Impact of comorbidities on prostate cancer-specific mortality: A population-based cohort study.

AIM: To assess the impact of comorbidities on prostate cancer mortality. METHODS: We studied 15,695 South Australian men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2003 and 2019 from state-wide administrative linked data sets. Comorbidity was measured 1-year before prostate cancer diagnosis using Rx-Risk, a medication-based comorbidity index. Flexible parametric competing risk regression was used to estimate the independent association between comorbidities and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Specific common comorbidities within Rx-Risk (cardiac disorders, diabetes, chronic airway diseases, depression and anxiety, thrombosis, and pain) were also assessed to determine their association with mortality. All models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables, tumor characteristics, and treatment type. RESULTS: Prostate cancer-specific mortality was higher for patients with a Rx-Risk score ≥3 versus 0 (adjusted sub-hazard ratio (sHR) 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15-1.56). Lower comorbidity scores (Rx-Risk score 2 vs. 0 and Rx-Risk score 1 vs. 0) were not significantly associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality. Men who were using medications for cardiac disorders (sHR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13-1.52), chronic airway disease (sHR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01-1.44), depression and anxiety (sHR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02-1.35), and thrombosis (sHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.04-1.42) were at increased risk of dying from prostate cancer compared with men not on those medications. Use of medications for diabetes and chronic pain were not associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality. All Rx-Risk score categories and the specific comorbidities were also associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that ≥3 comorbid conditions and specific comorbidities including cardiac disease, chronic airway disease, depression and anxiety, and thrombosis were associated with poor prostate cancer-specific survival. Appropriate management of these comorbidities may help to improve survival in prostate cancer patients.

Medication-based Comorbidity Measures and Prostate Cancer Treatment Selection.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the association between comorbidities and prostate cancer management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 12,603 South Australian men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2003 and 2019. Comorbidity was measured one year prior to prostate cancer diagnosis using a medication-based comorbidity index (Rx-Risk). Binomial logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between comorbidities and primary treatment selection (active surveillance, radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), brachytherapy, ADT alone, and watchful waiting (WW)). Certain common comorbidities within Rx-Risk (cardiac disorders, diabetes, chronic airway diseases, depression and anxiety, thrombosis, and chronic pain) were also assessed. All models were adjusted for sociodemographic and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Likelihood of receiving RP was lower among men with Rx-Risk score ≥3 (odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95%CI:0.56-0.69) and Rx-Risk 2 (OR 0.80, 95%CI:0.70-0.92) compared with no comorbidity (Rx-Risk ≤0). Men with high comorbidity (Rx-Risk ≥3) were more likely to have received ADT alone (OR 1.76, 95%CI:1.40-2.21), EBRT (OR 1.30, 95%CI:1.17-1.45) or WW (OR 1.49, 95%CI:1.19-1.88) compared with Rx-Risk ≤0. Pre-existing cardiac and respiratory disorders, thrombosis, diabetes, depression and anxiety, and chronic pain were associated with lower likelihood of selecting RP and higher likelihood of EBRT (except chronic airway disease) or WW (except diabetes and depression and anxiety). Cardiac disorders and thrombosis were associated with higher likelihood of selecting ADT alone. Furthermore, age had greater effect on treatment choice than the level of comorbidity. CONCLUSION: High comorbidity burden was associated with primary treatment choice, with significantly less RP and more EBRT, WW and ADT alone among men with higher levels of comorbidity. Each of the individual comorbid conditions also influenced treatment selection.

External validation of predictive models of sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function after surgery in prostate cancer subjects.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, a research group published five linear longitudinal models, predict Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) scores post-treatment for radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and active surveillance collectively in US patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Our study externally validates the five prediction models for patient reported outcomes post-surgery for localised prostate cancer. The models' calibration, fit, variance explained and discrimination (concordance-indices) were assessed. Two Australian validation cohorts 1 and 2 years post-prostatectomy were constructed, consisting of 669 and 439 subjects, respectively (750 in total). Patient reported function in five domains post-prostatectomy: sexual, bowel, hormonal, urinary incontinence and other urinary dysfunction (irritation/obstruction). Domain function was assessed using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. RESULTS: 1 year post-surgery, R2 was highest for the sexual domain (35%, SD = 0.02), lower for the bowel (21%, SD = 0.03) and hormone (15%, SD = 0.03) domains, and close to zero for urinary incontinence (1%, SD = 0.01) and irritation/obstruction (- 5%, SD = 0.04). Calibration slopes for these five models were 1.04 (SD = 0.04), 0.84 (SD = 0.06), 0.85 (SD = 0.06), 1.16 (SD = 0.13) and 0.45 (SD = 0.04), respectively. Calibration-in-the-large values were - 2.2 (SD = 0.6), 2.1 (SD = 0.01), 5.1 (SD = 0.1), 9.6 (SD = 0.9) and 4.0 (SD = 0.2), respectively. Concordance-indices were 0.73, 0.70, 0.70, 0.58 and 0.62, respectively (all had SD = 0.01). Mean absolute error and root mean square error were similar across the validation and development cohorts. The validation measures were largely similar at 2 years post-surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The sexual, bowel and hormone domain models validated well and show promise for accurately predicting patient reported outcomes in a non-US surgical population. The urinary domain models validated poorly and may require recalibration or revision.

Clinical and functional outcomes for risk-appropriate treatments for prostate cancer.

Objectives: To describe real-world clinical and functional outcomes in an Australian cohort of men with localised prostate cancer according to treatment type and risk category. Subjects and methods: Men diagnosed from 2008 to 2018 who were enrolled in South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry-a multi-institutional prospective clinical registry-were studied. The main outcome measures were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, decline in functional outcomes, biochemical recurrence and transition to active treatment following active surveillance. Multivariable adjusted models were applied to estimate outcomes. Results: Of the 8513 eligible men, majority of men (46%) underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) followed by external beam radiation therapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy (EBRT +/- ADT) in 22% of the cohort. Five-year overall survival was above 91%, and 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival was above 97% in the low- and intermediate-risk categories across all treatments. Five-year prostate cancer-specific survival in the active surveillance group was 100%. About 37% of men with high-risk disease treated with RP and 17% of men treated with EBRT +/- ADT experienced biochemical recurrence within 5 years of treatment. Of men on active surveillance, 15% of those with low risk and 20% with intermediate risk converted to active treatment within 2 years. The decline in urinary continence and sexual function 12 months after treatment was greatest among men who underwent RP while the decline in bowel function was greatest for men who received EBRT +/- ADT. Conclusion: This contemporary real-world evidence on risk-appropriate treatment outcomes helps inform treatment decision-making for clinicians and patients.

Utility of prescription-based comorbidity indices for predicting mortality among Australian men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Drug prescription registries has become an alternative data source to hospital admission databases for measuring comorbidities. However, the predictive validity of prescription-based comorbidity measures varies based on the population under investigation and outcome of interest. We aimed to determine which prescription-based index of comorbidity has most utility in Australian men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We studied 25,414 South Australian men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2003 and 2019 from state-wide administrative linked datasets. The Rx-Risk index, Chronic Disease Score (CDS), Drug Comorbidity Index (DCI) and Pharmaceutical Prescribing Profile (P3) with one year lookback period from prostate cancer diagnosis were evaluated. The predictive ability of each index to determine all-cause deaths within two and five years of prostate cancer diagnosis was compared using the c-statistic from flexible parametric survival models, adjusting for age, socioeconomic status and year of prostate cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The Rx-Risk index performed better in predicting two-year (c-statistic = 0.818) and five-year (c-statistic = 0.784) all-cause mortality than P3, CDS and DCI. Including comorbidity measures as continuous scores resulted in a better performance than including them as categories. Grouping scores into four categories (≤0, >0 - ≤1, >1 - ≤2, and >2) resulted in better performance and calibration than using fewer categories. CONCLUSION: Rx-Risk was validated in Australia and reflects Australian prescribing patterns. It showed better predictive performance for mortality in our study, with a modest improvement over P3, CDS and DCI. For research with prostate cancer populations, we recommend the use of drug-based comorbidity indices that have been validated in a similar population.

Clinical outcomes for men with positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy-results from the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative community-based registry.

Objective: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) indicate failure of surgery to completely clear cancer. PSMs confer an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR), but how more robust outcomes are affected is unclear. This study investigated factors associated with PSMs following RP and determined their impact on clinical outcomes (BCR, second treatment [radiotherapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy], and prostate cancer-specific mortality [PCSM]). Methods: The study cohort included men diagnosed with prostate cancer (pT2-3b/N0/M0) between January 1998 and June 2016 who underwent RP from the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative database. Factors associated with risk of PSMs were identified using Poisson regression. The impact of PSMs on clinical outcomes (BCR, second treatment, and PCSM) was assessed using competing risk regression. Results: Of the 2827 eligible participants, 28% had PSMs-10% apical, 6% bladder neck, 17% posterolateral, and 5% at multiple locations. Median follow-up was 9.6 years with 81 deaths from prostate cancer recorded. Likelihood of PSM increased with higher pathological grade and pathological tumor stage, and greater tumour volume, but decreased with increasing surgeon volume (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.98, per 100 previous prostatectomies). PSMs were associated with increased risk of BCR (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [sHR] 2.5; 95% CI 2.1-3.1) and second treatment (sHR 2.9; 95% CI 2.4-3.5). Risk of BCR was increased similarly for each PSM location, but was higher for multiple margin sites. We found no association between PSMs and PCSM. Conclusion: Our findings support previous research suggesting that PSMs are not independently associated with PCSM despite strong association with BCR. Reducing PSM rates remains an important objective, given the higher likelihood of secondary treatment with associated comorbidities.

Prediction of Prostate Cancer Biochemical and Clinical Recurrence Is Improved by IHC-Assisted Grading Using Appl1, Sortilin and Syndecan-1.

Gleason scoring is used within a five-tier risk stratification system to guide therapeutic decisions for patients with prostate cancer. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of routine H&E or biomarker-assisted ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade grouping for assessing the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR) in patients with prostate cancer. This retrospective study was an assessment of 114 men with prostate cancer who provided radical prostatectomy samples to the Australian Prostate Cancer Bioresource between 2006 and 2014. The prediction of CR was the primary outcome (median time to CR 79.8 months), and BCR was assessed as a secondary outcome (median time to BCR 41.7 months). The associations of (1) H&E ISUP grade groups and (2) modified ISUP grade groups informed by the Appl1, Sortilin and Syndecan-1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) labelling were modelled with BCR and CR using Cox proportional hazard approaches. IHC-assisted grading was more predictive than H&E for BCR (C-statistic 0.63 vs. 0.59) and CR (C-statistic 0.71 vs. 0.66). On adjusted analysis, IHC-assisted ISUP grading was independently associated with both outcome measures. IHC-assisted ISUP grading using the biomarker panel was an independent predictor of individual BCR and CR. Prospective studies are needed to further validate this biomarker technology and to define BCR and CR associations in real-world cohorts.

Factors impacting on sexual function among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) aims to reduce overtreatment and minimize the negative side effects of radical therapies (i.e., prostatectomy or radiotherapy) while preserving quality of life. However, a substantial proportion of men can experience a decline in sexual function during AS follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of declining sexual function among men on AS. METHODS: Men enrolled from 2008 to 2018 in the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry-a prospective clinical registry-were studied. Sexual function outcomes were measured using expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC-26) at baseline and 12-months postdiagnosis. Multivariable regression models adjusted for baseline score and other sociodemographic and clinical factors were applied to identify predictors of sexual function score at 12-months. RESULTS: A total of 554 men were included. Variables that showed significant association with decline in sexual function score at 12-months were: having two or more biopsies after diagnosis (mean change score (MCS): -16.3, p < 0.001) compared with no biopsy, higher number of positive biopsy cores (MCS: -1.6, p = 0.004), being in older age category (above 70 vs. below 60: MCS: -16.7, p < 0.001; 65-70 vs. below 60: MCS: -9.7, p = 0.024), having had depression (MCS: -9.0, p = 0.020), and impaired physical function (MCS: -10.0, p = 0.031). Greater socioeconomic advantage (highest vs. lowest quintile: MCS: 15.7, p = 0.022) and year of diagnosis (MCS: 2.6 for every year, p < 0.001) were positively associated with 12-months sexual function score. Neither biopsy type, biopsy timing nor PSA velocity were associated with declines in sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that multiple factors affected sexual function during AS. Interventions toward reducing the number of biopsies through less invasive monitory approaches, screening for physical and mental well-being, and targeted emotional support and counseling services may be helpful for men on AS.

Aberrant protein expression of Appl1, Sortilin and Syndecan-1 during the biological progression of prostate cancer.

Diagnosis and assessment of patients with prostate cancer is dependent on accurate interpretation and grading of histopathology. However, morphology does not necessarily reflect the complex biological changes occurring in prostate cancer disease progression, and current biomarkers have demonstrated limited clinical utility in patient assessment. This study aimed to develop biomarkers that accurately define prostate cancer biology by distinguishing specific pathological features that enable reliable interpretation of pathology for accurate Gleason grading of patients. Online gene expression databases were interrogated and a pathogenic pathway for prostate cancer was identified. The protein expression of key genes in the pathway, including adaptor protein containing a pleckstrin homology (PH) domain, phosphotyrosine-binding (PTB) domain, and leucine zipper motif 1 (Appl1), Sortilin and Syndecan-1, was examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a pilot study of 29 patients with prostate cancer, using monoclonal antibodies designed against unique epitopes. Appl1, Sortilin, and Syndecan-1 expression was first assessed in a tissue microarray cohort of 112 patient samples, demonstrating that the monoclonal antibodies clearly illustrate gland morphologies. To determine the impact of a novel IHC-assisted interpretation (the utility of Appl1, Sortilin, and Syndecan-1 labelling as a panel) of Gleason grading, versus standard haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) Gleason grade assignment, a radical prostatectomy sample cohort comprising 114 patients was assessed. In comparison to H&E, the utility of the biomarker panel reduced subjectivity in interpretation of prostate cancer tissue morphology and improved the reliability of pathology assessment, resulting in Gleason grade redistribution for 41% of patient samples. Importantly, for equivocal IHC-assisted labelling and H&E staining results, the cancer morphology interpretation could be more accurately applied upon re-review of the H&E tissue sections. This study addresses a key issue in the field of prostate cancer pathology by presenting a novel combination of three biomarkers and has the potential to transform clinical pathology practice by standardising the interpretation of the tissue morphology.

Variation in patient reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy: A bi-national registry-based study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common and widely used treatment for localized prostate cancer. Sequela following RP may include urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, outcomes which are recorded within a bi-national Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The objective was to report population-wide urinary incontinence and sexual function outcomes recorded at 12 months following RP; and to quantify and explore factors associated with variation in outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry of Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) was used for this study. Participants were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2020. Domain summary scores for urinary incontinence and sexual function from the EPIC-26 instrument were the main outcomes, taken at 12 months following surgery (6-18 months). "Major" urinary and sexual function bother were also assessed. Variation in outcomes was investigated using linear and logistic multivariable regression models adjusted for covariates: age, socioeconomic status, PSA at diagnosis, surgical technique, surgical specimen grade group, margin status, and clinician surgical volume. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analytic cohort included 13,083 men with the mean urinary incontinence domain score being 76/100 (SD = 25) with 9.2% reporting major bother. For sexual function, the mean score was 29/100 (SD = 26) with 46% reporting major bother. Of the examined variables, age at surgery and surgical volume category were most predictive of function, with disparities exceeding minimally important differences, though large variation was observed between urologists within volume categories. There is considerable variation in 12-month postprostatectomy functional outcomes. Variation is explained by both patient and clinician factors, though some confounders are unmeasured in this cohort.

Patient-reported functional outcome measures and treatment choice for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe changes in patient-reported functional outcome measures (PROMs) comparing pre-treatment and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy and active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Men enrolled from 2010 to 2019 in the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry a prospective clinical registry were studied. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functions were measured using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) at baseline and 12 months post-treatment. Higher scores on the EPIC-26 indicate better function. Multivariable regression models were applied to compare differences in function and extent of bother by treatment. RESULTS: Of the 4926 eligible men, 57.0% underwent RP, 20.5% EBRT, 7.0% brachytherapy and 15.5% AS. While baseline urinary and bowel function varied little across treatment groups, sexual function differed greatly (adjusted mean scores: RP = 56.3, EBRT = 45.8, brachytherapy = 61.4, AS = 52.8; p < 0.001). Post-treatment urinary continence and sexual function declined in all treatment groups, with the greatest decline for sexual function after RP (adjusted mean score change - 28.9). After adjustment for baseline differences, post-treatment sexual function scores after EBRT (6.4; 95%CI, 0.9-12.0) and brachytherapy (17.4; 95%CI, 9.4-25.5) were higher than after RP. Likewise, urinary continence after EBRT (13.6; 95%CI, 9.0-18.2), brachytherapy (10.6; 95%CI, 3.9-17.3) and AS (10.6; 95%CI, 5.9-15.3) were higher than after RP. Conversely, EBRT was associated with lower bowel function (- 7.9; 95%CI, - 12.4 to - 3.5) than RP. EBRT and AS were associated with lower odds of sexual bother (OR 0.51; 95%CI, 0.29-0.89 and OR 0.60; 95%CI, 0.38-0.96, respectively), and EBRT with higher odds of bowel bother (OR 2.01; 95%CI, 1.23-3.29) compared with RP. CONCLUSION: The four common treatment approaches for prostate cancer were associated with different patterns of patient-reported functional outcomes, both pre- and 12 months post-treatment. However, after adjustment, RP was associated with a greater decline in urinary continence and sexual function than other treatments. This study underscores the importance of collecting baseline PROMs to interpret post-treatment functional outcomes.

PSA response to antiandrogen withdrawal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiandrogen withdrawal (AAW) response is the paradoxical decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following the withdrawal of antiandrogen in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Currently, the reported literature on the proportion of patients exhibiting AAW response and the differences in PSA response between the types of antiandrogens is unclear. METHODS: This review aimed to explore the PSA response to AAW and to identify if the response depends on the type of antiandrogens. A literature search was performed using databases PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE with a cut-off date of 23rd of November 2020. Studies reporting on outcomes of AAW and prostate cancer were included. Studies were screened by two reviewers and relevant data extracted. Meta-analysis of outcomes was reported using random-effects and fixed-effects model. A subgroup analysis was performed for type of antiandrogen. RESULTS: From 450 studies, 23 were included with a total of 1474 patients with advanced prostate cancer were available for further analysis. Overall, 395 (26%) patients had any reduction in PSA levels (95% CI: 20-32%) and 183 (11%) patients had a ≥50% reduction in PSA levels (95% CI: 6-16%). Among the 1212 patients on first-generation antiandrogens, 30% (95% CI: 23-38%) had any PSA decline with 15% patients having a ≥50% PSA decline (95% CI: 8-22%). In contrast, among the 108 patients on second-generation antiandrogens, 7% (95% CI: 0-13%) had any PSA decline and only 1% (95% CI: 0-5%) had a ≥50% PSA decline. Also, among the 154 patients on androgen synthesis inhibitors, 26% (95% CI: 19-33%) had any PSA decline and only 4% (95% CI: 0-13%) had a ≥50% PSA decline. CONCLUSIONS: One-fourth of patients treated with AAW show a PSA response. However, PSA response to AAW is uncommon with second-generation antiandrogens and androgen synthesis inhibitors. Further research is required to understand the differences in response between the types of antiandrogen.

Measuring psychosocial outcomes of men living with prostate cancer: feasibility of regular assessment of patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To trial collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess psychosocial outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey was sent to three groups of 160 men with PC (6, 12 and 24 months post-initial treatment; ntotal  = 480), through the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SAPCCOC) registry (2017). Outcomes were as follows: response rate, completeness, general and disease-specific quality of life, distress, insomnia, fear of recurrence, decisional difficulties and unmet need. RESULTS: A response rate of 57-61% (n = 284) was achieved across groups. Data completeness was over 90% for 88% of survey items, with lower response (76-78%) for EPIC-26 urinary and sexual functioning subscales, sexual aid use (78%) and physical activity (68%). In general, higher socio-economic indicators were associated with higher completion of these measures (absolute difference 12-26%, p < 0.05). Lower unmet need on the sexuality domain (SCNS-SF34) was associated with lower completion of the EPIC-26 sexual functioning subscale [M (SD) = 12.4 (21.6); M (SD) = 26.3 (27.3), p < .001]. Worse leaking urine was associated with lower completion of urinary pad/diaper use question (EPIC-26) [M (SD) = 65.9 (26.5), M (SD) = 77.3 (23.9), p < .01]. CONCLUSION: Assessment of psychosocial PROMs through a PC registry is feasible and offers insight beyond global quality of life assessment, to facilitate targeting and improvements in services and treatments.

Extent and predictors of grade upgrading and downgrading in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grade groupings.

OBJECT: To determine the extent and impact of upgrading and downgrading among men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) according to new grade groupings and to identify predictors of upgrading from biopsy grade Group I and II, and downgrading to grade Group I, in a community setting. METHODS: Study participants included 2279 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer diagnosed 2006-2015 who underwent prostatectomy, from the multi-institutional South Australia Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry. Extent of up- or down-grading was assessed by comparing biopsy and prostatectomy grade groupings. Risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) with upgrading was assessed using multivariable competing risk regression. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify pre-treatment predictors of upgrading from grade Groups I and II, and risk group reclassification among men with low risk disease. RESULTS: Upgrading occurred in 35% of cases, while downgrading occurred in 13% of cases. Sixty percent with grade Group I disease were upgraded following prostatectomy. Upgrading from grade Group I was associated with greater risk of BCR compared with concordant grading (Hazard ratio: 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.7-6.0). Older age, higher prostate-specific antigen levels (PSA), fewer biopsy cores, higher number of positive cores and more recent diagnosis predicted upgrading from grade Group I, while higher PSA and clinical stage predicted upgrading from grade Group II. No clinical risk factors for reclassification were identified. CONCLUSION: Biopsy sampling errors may play an important role in upgrading from grade Group I. Improved clinical assessment of grade is needed to encourage greater uptake of active surveillance.

Report of the third Asian Prostate Cancer study meeting.

The Asian Prostate Cancer (A-CaP) study is an Asia-wide initiative that was launched in December 2015 in Tokyo, Japan, with the objective of surveying information about patients who have received a histopathological diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and are undergoing treatment and clarifying distribution of staging, the actual status of treatment choices, and treatment outcomes. The study aims to clarify the clinical situation for PCa in Asia and use the outcomes for the purposes of international comparison. Following the first meeting in Tokyo in December 2015, the second A-CaP meeting was held in Seoul, Korea, in September 2016. This, the third A-CaP meeting, was held on October 14, 2017, in Chiang Mai, Thailand, with the participation of members and collaborators from 12 countries and regions. In the meeting, participating countries and regions presented the current status of data collection, and the A-CaP office presented a preliminary analysis of the registered cases received from each country and region. Participants discussed ongoing challenges relating to data input and collection, institutional, and legislative issues that may present barriers to data sharing, and the outlook for further patient registrations through to the end of the registration period in December 2018. In addition to A-CaP-specific discussions, a series of special lectures were also delivered on the situation for health insurance in the United States, the correlation between insurance coverage and PCa outcomes, and the outlook for robotic surgery in the Asia-Pacific region. Members also confirmed the principles of authorship in collaborative studies, with a view to publishing original articles based on A-CaP data in the future.

Satisfaction with care in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to describe: (a) the proportion of prostate cancer patients satisfied with treatment, (b) how satisfaction changes after treatment, and (c) predictors of patient satisfaction including demographic, symptom-related and treatment variables. METHOD: Self-reported quality of life and satisfaction questionnaire (UCLA Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC] 26), and demographics were obtained from the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative (SA-PCCOC) database. Responses were obtained pre-treatment (radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy) and 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment, for patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2013. Mixed-effects models were used to estimate mean and change in satisfaction, and to identify predictive factors. RESULTS: SA-PCCOC is a prospective, prostate cancer specific registry established in 1998, of which 1,713 patients were eligible for inclusion and 434 available for analysis. Overall, the majority of patients who completed questionnaires were satisfied with their treatment (82%). Satisfaction with care did not change over time post-treatment in multivariable analysis (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with treatment is typically high among prostate cancer patients. Satisfaction did not change with time after treatment and appears to be associated with baseline hormonal scores and changes in hormonal scores post-treatment.

Development of quality indicators to monitor radiotherapy care for men with prostate cancer: A modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for many aspects of prostate cancer care, but are under-developed with regard to radiotherapy treatment. We aimed to develop a valid, relevant and feasible set of core QIs to measure quality of radiotherapy care in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a RAND-modified Delphi process to select QIs that were regarded as both important and feasible measures of quality radiotherapy care. This involved two phases: (1) a literature review to identify a list of proposed QIs; and (2) a QI selection process by an expert panel (n = 12) conducted in a series of three rounds: two online questionnaires' and one face-to-face meeting. The RAND criterion identified variation in ratings and determined the level of agreement after each round of voting. RESULTS: A total of 144 candidate QIs, which included measures from pre-treatment to post-treatment and survivorship care were identified. After three rounds of voting, the panel approved a comprehensive set of 17 QIs, with most assessing a process of care (n = 16, 94.1%) and the remaining assessing a health outcome. CONCLUSION: This study developed a core set of 17 QIs which will be used to report from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia & New Zealand, to monitor the quality of radiotherapy care prostate cancer patients receive.