Objective: To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible. Intervention: This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678). Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.