PRESTO: A Phase III, Open-Label Study of Intensification of Androgen Blockade in Patients With High-Risk Biochemically Relapsed Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (AFT-19).

PURPOSE: Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS: Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments. RESULTS: Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices. CONCLUSIONS: "Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health.

Risk Stratification of Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Individualizing Care in the Era of Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: While active surveillance is the preferred management for most men with low-risk prostate cancer, a subset may harbor more aggressive disease. In this review we examine the evidence underlying an accurate and nuanced assessment of oncologic risk in these men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a nonsystematic literature review current to January 2023 on PubMed for articles relating to clinical, pathological, molecular, and imaging-based modalities available for risk assessment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Relevant articles were reviewed by the authors and evidence was summarized. RESULTS: Many tools are available to personalize clinical decision-making for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Total volume of cancer, PSA density, and presence of ductal components have been consistently and strongly associated with current or future evidence of higher-grade disease. PSA kinetics, Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System 4/5 lesions on MRI, perineural invasion, germline mutations, and genomic classifiers all appear to be associated with an increased risk, although are not as extensively validated. Race, percent free PSA, and other serum biomarkers such as Prostate Health Index and 4Kscore do not appear to be associated with long-term elevated risk. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prognosis for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer is excellent. There are many factors which should be routinely integrated into the initial management decision as well as determining intensity and frequency of active surveillance. Development of comprehensive multivariable instruments to guide clinical decisions is encouraged.

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history. OBJECTIVE: To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) "often" regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace "cancer" for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%). CONCLUSIONS: AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the "cancer" nomenclature. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word "cancer" for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.

Renaming Grade Group 1 Prostate "Cancer" From a Pathology Perspective: A Call for Multidisciplinary Discussion.

Despite the innovations made to enhance smarter screening and conservative management for low-grade prostate cancer, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment remains a major health care problem. Driven by the primary goal of reducing harm to the patients, relabeling of nonlethal grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer has been proposed but faced varying degrees of support and objection from clinicians and pathologists. GG 1 tumor exhibits histologic (invasive) and molecular features of cancer but paradoxically, if pure, is unable to metastasize, rarely extends out of the prostate, and if resected, has a cancer-specific survival approaching 100%. Most of the arguments against relabeling GG 1 relate to concerns of missing a higher-grade component through the unsampled area at biopsy. However, the designation of tumor benignity or malignancy should not be based on the shortcomings of a diagnostic procedure and sampling errors. This review explores possible solutions, mainly the feasibility of renaming GG 1 in radical prostatectomy (RP) with ramifications in biopsy diagnosis, acceptable for both pathologists and clinicians. One workable approach is to rename GG 1 in RP with a cautious neutral or nonbenign non-cancer term (eg, acinar neoplasm) using "defined criteria" that will stop the indiscriminate reporting of every GG 1 in biopsy as carcinoma including eventual insignificant microtumors in RPs. Use of a corresponding noncommittal term at biopsy while commenting on the possibility of an undersampled nonindolent cancer, might reduce the pathologist's concerns about upgrading. Dropping the word "carcinoma" in biopsy preempts the negative consequences of labeling the patient with cancer, including unnecessary definitive therapy (the root cause of overtreatment). Renaming should retain the status quo of contemporary grading and risk stratifications for management algorithms while trying to minimize overtreatment. However, the optimal approach to find answers to this issue is through multidisciplinary discussions of key stakeholders with a specific focus on patient-centered concerns and their ramifications in our practices. GG 1 renaming has been brought up in the past and came up again despite the continued counterarguments, and if not addressed more comprehensively will likely continue to reemerge as overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and patient's sufferings persist.

Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evolutionary Parallels to Breast Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to review the history of the adoption of focal therapy for breast and prostate cancer and review common barriers to implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed of English-language MEDLINE indexed articles of breast-conservation therapy and prostate cancer focal therapy. RESULTS: The introduction of focal therapy in breast cancer began with pioneering case series, and multiple randomized trials were performed prior to widespread adoption. Focal therapy for prostate cancer has just started the process of clinical trials with a single published randomized controlled trial. Commonly cited barriers to the adoption of prostate focal therapy include historical views of Halstedian tumor biology, tumor multifocality, over-detection, limitations in prostate imaging, and trial design end points. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of breast-conserving therapy evolved over decades and used data from multiple large, randomized, clinical trials. Barriers to the adoption of prostate cancer local therapy are similar to those faced by breast cancer clinical trials. Completion of well-designed trials in prostate cancer focal therapy is essential for its evidence-based adoption.

Blood Prostate-specific Antigen by Volume of Benign, Gleason Pattern 3 and 4 Prostate Tissue.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relate to prostate volume of benign tissue, Gleason pattern 3 (GP3) and Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) cancer. METHODS: The cohort included 2209 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at 2 academic institutions with pT2N0, Grade Group 1-4 prostate cancer and an undetectable postoperative PSA. Volume of benign, GP3, and GP4 were estimated. The primary analysis evaluated the association between PSA and volume of each type of tissue using multivariable linear regression. R2, a measure of explained variation, was calculated using a multivariable model. RESULTS: Estimated contribution to PSA was 0.04/0.06 ng/mL/cc for benign, 0.08/0.14 ng/mL/cc for GP3, and 0.62/0.80 ng/ml/cc for GP4 for the 2 independent cohorts, respectively. GP4 was associated with 6 to 8-fold more PSA per cc compared to GP3 and 15-fold higher compared to benign tissue. We did not observe a difference between PSA per cc for GP3 vs. benign tissue (P = 0.2). R2 decreased only slightly when removing age (0.006/0.018), volume of benign tissue (0.051/0.054) or GP3 (0.014/0.023) from the model. When GP4 was removed, R2 decreased 0.051/0.310. PSA density (PSA divided by prostate volume) was associated with volume of GP4 but not GP3, after adjustment for benign volume. CONCLUSION: Gleason pattern 4 cancer contributes considerably more to PSA and PSA density per unit volume compared to GP3 and benign tissue. Contributions from GP3 and benign are similar. Further research should examine the utility of determining clinical management recommendations by absolute volume of GP4 rather than the ratio of GP3 to GP4.

Systematic review of the impact of a plant-based diet on prostate cancer incidence and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Plant-based diets are increasingly popular and have many well-established benefits for health and environmental sustainability. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of plant-based diets and prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic database and citation search in February 2022. Studies were included if they reported primary data on plant-based dietary patterns (i.e., vegan, vegetarian, plant-based) and incidence among at-risk men for prostate cancer, or oncologic, general health/nutrition, or quality of life outcomes among patients with prostate cancer or caregivers. RESULTS: A total of 32 publications were eligible for the qualitative synthesis, representing 5 interventional and 11 observational studies. Interventional studies primarily focused on lifestyle modification including plant-based diets for men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer or with biochemical recurrence after treatment, showing improvements in short-term oncologic outcomes alongside improvements in general health and nutrition. Observational studies primarily focused on prostate cancer risk, showing either protective or null associations for plant-based dietary patterns. Studies of the vegan diet consistently showed favorable associations with risk and/or outcomes. Gaps in the current literature include impact for long-term disease-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional studies showed generally favorable results of lifestyle modifications incorporating a plant-based diet with prostate cancer outcomes as well as improvements in nutrition and general health. Observational studies demonstrated either a lower risk of prostate cancer or no significant difference. These results are encouraging in light of the many benefits of plant-based diets for overall health, as well as environmental sustainability and animal welfare.

Deconstructing, Addressing, and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Prostate Cancer Care.

CONTEXT: Men of African ancestry have demonstrated markedly higher rates of prostate cancer mortality than men of other races and ethnicities around the world. In fact, the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality worldwide are found in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan West Africa, and among men of African descent in the USA. Addressing this inequity in prostate cancer care and outcomes requires a focused research approach that creates durable solutions to address the structural, social, environmental, and health factors that create racial disparities in care and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To introduce a conceptual model for evaluating racial inequities in prostate cancer care to facilitate the development of translational research studies and interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative review of literature relevant to racial inequities in prostate cancer care and outcomes was performed. Existing literature was used to highlight various components of the conceptual model to inform future research and interventions toward equitable care and outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Racial inequities in prostate cancer outcomes are driven by a series of structural and social determinants of health that impact exposures, mediators, and outcomes. Social determinants of equity, such as laws/policies, economic systems, and structural racism, affect the inequitable access to environmental and neighborhood exposures, in addition to health care access. Although the incidence disparity remains problematic, various studies have demonstrated parity in outcomes when social and health factors, such as access to equitable care, are normalized. Few studies have tested interventions to reduce inequities in prostate cancer among Black men. CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide, men of African ancestry demonstrate worse outcomes in prostate cancer, a phenomenon driven largely by social factors that inform biologic, environmental, and health care risks. A conceptual model was presented that organizes the many factors that influence prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Within that framework, we must understand the current state of inequities in clinical prostate cancer practice, the optimal state of what equitable practice would be, and how achieving equity in prostate cancer care balances costs, benefits, and harms. More robust characterization of the sources of prostate cancer inequities should inform testing of ambitious and innovative interventions as we work toward equity in care and outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men of African ancestry demonstrate the highest rates of prostate cancer mortality, which may be reduced through social interventions. We present a framework for formalizing the identification of the drivers of prostate cancer inequities to facilitate the development of interventions and trials to eradicate them.

Minimally invasive retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for men with testis cancer: a retrospective cohort study of safety and feasibility.

PURPOSE: To describe the perioperative safety, functional and immediate post-operative oncological outcomes of minimally invasive RPLND (miRPLND) for testis cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multi-centre cohort study on testis cancer patients treated with miRPLND from 16 institutions in eight countries. We measured clinician-reported outcomes stratified by indication. We performed logistic regression to identify predictors for maintained postoperative ejaculatory function. RESULTS: Data for 457 men undergoing miRPLND were studied. miRPLND comprised laparoscopic (n = 56) or robotic (n = 401) miRPLND. Indications included pre-chemotherapy in 305 and post-chemotherapy in 152 men. The median retroperitoneal mass size was 32 mm and operative time 270 min. Intraoperative complications occurred in 20 (4%) and postoperative complications in 26 (6%). In multivariable regression, nerve sparing, and template resection improved ejaculatory function significantly (template vs bilateral resection [odds ratio (OR) 19.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.5-75.6], nerve sparing vs non-nerve sparing [OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.3-16.1]). In 91 men treated with primary RPLND, nerve sparing and template resection, normal postoperative ejaculation was reported in 96%. During a median follow-up of 33 months, relapse was detected in 39 (9%) of which one with port site (< 1%), one with peritoneal recurrence and 10 (2%) with retroperitoneum recurrences. CONCLUSION: The low proportion of complications or peritoneal recurrences and high proportion of men with normal postoperative ejaculatory function supports further miRPLND studies.

Hematuria following Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy: Incidence Increases with Long-Term Followup.

PURPOSE: Hematuria following post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) is inadequately characterized. We performed a consecutive cohort study of patients treated with PPRT at our institution to characterize this complication including impact on patient-reported quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with potential followup ≥4 years following PPRT were identified. Freedom from ≥grade 2 hematuria (FFG2H; macroscopic blood) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of ≥grade 2 hematuria (G2H) were assessed via log-rank tests and the Cox model. Urinary patient-reported quality of life by EPIC-26 (26-question Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) was compared for patients with/without hematuria using mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: A total of 216 men received PPRT (median 68.4 Gy, IQR 68.0-68.4) from 2007 to 2016 at a median of 20 months (IQR 9-45) after prostatectomy. Median followup was 72 months (IQR 54-99). A total of 85 men developed hematuria, of whom 49 (58%) underwent cystoscopy, 13 (15%) required intervention and 26 (31%) experienced recurrent hematuria. Eight-year FFG2H was 55%. G2H was highest in men treated with anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy (HR 3.24, p <0.001), men with bladder V65 Gy ≥43% (HR 1.97, p=0.004) and men with medication allergies (HR 1.73, p=0.049). Age <65 years (HR 0.81, p=0.374) and diabetes mellitus (HR 0.49, p=0.098) were not associated with G2H. Change in urinary continence (mean -3.5, 95% CI: 10.1, 3.1) and irritation/obstruction (mean -3.0, 95% CI: 5.8, -0.3) domain scores did not exceed the minimally clinically important difference for men with/without hematuria. CONCLUSIONS: Hematuria following PPRT is common, especially among men with medication allergies and those on anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy; however, PPRT-related hematuria is typically self-limited. Limiting bladder V65 Gy may reduce PPRT-related hematuria.

EZR-ROS1 fusion renal cell carcinoma mimicking urothelial carcinoma: report of a previously undescribed gene fusion in renal cell carcinoma.

A subset of renal cell carcinomas harbor gene fusions, and we report the first case of an EZR-ROS1 fusion in renal cell carcinoma. A 47-year-old female presented with hematuria and a mass involving the renal pelvis. Renal biopsy revealed a tumor with solid and tubular architecture that was diffusely positive for PAX8, CK7, and vimentin; retained expression of INI1; focally positive for P504S; and negative for GATA3 and TFE3. Partial nephrectomy was performed, and histologically, the tumor had solid and tubular architecture with mucin-like content within tubules. The nuclei corresponded to WHO/ISUP grade 2 and 3. The morphology was neither specific nor diagnostic, and a final diagnosis of unclassified renal cell carcinoma with solid and tubular architecture was rendered. Molecular sequencing revealed an EZR-ROS1 fusion: a fusion that has never been reported in renal cell carcinoma. Recognition of this fusion is of significance if the tumor becomes metastatic as treatment with crizotinib may be considered.

Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer?

INTRODUCTION: ISUP Grade Group 1 prostate cancer is the lowest histologic grade of prostate cancer with a clinically indolent course. Removal of the term 'cancer' has been proposed and has historical precedent both in urothelial and thyroid carcinoma. METHODS: Evidence-based review identifying arguments for and against Grade Group 1 being referred to as cancer. RESULTS: Grade Group 1 has histologic evidence of tissue microinvasion and 0.3-3% rate of extraprostatic extension. Genomic evaluation suggests overlap of a minority of Grade Group 1 cancers with those of Grade Group 2. Conversely, Grade Group 1 tumors appear to have distinct genetic and genomic profiles from Grade Group 3 or higher tumors. Grade Group 1 has no documented ability for regional or distant metastasis and long-term follow up after treatment or active surveillance is safe with excellent oncologic outcomes. DISCUSSION: Grade Group 1 prostate cancer, while showing evidence of neoplasia on histology has a remarkably indolent natural history more akin to non-neoplastic precursor lesions. Consideration should be given to renaming Grade Group 1 prostate cancer, which has the potential to minimize overtreatment, treatment-related side effects, patient anxiety, and financial burden on the healthcare system.