Manejo de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata localizado y recurrencia bioquímica en España: encuesta médica / Management of patients with localized prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence in Spain: A medical survey

Introducción El tratamiento de los pacientes con cáncer de próstata (CaP) está establecido en las guías de práctica clínica, las cuales se basan en estudios aleatorizados según el nivel de evidencia. En España se desconoce el grado de cumplimiento de estas guías en la práctica clínica. Objetivos Describir los perfiles de los pacientes con CaP en el momento del diagnóstico y el manejo de los pacientes con CaP localizado y con recurrencia bioquímica (RBQ) en España. Materiales y métodos Se realizó una encuesta médica en 3 especialidades médicas (85 urólogos [URO], 64 oncólogos radioterápicos [OR] y 21 oncólogos médicos [OM]). Para este estudio se elaboraron 3 cuestionarios, 2 con 22 preguntas (URO y OR) y uno con 21 preguntas (OM). Resultados La incidencia anual de CaP en los hospitales participantes (N=131) fue de 24.057 casos. La incidencia anual extrapolada a España fue de 40.531 casos. La prevalencia estimada de CaP en España es de 221.689. Cabe destacar que el 79 y el 80% de los pacientes atendidos por URO y OR, respectivamente, presentaban CaP localizado en el momento del diagnóstico. La biopsia fue la prueba diagnóstica más utilizada en las 3 especialidades, seguida de la tomografía computarizada abdominopélvica. Más del 90% de los pacientes con RBQ se sometieron a pruebas estándar. Las técnicas de imagen de nueva generación y la PET con colina/PSMA se siguen utilizando en menor medida. Actualmente, la mayoría de los pacientes con CaP localizado reciben tratamiento con cirugía o radioterapia, pero en el caso de los pacientes con RBQ, los URO y OR prefieren la radioterapia y los OM la terapia de privación androgénica exclusiva o combinada. Conclusión Este estudio describe los perfiles de los pacientes en el momento del diagnóstico y proporciona una visión general del manejo terapéutico actual del CaP localizado y con RBQ en la práctica clínica en España. (AU)

Introduction The management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is established in clinical practice guidelines, which are based on randomized studies according to the level of evidence. In Spain, the degree of compliance with these guidelines in clinical practice is unknown. Objectives To describe the profiles of PCa patients at the time of diagnosis and the management of patients with localized PCa and those with biochemical recurrence (BCR) in Spain. Materials and methods A medical survey was conducted in specialized care (85 urologists [UROs], 64 radiation oncologists [ROs], and 21 medical oncologists [MOs]). Three questionnaires were developed for this study with 22 (UROs and ROs) or 21 questions (MOs). Results The annual incidence of PCa was 24,057 in participating hospitals (N=131). The extrapolated annual incidence in Spain is 40,531 cases. The estimated prevalence of PCa in Spain is 221,689. Of note, 79 and 80% of patients seen by UROs and ROs, respectively had localized PCa at diagnosis. Biopsy was the most used diagnostic test among the 3 specialties, followed by abdominopelvic computer tomography. More than 90% of patients with BCR underwent standard tests. Next generation imaging tests and PET-choline/PSMA are still used residually. Most patients with localized PCa are currently treated with either surgery or radiotherapy, while for BCR patients, UROs and ROs prefer radiotherapy and MOs androgen deprivation therapy alone or in combination. Conclusion This study describes patient profiles at the time of diagnosis and provides an overview of the current therapeutic management of localized PCa and BCR in clinical practice in Spain. (AU)

Management of patients with localized prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence in Spain: A medical survey.

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is established in clinical practice guidelines, which are based on randomized studies according to the level of evidence. In Spain, the degree of compliance with these guidelines in clinical practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the profiles of PCa patients at the time of diagnosis and the management of patients with localized PCa and those with BCR in Spain. MATERIALS & METHODS: A medical survey was conducted in specialized care (85 urologists [UROs], 64 radiation oncologists [ROs], and 21 medical oncologists [MOs]). Three questionnaires were developed for this study with 22 (UROs and ROs) or 21 questions (MOs). RESULTS: The annual incidence of PCa was 24,057 in participating hospitals (N = 131). The extrapolated annual incidence in Spain is 40,531 cases. The estimated prevalence of PCa in Spain is 221,689. Of note, 79% and 80% of patients seen by UROs and ROs, respectively had localized PCa at diagnosis. Biopsy was the most used diagnostic test among the three specialties, followed by abdominopelvic computer tomography. More than 90% of patients with BCR underwent standard tests. Next generation imaging tests and PET-choline/PSMA are still used residually. Most patients with localized PCa are currently treated with either surgery or radiotherapy, while for BCR patients, UROs and ROs prefer radiotherapy and MOs androgen deprivation therapy alone or in combination. CONCLUSION: This study describes patient profiles at the time of diagnosis and provides an overview of the current therapeutic management of localized PCa and BCR in clinical practice in Spain.

Factores clínicos determinantes para la realización de pruebas de imagen en cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración no metastásico en la práctica clínica: resultados del estudio IDENTIFICA / Clinical drivers for imaging testing in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice: Results of the IDENTIFICA study

Introducción: El objetivo del estudio consistió en describir los factores clínicos que llevan a los médicos a realizar pruebas de imagen para identificar metástasis en pacientes con cáncer de próstata (CP) resistente a la castración no metastásico (CPRCnm).MétodosEstudio observacional transversal realizado en los servicios de Urología de 38 hospitales españoles; 188 pacientes diagnosticados con CPRCnm sometidos una prueba de imagen para evaluar la presencia de metástasis fueron incluidos. Se solicitó a los médicos, en una única visita del estudio, que especificaran los factores clínicos que los llevaron a realizar estas pruebas. Se presentaron los resultados de las pruebas de imagen y las características clínicas de los pacientes desde el diagnóstico de CP. Se utilizaron análisis de regresión para determinar factores predictivos de los resultados de las pruebas de imagen.ResultadosEl valor del «prostate-specific antigen» (por sus siglas en inglés, PSA), fue el factor más importante que determinó la solicitud de pruebas de imagen (57,1%), seguido de un seguimiento habitual (16,5%) y del tiempo de duplicación del PSA (TDPSA) (12,0%). Aunque estos factores no guardaron relación con la detección de metástasis, los pacientes con una concentración de PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml tuvieron un mayor riesgo de metástasis que aquellos con una concentración <4 ng/ml (p=0,004), mientras que los pacientes con CPRC diagnosticados de metástasis (CPRCm) tuvieron una mayor mediana de concentración de PSA (20,9; intervalo intercuartílico [IIC]: 6,7-38,6) que aquellos con CPRCnm (9,1; IIC: 5,0-18,0) (p=0,005). Un 66% no se sometió a ninguna prueba de imagen entre el diagnóstico de CPRC y la visita del estudio (10,6, IIC: 4,0-19,5 meses). El tratamiento con intención curativa en el momento del diagnóstico de CP y la puntuación de Gleason predijeron un mayor tiempo transcurrido entre los diagnósticos de CP y CPRC. (AU)

Introduction: The aim of the study was to describe the clinical drivers that lead physicians to perform imaging tests in search of metastasis in non-metastasic castration prostate resistant cancer (nmCRPC) patients.MethodsObservational, cross-sectional study conducted at the Departments of Urology of 38 Spanish hospitals. The study included 188 patients diagnosed with nmCRPC who underwent an imaging test for the assessment of metástasis. In one study visit, physicians were requested to specify the clinical factors that led them to perform these tests. The results of the imaging tests and the clinical characteristics of the patients since the time of prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis, were reported. Regression analyses were used to determine predictors of imaging test results.ResultsProstate-specific antigen (PSA) level was the most important driver to order imaging tests (57.1%), followed by regular follow-up (16.5%) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) (12.0%). Although these drivers were not associated to detection of metastasis, patients with PSA levels ≥20 ng/mL had a greater risk of metastasis than patients with PSA levels <4ng/mL (P=.004) and CRPC patients diagnosed with metastasis (mCRPC) had higher median PSA levels (20.9; interquartile range [IQR]: 6.7-38.6) than nmCRPC (9.1; IQR: 5.0-18.0) (P=.005). Sixty-six percent of the patients did not undergo any imaging test after CRPC diagnosis until the study visit (10.6, IQR: 4.0-19.5 months). Curative-intent treatment at PC diagnosis and Gleason score predicted longer time from PC to CRPC diagnosis.ConclusionsPhysicians based their decisions to order imaging tests for metastasis detection in nmCRPC patients mainly on PSA and PSA kinetics, including the regular follow-up stated by guideline recommendations. (AU)

Clinical drivers for imaging testing in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice: Results of the IDENTIFICA study. / Factores clínicos determinantes para la realización de pruebas de imagen en cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración no metastásico en la práctica clínica: resultados del estudio IDENTIFICA.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to describe the clinical drivers that lead physicians to perform imaging tests in search of metastasis in non-metastasic castration prostate resistant cancer (nmCRPC) patients. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study conducted at the Departments of Urology of 38 Spanish hospitals. The study included 188 patients diagnosed with nmCRPC who underwent an imaging test for the assessment of metástasis. In one study visit, physicians were requested to specify the clinical factors that led them to perform these tests. The results of the imaging tests and the clinical characteristics of the patients since the time of prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis, were reported. Regression analyses were used to determine predictors of imaging test results. RESULTS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was the most important driver to order imaging tests (57.1%), followed by regular follow-up (16.5%) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) (12.0%). Although these drivers were not associated to detection of metastasis, patients with PSA levels ≥20 ng/mL had a greater risk of metastasis than patients with PSA levels <4ng/mL (P=.004) and CRPC patients diagnosed with metastasis (mCRPC) had higher median PSA levels (20.9; interquartile range [IQR]: 6.7-38.6) than nmCRPC (9.1; IQR: 5.0-18.0) (P=.005). Sixty-six percent of the patients did not undergo any imaging test after CRPC diagnosis until the study visit (10.6, IQR: 4.0-19.5 months). Curative-intent treatment at PC diagnosis and Gleason score predicted longer time from PC to CRPC diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians based their decisions to order imaging tests for metastasis detection in nmCRPC patients mainly on PSA and PSA kinetics, including the regular follow-up stated by guideline recommendations.

PREVALENCE OF FATIGUE AND IMPACT ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS: the VITAL study.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most prevalent symptoms among cancer patients. Specifically, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, fatigue is the most common adverse event associated with current treatments. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence of fatigue and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients with CRPC in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multicentre study. Male chemo-naïve adults with high-risk non-metastatic (M0) CRPC and metastatic (M1) CRPC (mCRPC) were eligible. Fatigue was measured using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaire for patients with prostate cancer (FACT-P) and the FACT-General (FACT-G) questionnaire. Data were analysed using Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests (non-parametric distribution), a T-test or an ANOVA (parametric distribution) and the Fisher or chi-squared tests (categorical variables). RESULTS: A total of 235 eligible patients were included in the study (74 [31.5%] with M0; and 161 [68.5%] with M1). Fatigue was present in 74%, with 38.5% of patients reporting moderate-to-severe fatigue. Mean FACT-G and FACT-P overall scores were 77.6 ± 16.3 and 108.7 ± 21.4, respectively, with no differences between the CRPC M0 and CRPC M1 subgroups. Fatigue intensity was associated with decreased FACT-G/P scores, with no differences between groups. Among 151 mCRPC patients with available treatment data, those treated with abiraterone-prednisone ≥3 months showed a significant reduction in fatigue intensity (p = 0.043) and interference (p = 0.04) compared to those on traditional hormone therapy (HT). Patients on abiraterone-prednisone ≥3 months showed significantly better FACT-G/P scores than patients on HT (p = 0.046 and 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our data show a high prevalence and intensity of fatigue and its impact on QoL in chemo-naïve CRPC patients. There is an association between greater fatigue and less QoL, irrespective of the presence or absence of metastasis. Chemo-naïve mCRPC patients receiving more than 3 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone showed an improvement of fatigue and QoL when compared to those on traditional HT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable since it is not an interventional study.