Impact of persistent PSA after salvage radical prostatectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Persistent prostatic specific antigen (PSA) represents a poor prognostic factor for recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the impact of persistent PSA on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing salvage RP is unknown. To investigate the impact of persistent PSA after salvage RP on long-term oncologic outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent salvage RP for recurrent prostate cancer between 2000 and 2021 were identified from twelve high-volume centers. Only patients with available PSA after salvage RP were included. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox regression models were used to test the effect of persistent PSA on biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis and any death after salvage RP. Persistent PSA was defined as a PSA-value ≥ 0.1 ng/ml, at first PSA-measurement after salvage RP. RESULTS: Overall, 580 patients were identified. Of those, 42% (n = 242) harbored persistent PSA. Median follow-up after salvage RP was 38 months, median time to salvage RP was 64 months and median time to first PSA after salvage RP was 2.2 months. At 84 months after salvage RP, BCR-free, metastasis-free, and overall survival was 6.6 vs. 59%, 71 vs. 88% and 77 vs. 94% for patients with persistent vs. undetectable PSA after salvage RP (all p < 0.01). In multivariable Cox models persistent PSA was an independent predictor for BCR (HR: 5.47, p < 0.001) and death (HR: 3.07, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Persistent PSA is common after salvage RP and represents an independent predictor for worse oncologic outcomes. Patients undergoing salvage RP should be closely monitored after surgery to identify those with persistent PSA.

Recurrent Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy or Ablation: Should We Observe Them All? Results from a Large Multicenter Salvage Radical Prostatectomy Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) yields poor functional outcomes and relatively high complication rates. Gleason score (GS) 6 prostate cancer (PCa) has genetic and clinical features showing little, if not absent, metastatic potential. However, the behavior of GS 6 PCa recurring after previous PCa treatment including radiotherapy and/or ablation has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncological outcomes of sRP for radio- and/or ablation-recurrent GS 6 PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data of sRP for recurrent PCa after local nonsurgical treatment were collected from 14 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2021. INTERVENTION: Prostate biopsy before sRP and sRP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A survival analysis was performed for pre-sRP biopsy and sRP-proven GS 6. Concordance between PCa at pre-sRP biopsy and sRP histology was assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included GS 6 recurrent PCa at pre-sRP biopsy (n = 142) and at sRP (n = 50), as two cohorts. The majority had primary radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy (83.8% of GS 6 patients at pre-sRP biopsy; 78% of GS 6 patients at sRP) and whole-gland treatments (91% biopsy; 85.1% sRP). Biopsy GS 6 10-yr metastasis, cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61-89%), 98% (95-99%), and 89% (78-95%), respectively. Upgrading at sRP was 69%, 35.5% had a pT3 stage, and 13.4% had positive nodes. The sRP GS 6 10-yr metastasis-free survival, CSS, and OS were 100%, 100%, and 90% (95% CI 58-98%) respectively; pT3 and pN1 disease were found in 12% and 0%, respectively. Overall complications, high-grade complications, and severe incontinence were experienced by >50%, >10%, and >15% of men, respectively (in both the biopsy and the sRP cohorts). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and absence of a centralized pathological review. CONCLUSIONS: GS 6 sRP-proven PCa recurring after nonsurgical primary treatment has almost no metastatic potential, while patients experience relevant morbidity of the procedure. However, a significant proportion of GS 6 cases at pre-sRP biopsy are upgraded at sRP. In the idea not to overtreat, efforts should be made to improve the diagnostic accuracy of pre-sRP biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the oncological results of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer of Gleason score (GS) 6 category. We found a very low malignant potential of GS 6 confirmed at salvage radical prostatectomy despite surgical complications being relatively high. Nonetheless, biopsy GS 6 was frequently upgraded and had less optimal oncological control. Overtreatment for recurrent GS 6 after nonsurgical first-line treatment should be avoided, and efforts should be made to increase the diagnostic accuracy of biopsies for recurrent disease.

Oncologic Outcomes of Lymph Node Dissection at Salvage Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Lymph node invasion (LNI) represents a poor prognostic factor after primary radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). However, the impact of LNI on oncologic outcomes in salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of lymph node dissection (LND) and pathological lymph node status (pNX vs. pN0 vs. pN1) on long-term oncologic outcomes of SRP patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent SRP for recurrent PCa between 2000 and 2021 were identified from 12 high-volume centers. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariable Cox regression models were used. Endpoints were biochemical recurrence (BCR), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: Of 853 SRP patients, 87% (n = 727) underwent LND, and 21% (n = 151) harbored LNI. The median follow-up was 27 months. The mean number of removed lymph nodes was 13 in the LND cohort. At 72 months after SRP, BCR-free survival was 54% vs. 47% vs. 7.2% for patients with pNX vs. pN0 vs. pN1 (p < 0.001), respectively. At 120 months after SRP, OS rates were 89% vs. 81% vs. 41% (p < 0.001), and CSS rates were 94% vs. 96% vs. 82% (p = 0.02) for patients with pNX vs. pN0 vs. pN1, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression analyses, pN1 status was independently associated with BCR (HR: 1.77, p < 0.001) and death (HR: 2.89, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In SRP patients, LNI represents an independent poor prognostic factor. However, the oncologic benefit of LND in SRP remains debatable. These findings underline the need for a cautious LND indication in SRP patients as well as strict postoperative monitoring of SRP patients with LNI.

Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study.

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

Clinical outcomes of anterior prostate cancers treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Introduction: A prospective cohort study comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes for patients with predominantly anterior prostate cancer (APC) identified preoperatively against non-anterior prostate cancer (NAPC) treated via robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: Of the 757 RARP's completed between January 2016 and April 2018, two comparative cohorts for anterior and an equivalent group of non-anterior prostate tumours each consisting of 152 patients were compared against each other. Data were collected on the following variables: patient age; operating consultant; preoperative PSA, ISUP grade, degree of nerve sparing; tumour staging; presence and location of positive surgical margins; PSA density, postoperative ISUP grade; treatment paradigm and postoperative PSA, erectile function, and continence outcomes with 2-year follow-up. Results: APCs were found to have significantly lower ISUP grading postoperatively; increased diagnosis via active surveillance over new diagnosis; more frequently undertaken bilateral nerve-sparing and long-term poorer continence outcomes at 18 and 24 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). Pre- and post-op PSA levels, erectile function, PSA density, positive surgical margins (PSM), age and tumour staging showed no significant differences between the APC and NAPC cohorts (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The lower ISUP grading could indicate APC as overall being less aggressive than NAPC, whereas the poorer long-term continence outcomes require further investigating. The non-significant differences amongst tumour staging, PSA density, preoperative PSA levels and PSM rates suggest that APC may not be as significant as predicted in diagnostic evaluation. Overall, this study provides useful information on the growing literature of anterior prostate cancer. Being the largest comparative cohort study to date on APC post-RARP, these results indicate the true characteristics of anterior tumours and their functional outcomes to help improve education, patient expectations and management.

Decision Regret in Patients with Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer Following First-line Nonsurgical Treatment: Validation of the European Association of Urology Criteria in a Large, Multicenter, Contemporary Cohort.

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) is a potentially curative option for locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) but is associated with significant morbidity. Therefore, the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend restricting sRP to a favorable-prognosis group according to the EAU criteria, but these have been validated considering only biochemical recurrence (BCR). Our aim was to test these criteria in a large, multicenter, contemporary cohort. We retrospectively reviewed 1265 patients who underwent sRP at 14 referral centers (2000-2021), stratified by compliance with the EAU criteria. Our primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS). We included 1030 men, of whom 221 (21.5%) fully met the EAU recommended criteria for sRP and 809 (78.5%) did not. The EAU-compliant group experienced more favorable pathological and functional outcomes (79% vs 63% wearing no pads at 1 yr; p < 0.001) and had significantly better MFS (90% vs 76% at 5 yr; p < 0.001), prostate-specific antigen-free survival (55% vs 38% at 5 yr; p < 0.001), and overall survival (89% vs 84% at 5 yr; p = 0.01). This was verified by Cox regression analysis for MFS (hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.99; p = 0.01). We found that adherence to the EAU criteria is associated with a lower risk of BCR and, more importantly, of metastasis after surgery. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes of surgical removal of the prostate for prostate cancer recurrence after radiotherapy or other nonsurgical treatments according to whether or not patients met the European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria for this surgery. We found that men who did not meet the criteria had a higher risk of metastasis and their benefit from surgery might be significantly less than for patients who do meet the EUA criteria.

Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term. RESULTS: We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

Hospital volume and outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a national population-based study using patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in short-term outcomes have been reported for hospitals with higher radical prostatectomy (RP) volumes. However, the association with longer-term functional outcomes is unknown. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in the English NHS between 2014 and 2016 who underwent RP (N = 10,089) were mailed a survey ≥18 months after diagnosis. Differences in patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function (EPIC-26 on scale from 0 to 100) by hospital volume group (≤60, 61-100, 101-140, >140 RPs/year) were estimated using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, 7702 men (76.3%) responded. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary continence (p = 0.08) or sexual function scores with increasing volume group (p = 0.2). When modelled as a linear function, we found a non-significant increase of 0.70 (95% CI -0.41 to 1.80; p = 0.22) in urinary continence and a significant increase of 1.54 (0.62-2.45; p = 0.001) in sexual function scores for a 100-procedure increase in hospital volume, which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10-12 points). The results were similar for robotic-assisted RP (5529 men [71.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support further centralisation of RP services beyond levels in England where four in five hospitals perform >60 RPs/year.

Determinants of variation in radical local treatment for men with high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Many factors are implicated in the potential 'under-treatment' of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation. METHODS: The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: 53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P < 0.001) for patients aged ≥80 years (ICC: 0.235) compared to patients aged 75-79 years (ICC: 0.070), 70-74 years (ICC: 0.041), and <70 years (ICC: 0.048). Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation did not influence the between-hospital variation. CONCLUSIONS: Radical local treatment of high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer depended strongly on age and comorbidity, but also on socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, with the between-hospital variation being highest in older patients.

Feasibility of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance with Prolaris® testing.

Objectives: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 in active surveillance (AS) low/favourable intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients with Prolaris® testing. Patients and Methods: Newly-diagnosed low/favourable intermediate risk PCa patients (PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≤2, maximum biopsy core length <10 mm, clinical stage ≤cT2c) were recruited into a multi-centre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (ISRCTN91422391, NCT03103152). Participants were randomised to oral low dose (100 mg), standard dose (300 mg) aspirin or placebo and/or vitamin D3 (4000 IU) versus placebo in a 3 × 2 factorial RCT design with biopsy tissue Prolaris® testing. The primary endpoint was trial acceptance/entry rates. Secondary endpoints included feasibility of Prolaris® testing, 12-month disease re-assessment (imaging/biochemical/histological), and 12-month treatment adherence/safety. Disease progression was defined as any of the following (i) 50% increase in baseline PSA, (ii) new Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4/5 lesion(s) on multi-parametric MRI where no previous lesion, (iii) 33% volume increase in lesion size, or radiological upstaging to ≥T3, (iv) ISUP Grade Group upgrade or (v) 50% increase in maximum cancer core length. Results: Of 130 eligible patients, 104 (80%) accepted recruitment from seven sites over 12 months, of which 94 patients represented the per protocol population receiving treatment. Prolaris® testing was performed on 76/94 (81%) diagnostic biopsies. Twelve-month disease progression rate was 43.3%. Assessable 12-month treatment adherence in non-progressing patients to aspirin and vitamin D across all treatment arms was 91%. Two drug-attributable serious adverse events in 1 patient allocated to aspirin were identified. The study was not designed to determine differences between treatment arms. Conclusion: Recruitment of AS PCa patients into a multi-centre multi-arm placebo-controlled RCT of minimally-toxic adjunctive oral drug treatments with molecular biomarker profiling is acceptable and safe. A larger phase III study is needed to determine optimal agents, intervention efficacy, and outcome-associated biomarkers.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urological cancers: The surgical experience of two cancer hubs in London and Milan.

Objective: To report on the outcomes of urological cancer patients undergoing radical surgery between March-September 2020 (compared with 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Materials and Methods: Since March 2020, both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathway, whereby patients were required to isolate for 14 days prior to admission and report a negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 3 days of surgery. COVID-19 positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. Surgical outcomes assessed were: American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade; surgery time; theatre time; intensive care unit (ICU) stay >24 h; pneumonia; length of stay (LOS); re-admission. Postoperative COVID-19 infection rates and associated mortality were also recorded. Results: At IEO, uro-oncological surgery increased by 4%, as compared with the same period in 2019 (n = 515 vs. 534). The main increase was observed for renal (16%, n = 98 vs. 114), bladder (24%, n = 45 vs. 56) and testicular (27%, n = 26 vs. 33). Patient demographics were all comparable between 2019 and 2020. Only one bladder cancer patient developed COVID-19, reporting mild/moderate disease. There was no COVID-19 associated mortality. In the SELCA cohort, uro-oncological surgery declined by 23% (n = 403 vs. 312) compared with the previous year. The biggest decrease was seen for prostate (-42%, n = 156 vs. 91), penile (-100%, n = 4 vs. 0) and testicular cancers (-46%, n = 35 vs. 24). Various patient demographic characteristics were notably different when comparing 2020 versus 2019. This likely reflects the clinical decision of deferring COVID-19 vulnerable patients. One patient developed COVID-19, with no COVID-19 related mortality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 minimal 'green' pathways that were put in place have shown to be safe for uro-oncological patients requiring radical surgery. There were limited complications, almost no peri-operative COVID-19 infection and no COVID-19-related mortality in either cohort.

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures into health care for men with localized prostate cancer.

Measuring treatment-related quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly requisite component of delivering high-quality care for patients with prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have, therefore, become an important tool for understanding the adverse effects of radical prostate cancer treatment and have been widely integrated into clinical practice. By providing real-time symptom monitoring and improved clinical feedback to patients and providers, PRO assessment has led to meaningful gains in prostate cancer care delivery and quality improvement worldwide. By providing an avenue for benchmarking, collaboration and population health monitoring, PROMs have delivered substantial improvements beyond providing individual symptom feedback. However, multilevel barriers exist that need to be addressed before the routine implementation of PROMs is achieved. Improvements in collection, interpretation, standardization and reporting will be crucial for the continued implementation of PROM instruments in prostate cancer pathways.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets. RESULTS: There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 32 409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P < 0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 11 309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one-third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure including increased use of TP biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the COVID-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.

Urinary incontinence and use of incontinence surgery after radical prostatectomy: a national study using patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether patient-reported urinary incontinence (UI) and bother scores after radical prostatectomy (RP) result in subsequent intervention with UI surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and January 2016 were identified. Administrative data were used to identify men who had undergone a RP and those who subsequently underwent a UI procedure. The National Prostate Cancer Audit database was used to identify men who had also completed a post-treatment survey. These surveys included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index (EPIC-26). The frequency of subsequent UI procedures, within 6 months of the survey, was explored according to EPIC-26 UI scores. The relationship between 'good' (≥75) or 'bad' (≤25) EPIC-26 UI scores and perceptions of urinary bother was also explored (responses ranging from 'no problem' to 'big problem' with respect to their urinary function). RESULTS: We identified 11 290 men who had undergone a RP. The 3-year cumulative incidence of UI surgery was 2.5%. After exclusions, we identified 5165 men who had also completed a post-treatment survey after a median time of 19 months (response rate 74%). A total of 481 men (9.3%) reported a 'bad' UI score and 207 men (4.0%) also reported that they had a big problem with their urinary function. In all, 47 men went on to have UI surgery within 6 months of survey completion (0.9%), of whom 93.6% had a bad UI score. Of the 71 men with the worst UI score (zero), only 11 men (15.5%) subsequently had UI surgery. CONCLUSION: In England, there is a significant number of men living with severe, bothersome UI after RP, and an unmet clinical need for UI surgery. The systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could be used to identify men who may benefit from UI surgery.

The Role of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Primary and Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

CONTEXT: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) is a novel imaging technique with several potential applications in the prostate cancer (PCa) setting. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the current evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of PSMA PET/MRI in patients with primary and recurrent PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases was performed in October 2020. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed patients with primary or recurrent PCa (P) undergoing PSMA PET/MRI (I) with or without comparison with other imaging techniques (C) in order to evaluate its diagnostic performance (O). Retrospective and prospective primary clinical studies were included. Results of previous meta-analyses were reported. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 23 original articles and three meta-analyses were included. Limited evidence on PSMA PET/MRI is available, especially in the setting of partial gland ablation. PET/MRI can be an effective imaging modality for detecting primary PCa, showing higher accuracy than multiparametric MRI alone. It provides accurate local staging of primary PCa; however, there are contradictory results in this context when its performance is compared with other imaging techniques. PET/MRI also shows high performance for restaging and detecting tumor recurrence, even at low prostate-specific antigen levels. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/MRI could represent a valuable tool in the management of patients with primary and recurrent PCa. No specific recommendations can be provided. PATIENT SUMMARY: Encouraging data regarding the benefits of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer are emerging from the literature.

Feasibility and safety of radical prostatectomy for oligo-metastatic prostate cancer: the Testing Radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer and oligo-Metastases to the bone (TRoMbone) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of randomisation to radical prostatectomy (RP) plus pelvic lymphadenectomy in addition to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy in men with newly diagnosed oligo-metastatic prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomised, non-blinded, feasibility clinical trial with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment was conducted in nine nationwide tertiary care centres undertaking high-volume robotic surgery. We aimed to randomise 50 men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer within an 18-month recruitment period to SOC systemic therapy vs SOC plus RP (intervention arm). The main outcome measures were: ability to randomise patients, optimised by a QRI; EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires to capture quality-of-life (QoL) data at baseline and 3 months post-randomisation; routine clinicopathological assessment to capture adverse events and prostate-specific antigen in both arms, plus standard perioperative parameters in the surgical arm. RESULTS: A total of 51 men were randomised within 14 months (one was subsequently deemed ineligible), with 60-83% accrual rate in centres that recruited at least two patients. All patients completed the trial follow-up; one patient in the intervention arm subsequently did not undergo the surgical intervention and one in the SOC arm refused all therapies. The QRI positively impacted recruitment. QoL data showed similarly high functioning in both study arms. Surgery for men with oligo-metastatic prostate cancer was found to be safe and had similar impact on early functional outcomes as surgery for standard indication. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to randomise men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer to a surgical intervention in addition to standard systemic therapies. While surgery appeared safe with no substantial impact on QoL in this feasibility study, a large randomised controlled trial is now warranted to examine treatment effectiveness of this additional component in the multimodality management of oligo-metastatic prostate cancer.