Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important.

Second-Line Cabazitaxel Treatment in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Compared to Standard of Care in CAPRI: Observational Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients after docetaxel in the TROPIC trial. However, trial populations may not reflect the real-world population. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes of cabazitaxel within and outside trials (standard of care, SOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients treated with cabazitaxel directly after docetaxel therapy before 2017 were retrospectively identified and followed to 2018. Patients were grouped on the basis of treatment within a trial or SOC. Outcomes included OS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response. RESULTS: From 3616 patients in the CAPRI registry, we identified 356 patients treated with cabazitaxel, with 173 patients treated in the second line. Trial patients had favorable prognostic factors: fewer symptoms, less visceral disease, lower lactate dehydrogenase, higher hemoglobin, more docetaxel cycles, and longer treatment-free interval since docetaxel therapy. PSA response (≥ 50% decline) was 28 versus 12%, respectively (P = .209). Median OS was 13.6 versus 9.6 months for trial and SOC subgroups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.73, P = .067). After correction for prognostic factors, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio = 1.00, P = .999). Longer duration of androgen deprivation therapy treatment, lower lactate dehydrogenase, and lower PSA were associated with longer OS; visceral disease had a trend for shorter OS. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with cabazitaxel in trials were fitter and showed outcomes comparable to registration trials. Conversely, those treated in daily practice showed features of more aggressive disease and worse outcome. This underlines the importance of adequate estimation of trial eligibility and health status of mCRPC patients in daily practice to ensure optimal outcomes.

Endoscopic Transvesical Adenomectomy of the Prostate, a New Minimal Invasive Approach for Large Benign Prostate Hyperplasia. A Description of the Technique and the Results of the First 40 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to present the results in the first 40 patients treated with a new minimal invasive technique in the treatment of large-volume benign prostate hyperplasia: the endoscopic transvesical adenomectomy of the prostate (ETAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2014 to 2016 we performed the ETAP in 40 patients with large volume benign prostate hyperplasia (>80 cc). The mean volume on ultrasound was 117 cc. The mean baseline Qmax was 8.1 ml/s and the International Prostate Symptom Score was 20.5. Seventeen patients (43%) had a urinary retention preoperatively. A cystotomy through a small infraumbilical incision was performed and a camera port was placed through the bladder dome. A pneumovesicum was created and 2 instrument ports were placed into the bladder. The prostate was transected and removed in 1 piece through the umbilical incision. RESULTS: The operation was completed in all 40 patients, without need for conversion. The mean operation time was 102 minutes with a mean blood loss of 185 ml. The average hospital stay was 5 days. There were no grade V complications and 1 grade IV complication. The transfusion rate was 2.5%. After the procedure, all 40 patients were able to void spontaneous. The Qmax increased to 21.2 ml/s (+13.1 ml/s) and the International Prostate Symptom Score decreased to 7.5 (-13 pts). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the ETAP is a feasible, safe, and truly minimal invasive procedure. The functional outcomes are promising as well. We believe the ETAP is good alternative to open surgery.

Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: a cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry.

BACKGROUND: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors' preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences. RESULTS: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse. CONCLUSION: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care.

Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly - Results of a Single Center LRC only Series

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare outcome of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with ileal conduit in 22 elderly ( (≥75 years) versus 51 younger (<75 years) patients. patients. Materials and Methods: Analysis of prospectively gathered data of a single institution LRC only series was performed. Selection bias for LRC versus non-surgical treatments was assessed with data retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Results: Median age difference between LRC groups was 9.0 years. (77.0 versus 68.0 years). Both groups had similar surgical indications, body mass index and gender distribution. Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3 versus 4 in ≥50% of younger and elderly patients. Median operative time (340 versus 341 min) and estimated blood loss (<500 versus >500mL) did not differ between groups. Median total hospital stay was 12.0 versus 14.0 days for younger and elderly patients. Grade I-II 90-d complication rate was higher for elderly patients (68 versus 43%, p=0.05). Grade III-V 90-d complication rate was equal for both groups (23 versus 29%, p=0.557). 90-d mortality rate was higher for elderly patients (14 versus 4%, p=0.157). Median follow-up was 40.0 months for younger and 57.0 months for elderly patients. Estimated overall and cancer-specific survival at 5years. was 46% versus 35% and 64% versus 64% for younger and elderly patients respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that LRC is feasible in elderly patients, where a non-surgical treatment is usually favoured.

Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly - Results of a Single Center LRC only Series.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcome of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with ileal conduit in 22 elderly (≥75 years.) versus 51 younger (< 75 years.) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of prospectively gathered data of a single institution LRC only series was performed. Selection bias for LRC versus non-surgical treatments was assessed with data retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Median age difference between LRC groups was 9.0 years (77.0 versus 68.0 years). Both groups had similar surgical indications, body mass index and gender distribution. Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3 versus 4 in ≥50% of younger and elderly patients. Median operative time (340 versus 341 min) and estimated blood loss (< 500 versus >500mL) did not differ between groups. Median total hospital stay was 12.0 versus 14.0 days for younger and elderly patients. Grade I-II 90-d complication rate was higher for elderly patients (68 versus 43%, p=0.05). Grade III-V 90-d complication rate was equal for both groups (23 versus 29%, p=0.557). 90-d mortality rate was higher for elderly patients (14 versus 4%, p=0.157). Median follow-up was 40.0 months for younger and 57.0 months for elderly patients. Estimated overall and cancer-specific survival at 5years. was 46% versus 35% and 64% versus 64% for youn¬ger and elderly patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that LRC is feasible in elderly patients, where a non¬-surgical treatment is usually favoured.

Presence and Number of Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: Effect on Oncological Outcome in a Population-Based Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Additional insight in the occurrence and number of positive surgical margins (PSM) and the potential consequences is needed, since earlier studies show divergent results. This study aims at investigating the effect of the presence and number of PSM on oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study including 648 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent RP in the Southern Netherlands in 2006-2008. The effect of PSM on risk of treatment failure, defined by either biochemical recurrence or necessity of any additional therapy (Cox regression), was evaluated. RESULTS: PSM were observed in 39%; 11% had multiple PSM. Treatment failure was observed in 26% of all patients. Multivariably, the presence (hazard ratio 2.5) and number of PSM (hazard ratios: single 2.3; multiple 3.1) were independently associated with higher treatment failure rates, unlike location of PSM. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment failure rates are high among patients with PSM, especially in those with multiple PSM. This needs to be taken into account when decisions are made on the applicability of the adjuvant and salvage therapy.

Effect of surgical margin status after radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and illness perception in patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of positive surgical margins (PSM) on health-related quality of life and illness perception after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Of all patients with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2009 in 7 participating hospitals in the Eindhoven region of the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 197 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were invited to fill in a questionnaire. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were combined with questionnaire data (including European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-C30, quality of life questionnaire-Prostate Module 25, and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire). Mean scores per margin status group were compared in multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: Of the addressed patients, 166 (84%) responded to the questionnaire. At time of questioning, their surgery was 1.7 to 6.4 years ago. The prevalence of PSM was 34%. On most scales, patients with PSM reported more favorable scores than patients with negative surgical margins. However, differences were mostly trivial (<5 points on 100-point scales), or of small (5-10) to medium (10-20) clinical importance. Only differences on hormonal complaints and illness comprehensibility were statistically significant. Effect of PSM on scores did not vary between patients who were at different time points after surgery. CONCLUSION: Although patients with PSM showed a trend toward more favorable scores, these differences were of little or no clinical importance. Additional research is needed to evaluate how patients value these differences with respect to oncological outcomes.