Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Associations of CTCF and FOXA1 with androgen and IGF pathways in men with localized prostate cancer.

AIMS: To examine associations between the transcription factors CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF) and forkhead box protein A1 (FOXA1) and the androgen receptor (AR) and their association with components of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-pathway in a cohort of men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Using prostate tissue samples collected during the Prostate cancer: Evidence of Exercise and Nutrition Trial (PrEvENT) trial (N = 70 to 92, depending on section availability), we assessed the abundance of CTCF, FOXA1, AR, IGFIR, p-mTOR, PTEN and IGFBP-2 proteins using a modified version of the Allred scoring system. Validation studies were performed using large, publicly available datasets (TCGA) (N = 489). RESULTS: We identified a strong correlation between CTCF and AR staining with benign prostate tissue. CTCF also strongly associated with the IGFIR, with PTEN and with phospho-mTOR. FOXA1 was also correlated with staining for the IGF-IR, with IGFBP-2 and with staining for activated phosphor-mTOR. The staining for the IGF-IR was strongly correlated with the AR. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasise the close and complex links between the endocrine controls, well known to play an important role in prostate cancer, and the transcription factors implicated by the recent genetic evidence.

Fifteen-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy. METHODS: At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P = 0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes 12 Years after Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Outcomes after Localized Prostate Cancer TreatmentDonovan et al. present the long-term patient-reported outcomes of 1643 randomly assigned participants in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial. Functional and quality-of-life impacts of prostatectomy, radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation, and active monitoring are described. Over the trial period from 7 to 12 years, generic quality-of-life scores were similar among all groups, with varying degrees of impact on urinary leakage, sexual function, and fecal leakage depending on the treatment group.

Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT): study protocol for a feasibility factorial randomized controlled trial in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies have shown that moderate intensity physical activity can reduce risk of progression and cancer-specific mortality in participants with prostate cancer. Epidemiological studies have also shown participants taking metformin to have a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, data from randomised controlled trials supporting the use of these interventions are limited. The Prostate cancer-Exercise and Metformin Trial examines that feasibility of randomising participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer to interventions that modify physical activity and blood glucose levels. The primary outcomes are randomisation rates and adherence to the interventions over 6 months. The secondary outcomes include intervention tolerability and retention rates, measures of insulin-like growth factor I, prostate-specific antigen, physical activity, symptom-reporting, and quality of life. METHODS: Participants are randomised in a 2 × 2 factorial design to both a physical activity (brisk walking or control) and a pharmacological (metformin or control) intervention. Participants perform the interventions for 6 months with final measures collected at 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our trial will determine whether participants diagnosed with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer, who are scheduled for radical treatments or being monitored for signs of cancer progression, can be randomised to a 6 months physical activity and metformin intervention. The findings from our trial will inform a larger trial powered to examine the clinical benefits of these interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prostate Cancer Exercise and Metformin Trial (Pre-EMpT) is registered on the ISRCTN registry, reference number ISRCTN13543667 . Date of registration 2nd August 2018-retrospectively registered. First participant was recruited on 11th September 2018.

NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single-blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. METHODS: NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. DISCUSSION: NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment [ProtecT] study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 50-69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. RESULTS: Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. CONCLUSION: Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.

Alteration of Metabolic Conditions Impacts the Regulation of IGF-II/H19 Imprinting Status in Prostate Cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second major cause of male cancer deaths. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer risk are linked. Insulin-like growth factor II (IGF-II) is involved in numerous cellular events, including proliferation and survival. The IGF-II gene shares its locus with the lncRNA, H19. IGF-II/H19 was the first gene to be identified as being "imprinted"-where the paternal copy is not transcribed-a silencing phenomenon lost in many cancer types. We disrupted imprinting behaviour in vitro by altering metabolic conditions and quantified it using RFLP, qPCR and pyrosequencing; changes to peptide were measured using RIA. Prostate tissue samples were analysed using ddPCR, pyrosequencing and IHC. We compared with in silico data, provided by TGCA on the cBIO Portal. We observed disruption of imprinting behaviour, in vitro, with a significant increase in IGF-II and a reciprocal decrease in H19 mRNA; the increased mRNA was not translated into peptides. In vivo, most specimens retained imprinting status apart from a small subset which showed reduced imprinting. A positive correlation was seen between IGF-II and H19 mRNA expression, which concurred with findings of larger Cancer Genome Atlas (TGCA) cohorts. This positive correlation did not affect IGF-II peptide. Our findings show that type 2 diabetes and/or obesity, can directly affect regulation growth factors involved in carcinogenesis, indirectly suggesting a modification of lifestyle habits may reduce cancer risk.

A Single-arm Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Cabazitaxel and Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy improves survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, response rates and survival remain suboptimal. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cisplatin plus cabazitaxel. METHODS: A phase II single-arm trial was designed to recruit at least 26 evaluable patients. This would give 80% power to detect the primary endpoint, an objective response rate defined as a pathologic complete response plus partial response (pathologic downstaging), measured by pathologic staging at cystectomy (p0 = 0.35 and p1 = 0.60, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Objective response was seen in 15 of 26 evaluable patients (57.7%) and more than one- third of patients achieved a pathologic complete response (9/26; 34.6%). Seventy-eight percent of the patients (21/27) completed all cycles of treatment, with only 6.7% of the reported adverse events being graded 3 or 4. There were 6 treatment-related serious adverse event reported, but no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. In the patients who achieved an objective response, the median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached (median follow-up of 41.5 months). In contrast, the median progression-free survival (7.2 months) and overall survival (16.9 months) were significantly worse (P = .001, log-rank) in patients who did not achieve an objective response. CONCLUSION: Cabazitaxel plus cisplatin for neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer can be considered a well-tolerated and effective regimen before definitive therapy with higher rates (57.7%) of objective response, comparing favorably to that with of cisplatin/gemcitabine (23%-26%). These results warrant further evaluation in a phase III study.

NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.

Errors in prostate core biopsy diagnosis in an era of specialisation and double reporting.

AIM: To examine the effects of specialist reporting on error rates in prostate core biopsy diagnosis. METHOD: Biopsies were reported by eight specialist uropathologists over 3 years. New cancer diagnoses were double-reported and all biopsies were reviewed for the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Diagnostic alterations were recorded in supplementary reports and error rates were compared with a decade previously. RESULTS: 2600 biopsies were reported. 64.1% contained adenocarcinoma, a 19.7% increase. The false-positive error rate had reduced from 0.4% to 0.06%. The false-negative error rate had increased from 1.5% to 1.8%, but represented fewer absolute errors due to increased cancer incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Specialisation and double-reporting have reduced false-positive errors. MDT review of negative cores continues to identify a very low number of false-negative errors. Our data represents a 'gold standard' for prostate biopsy diagnostic error rates. Increased use of MRI-targeted biopsies may alter error rates and their future clinical significance.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS: A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and is often found through a blood test called a prostate-specific antigen test and through biopsies of the prostate. Over the years, these tests led to the detection of many small cancers that do not cause harm. Some prostate cancers are harmful, but it is difficult to recognise them early. When cancer is still inside the prostate, the conventional treatments are surgery or radiotherapy, which carry side effects including leaking urine and difficulty getting an erection, so another option is repeat investigations at regular intervals (active monitoring), with treatments given if the cancer progresses. These options needed to be compared in a study called a 'randomised trial' in which men agree to be allocated to one of the three treatments. In the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study, 200,000 men aged 50­69 years were invited to have a prostate-specific antigen test. Of the 82,849 men who agreed to be tested, 1643 of whom had prostate cancer that was still contained in the prostate agreed to be allocated to one of the three treatments. After an average of 10 years of follow-up, 99% of men were alive in each of the treatment groups. However, when compared with active monitoring, surgery and radiotherapy reduced the risk of disease spreading outside the prostate by half. Patients reported that urinary leakage and sexual function were worst with surgery, and sexual and bowel functions were affected by radiotherapy. Men on active monitoring had a gradual decline in their urinary and sexual function, particularly as around half of them later had surgery or radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was the treatment that seemed to be the best value for money. The findings from the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study can help men make decisions about being tested and which treatment to have if they are found to have cancer within the prostate. We now need to find out the longer-term effects of these treatments on how long men live and their quality of life.

IGF-1 and hyperglycaemia-induced FOXA1 and IGFBP-2 affect epithelial to mesenchymal transition in prostate epithelial cells.

Localized prostate cancer (PCa) is a manageable disease but for most men with metastatic disease, it is often fatal. A western diet has been linked with PCa progression and hyperglycaemia has been associated with the risk of lethal and fatal prostate cancer. Using PCa cell lines, we examined the impact of IGF-I and glucose on markers of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), migration and invasion. We examined the underlying mechanisms using cell lines and tumour tissue samples. IGF-I had differential effects on the process of EMT: inhibiting in normal and promoting in cancer cells, whereas hyperglycamia alone had a stimulatory effect in both. These effects were independent of IGF and in both cases, hyperglycaemia induced an increase IGFBP-2(tumour promoter) and FOXA1. A positive correlation existed between levels of IGFBP-2 and FOXA1 in benign and cancerous prostate tissue samples and in vitro and in vivo data indicated that FOXA1 strongly interacted with the IGFBP-2 gene in normal prostate epithelial cells that was associated with a negative regulation of IGFBP-2, whereas in cancer cells the level of FOXA1 associating with the IGFBP-2 gene was minimal, suggesting loss of this negative regulation. IGF-I and hyperglycaemia-induced FOXA1/IGFBP-2 play important roles in EMT.

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years' median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. RESULTS: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man's lifetime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).