Clinical-genomic Characterization Unveils More Aggressive Disease Features in Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients with Low-grade Disease.

BACKGROUND: Over 20% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PC) are ≥75 yr old. More objective disease-specific indices for predicting outcomes beyond chronological age are necessary. OBJECTIVE: To analyze age-related differences in clinical-genomic prognostic features of aggressiveness in localized PC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study reported the use of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) guidelines. Clinical-genomic data of patients who underwent a prostate biopsy or radical prostatectomy (RP) were obtained from the Decipher Genomic Resource Information Database (NCT02609269). INTERVENTION: Our analyses focused on the 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) and 50-gene (PAM50) models in the biopsy and RP cohorts stratified by age. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the impact of age on GC scores and PAM50 molecular subtypes. Prognostic indices including Decipher GC scores, PAM50 molecular subtypes, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories, and ISUP grade groups (IGGs) were stratified by age using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Within histological low-risk IGGs, there were a higher proportion of patients with high-risk Decipher biopsy scores with age (age <60 yr: 10.1% IGG 1 and 29.9% IGG 2 vs age ≥80 yr: 22% IGG 1 and 37.7% IGG 2). The prevalence of the adverse phenotype luminal B (PAM50-defined) increased with age (age <60 yr: 22.7% and 40.2% vs age ≥80 yr: 29.7% and 49.1%, in patients with IGG 1 and IGG 2, respectively). In IGGs 3-5, no age differences were observed. Multivariable models demonstrated that each age decile entailed a 19% (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.29, p < 0.001) and a 10% (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.05-1.16) increased probability for a high-risk Decipher biopsy and RP score, respectively. Aside from an obvious selection bias, data on race, family history, prostate volume, and long-term follow-up outcomes were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrated that elderly men with favorable pathology (IGG 1-2), might harbor more aggressive disease than younger patients based on validated GC scores. PATIENT SUMMARY: The presented clinical-genomic data demonstrate that elderly patients with low-risk prostate cancer might harbor more aggressive disease than their younger counterparts. This suggests that standard well-accepted paradigm of elderly prostate cancer patients not being aggressively treated, based solely on their chronological age, might need to be reconsidered.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Before Bladder-Sparing Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before cystectomy improves survival in muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer (MIBC). The use of NAC before chemoradiation (CRT) has been limited, as these patients are often elderly, frail, and ineligible for cisplatin. However, the role of NAC in fit, cisplatin-eligible patients who opt for bladder preservation warrants further evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MIBC treated with NAC followed by CRT at the Princess Margaret and Durham Regional cancer centers from 2008 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Gemcitabine-cisplatin NAC was given for 2 to 4 cycles, followed by reassessment for CRT. External-beam radiotherapy (60-66 Gy) over 6 weeks was given with concurrent weekly cisplatin at 40 mg/m2. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analyses. RESULTS: We identified 57 consecutive patients. Median age was 72 (range 45-87), and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (60%) or 1 (40%). Stage II disease (65%), stage III disease (25%), and regional nodal metastases (11%) were included. Most completed planned NAC (95%). All patients completed external-beam radiotherapy, and 84% completed at least 60% of the planned concurrent weekly cisplatin doses. Median (range) follow-up was 19.3 (4.8-96.1) months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Two-year OS and disease-specific survival rates were 74% (95% confidence interval, 57.7-84.9) and 88% (95% confidence interval, 78.5-98.1), respectively. Two-year bladder-intact disease-free survival was 64%. Salvage cystectomy was performed in 14%. Distant relapse occurred in 11%, and 9% died of metastatic disease. OS was associated with baseline hydronephrosis and with bladder-intact disease-free survival with residual disease on cystoscopy. CONCLUSION: NAC followed by CRT can result in encouraging outcomes and tolerability in cisplatin-eligible patients.

Potential role for metformin in urologic oncology.

Metformin is one of the most commonly used drugs worldwide. It is currently considered first-line pharmacological agent for management of diabetes mellitus type 2. Recent studies have suggested that metformin may have further benefits, especially in the field of urologic oncology. Use of metformin has been shown to be associated with decreased incidence and improved outcomes of prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. These studies suggest that metformin does have a future role in the prevention and management of urologic malignancies. In this review, we will discuss the latest findings in this field and its implications on the management of urologic oncology patients.

National survey addressing the information needs of primary care physicians: Side effect management of patients on androgen deprivation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a common treatment for prostate cancer with numerous side effects. We assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) knowledge of ADT side effects and their interest in increasing their knowledge in this area. METHODS: A list of active Canadian PCPs was obtained using the Canadian Medical Directory. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 600 randomly selected physicians. We collected PCPs' demographic information, experience with ADT management, knowledge regarding ADT side effects and desired sources for obtaining knowledge on ADT management. RESULTS: In total, we received 103 completed questionnaires. Of these, 89% of PCPs had patients on ADT. One-third of respondents prescribed ADT and over half of them administered ADT annually. Thirty-eight percent felt their knowledge of ADT side effects was inadequate and 50% felt uncomfortable counselling patients on ADT. Many PCPs were less familiar with the incidence of functional side effects of ADT (i.e., hot flashes, fatigue and erectile dysfunction) compared to life-threatening side effects (i.e., cardiovascular events, metabolic syndrome, fractures). In terms of increasing their knowledge of ADT side effects, 82% of PCPs would use educational resources if they were available (52% and 32% preferred continued medical education [CME] events and educational pamphlets, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs play an important role in managing ADT side effects. There is poor awareness of the prevalence of ADT side effects, and many are uncomfortable in managing these side effects. These areas may be addressed through CME programs and educational pamphlets.

Comparison of serum testosterone levels in prostate cancer patients receiving LHRH agonist therapy with or without the removal of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: : The prostate secretes enzymes and nutrients to promote sperm motility. Recent reports suggest that the prostate may also secrete testosterone, which is believed to be a fuel for prostate tumour growth. The aim of this study was to determine if a difference in serum testosterone levels exists between men on luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists who have undergone radical prostatectomy, radiation or hormone therapy as primary prostate cancer treatment. METHODS: : Serum testosterone levels were evaluated in 165 consecutive prostate cancer patients using LHRH analogues for >3 months. We excluded patients receiving either radiation or chemotherapy at time of time of testosterone measurement. Patients were classified based on primary treatment: (1) radical prostatectomy; (2) radiation; or (3) primary hormone therapy. We used one-way ANOVA to compare testosterone levels. Pearson correlation was used to correlate testosterone with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and time on LHRH agonists. Multivariable linear regression was used to predict serum testosterone levels. RESULTS: : The median (interquartile range) serum testosterone levels were 1.4 (1-1.9), 1.3 (1-1.625) and 1.25 (0.9-1.525) nmol/L for radical prostatectomy, radiation and primary hormone therapy groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in testosterone levels between the groups (p = 0.3). No correlation was found between testosterone and PSA levels or time on LHRH (r = 0.02 and r = 0.01), respectively. Multivariable linear regression showed that none of the clinical variables were predictors of serum testosterone levels. CONCLUSION: : Our study suggests that primary treatment does not affect serum testosterone levels among men using LHRH analogues.