Role of multidisciplinary team meetings in implementation of chemohormonal therapy in metastatic prostate cancer in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: The recommended treatment for a subset of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) changed from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to combinations with chemotherapy such as docetaxel. Implementation of new evidence from trials is however complex and challenging. We investigated the effect of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) on adopting the newest emerging combination therapy in patients with mPC and assessed the overall survival of chemohormonal therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: All mPC patients diagnosed between October 2015 and April 2016 in the Netherlands were identified from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 962). Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the role of patient- and tumor characteristics, with special emphasis on MDTs, on receiving chemohormonal therapy versus ADT monotherapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess overall survival (OS). RESULTS: As many patients received ADT monotherapy as chemohormonal therapy (both n = 452). Being discussed in a MDT as patient, younger age, less comorbidities, a better performance status and high-volume disease were significantly associated with receiving chemohormonal therapy compared to ADT monotherapy. After adjustment for these factors, the presence of a MDT was independently associated with the administration of chemohormonal therapy (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.68-4.59). The 2-year OS was 82.1% (95% CI: 78.5-85.6%) for patients receiving chemohormonal therapy and 59.9% (95% CI: 55.4-64.4%) for patients receiving ADT monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Being discussed in a MDT is independently associated with the administration of chemohormonal therapy in this group of patients with mPC. This supports the hypothesis that implementation of innovative treatment options is facilitated by an organizational structure with MDTs.

Histopathological re-evaluations of biopsies in prostate cancer: a nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Grading prostate biopsies has an important role in determining treatment strategy. Histopathological evaluations suffer from interobserver variability and therefore biopsies may be re-evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the extent of, characteristics associated with and clinical implications of prostate biopsy re-evaluations in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by biopsy between October 2015 and April 2016 identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. The proportion of re-evaluations was assessed and characteristics were compared between patients with and without biopsy re-evaluation. Interobserver concordance of ISUP grade and EAU prognostic risk classification was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Biopsy re-evaluation was performed in 172 (3.3%) of 5214 patients. Primary reason for re-evaluation in patients treated with curative intent was referral to another hospital. Most referred patients treated with curative intent (n = 1856) had no re-evaluation (93.0%, n = 1727). Patients with biopsy re-evaluation were younger and underwent more often prostatectomy compared to patients without re-evaluation. The disagreement rate for ISUP grade was 26.1% and interobserver concordance was substantial (κ-weighted = 0.74). Re-evaluation resulted in 21.1% (n = 14) of patients with localised PCa in a different prognostic risk group. More tumours were downgraded (57.1%) than upgraded (42.9%). Interobserver concordance was very good (κ weighted = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Pathology review of prostate biopsies is infrequently requested by clinicians in the Netherlands but in a non-negligible minority of patients with localised PCa the pathology review led to a change in prognostic risk group which might impact their treatment.