The impact of management option on out-of-pocket costs and perceived financial burden among men with localised prostate cancer in Australia within 6 months of diagnosis.

Objective This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343-2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2-12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate.

Objectives: To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions. Patients and methods: Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected. Results: The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria. Conclusion: Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

Reproducibility and Accuracy of the PRIMARY Score on PSMA PET and of PI-RADS on Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Within a Real-World Database.

The PRIMARY score is a 5-category scale developed to identify clinically significant intraprostate malignancy (csPCa) on 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT (68Ga-PSMA PET) using a combination of anatomic site, pattern, and intensity. Developed within the PRIMARY trial, the score requires evaluation in external datasets. This study aimed to assess the reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of the PRIMARY score in a cohort of patients who underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68Ga-PSMA PET before prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods: In total, data from 242 men who had undergone 68Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI before transperineal prostate biopsy were available for this ethics-approved retrospective study. 68Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI data were centrally collated in a cloud-based deidentified image database. Six experienced prostate-focused nuclear medicine specialists were trained (1 h) in applying the PRIMARY score with 30 sample images. Six radiologists experienced in prostate mpMRI read images as per the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2.1. All images were read (with masking of clinical information) at least twice, with discordant findings sent to a masked third (or fourth) reader as necessary. Cohen κ was determined for both imaging scales as 5 categories and then collapsed to binary (negative and positive) categories (score 1 or 2 vs. 3, 4, or 5). Diagnostic performance parameters were calculated, with an International Society of Urological Pathology grade group of at least 2 (csPCa) on biopsy defined as the gold standard. Combined-imaging-positive results were defined as any PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 or as a PI-RADS score of 1-3 with a PRIMARY score of 3-5. Results: In total, 227 patients with histopathology, 68Ga-PSMA PET, and mpMRI imaging before prostate biopsy were included; 33% had no csPCa, and 67% had csPCa. Overall interrater reliability was higher for the PRIMARY scale (κ = 0.70) than for PI-RADS (κ = 0.58) when assessed as a binary category (benign vs. malignant). This was similar for all 5 categories (κ = 0.65 vs. 0.48). Diagnostic performance to detect csPCa was comparable between PSMA PET and mpMRI (sensitivity, 86% vs. 89%; specificity, 76% vs. 74%; positive predictive value, 88% vs. 88%; negative predictive value, 72% vs. 76%). Using combined imaging, sensitivity was 94%, specificity was 68%, positive predictive value was 86%, and negative predictive value was 85%. Conclusion: The PRIMARY score applied by first-user nuclear medicine specialists showed substantial interrater reproducibility, exceeding that of PI-RADS applied by mpMRI-experienced radiologists. Diagnostic performance was similar between the 2 modalities. The PRIMARY score should be considered when interpreting intraprostatic PSMA PET images.

Clinical Trial Protocol for PRIMARY2: A Multicentre, Phase 3, Randomised Controlled Trial Investigating the Additive Diagnostic Value of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Men with Negative or Equivocal Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has an established role for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). The PRIMARY trial demonstrated that [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was associated with a significant improvement in sensitivity and negative predictive value for sPCa detection. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that addition of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand PET/CT will enable some men to avoid transperineal prostate biopsy without missing sPCa, and will facilitate biopsy targeting of PSMA-avid sites. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicentre, two-arm, phase 3, randomised controlled trial will recruit 660 participants scheduled to undergo biopsy. Eligible participants will have clinical suspicion of sPCa with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 2 and red flags, or a PI-RADS score of 3 on mpMRI (PI-RADS v2). Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks stratified by centre. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05154162. INTERVENTION: In the experimental arm, participants will undergo pelvic PSMA PET/CT. Local and central reviewers will interpret scans independently using the PRIMARY score. Participants with a positive result will undergo targeted transperineal prostate biopsies, whereas those with a negative result will undergo prostate-specific antigen monitoring alone. In the control arm, all participants undergo template transperineal prostate biopsies. Participants will be followed for subsequent clinical care for up to 2 yr after randomisation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: sPCa is defined as Gleason score 3 + 4 (≥10%) = 7 disease (grade group 2) or higher on transperineal prostate biopsy. Avoidance of transperineal prostate biopsy will be measured at 6 mo from randomisation. The primary endpoints will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. CONCLUSIONS: Patient enrolment began in March 2022, with recruitment expected to take 36 mo. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with suspected prostate cancer who have nonsuspicious or unclear MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan findings, a different type of scan (called PSMA PET/CT; prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography) may identify men who could avoid an invasive prostate biopsy. This type of scan could also help urologists in better targeting of samples from suspicious lesions during prostate biopsies.

Disease mapping: Geographic differences in population rates of interventional treatment for prostate cancer in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer depend on a range of clinical and patient characteristics such as disease stage, age, general health, risk of side effects and access. Associations between treatment patterns and area-level factors such as remoteness and socioeconomic disadvantage have been observed in many countries. OBJECTIVE: To model spatial differences in interventional treatment rates for prostate cancer at high spatial resolution to inform policy and decision-making. METHODS: Hospital separations data for interventional treatments for prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy, low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy) for men aged 40 years and over were modelled using spatial models, generalised linear mixed models, maximised excess events tests and k-means statistical clustering. RESULTS: Geographic differences in population rates of interventional treatments were found (p<0.001). Separation rates for radical prostatectomy were lower in remote areas (12.2 per 10 000 person-years compared with 15.0-15.9 in regional and major city areas). Rates for all treatments decreased with increasing socioeconomic disadvantage (radical prostatectomy 19.1 /10 000 person-years in the most advantaged areas compared with 12.9 in the most disadvantaged areas). Three groups of similar areas were identified: those with higher rates of radical prostatectomy, those with higher rates of low dose brachytherapy, and those with low interventional treatment rates but higher rates of excess deaths. The most disadvantaged areas and remote areas tended to be in the latter group. CONCLUSIONS: The geographic differences in treatment rates may partly reflect differences in patients' physical and financial access to treatments. Treatment rates also depend on diagnosis rates and thus reflect variation in investigation rates for prostate cancer and presentation of disease. Spatial variation in interventional treatments may aid identification of areas of under-treatment or over-treatment.

68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in addition to mpMRI in men undergoing biopsy during active surveillance for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer: study protocol for a prospective cross-sectional study.

Background: In active surveillance there is significant interest in whether imaging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) or 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT) can improve the detection of progression to clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and thus reduce the frequency of prostate biopsies and associated morbidity. Recent studies have demonstrated the value of mpMRI in active surveillance; however, mpMRI does miss a proportion of disease progression and thus alone cannot replace biopsy. To date, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) has shown additive value to mpMRI in its ability to detect prostate cancer (PCa) in the primary diagnostic setting. Our objective is to evaluate the diagnostic utility of PSMA-PET to detect progression to csPCa in active surveillance patients. Methods: We will perform a prospective, cross-sectional, partially blinded, multicentre clinical trial evaluating the additive value of PSMA-PET with mpMRI against saturation transperineal template prostate biopsy. Two hundred and twenty-five men will be recruited who have newly diagnosed PCa which is suitable for active surveillance. Following enrolment, patients will undergo a PSMA-PET and mpMRI within 3 months of a repeat 12-month confirmatory biopsy. Patients who remain on active surveillance after confirmatory biopsy will then be planned to have a further mpMRI and PSMA-PET prior to a repeat biopsy in 3-4 years. The primary outcome is to assess the ability of PSMA-PET to detect or exclude significant malignancy on repeat biopsy. Secondary outcomes include (I) assess the comparative diagnostic accuracies of mpMRI and PSMA-PET alone [sensitivity/specificity/negative predictive value (NPV)/positive predictive value (PPV)] to detect progression on biopsy based on predefined histologic criteria for progression; (II) comparison of index lesion identification by template biopsies vs. MRI targeted lesions vs. PSMA targeted lesions; (III) evaluation of concordance of lesions identified on final histopathology and each imaging modality (PSMA-PET and/or mpMRI) in the subset of patients proceeding to RP. Discussion: The results of this trial will define the role of PSMA-PET in active surveillance and potentially reduce the number of biopsies needed to detect progression to csPCa. Trial Registration: The current trial was registered with the ANZCTR on the 3/2/2022 with the trial ID ACTRN12622000188730, it is accessible at https://www.anzctr.org.au/.

A Novel Risk Calculator Incorporating Clinical Parameters, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Before Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-invisible prostate tumours and improve the sensitivity of detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to mpMRI alone. Numerous risk calculators have been validated as tools for stratification of men at risk of being diagnosed with clinically significant (cs)PCa. Objective: To develop a novel risk calculator using clinical parameters and imaging parameters from mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT in a cohort of patients undergoing mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before biopsy. Design setting and participants: A total of 291 men from the PRIMARY prospective trial underwent mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before transperineal prostate biopsy with sampling of systematic and targeted cores. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Novel risk calculators were developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to predict detection of overall PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group [GG] ≥1) and csPCa (GG ≥2). The risk calculators were then compared with the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator incorporating mpMRI (ERSPC-MRI). Resampling methods were used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the risk calculators and to perform decision curve analysis. Results and limitations: Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and mpMRI Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System scores were included in the MRI risk calculator, resulting in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.791 for overall PCa (GG ≥1) and 0.812 for csPCa (GG ≥2). Addition of the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) on PSMA PET/CT for the prostate lesion, and of SUVmax for the mpMRI lesions for the MRI-PSMA risk calculator resulted in AUCs of 0.831 for overall PCa and 0.876 for csPCa (≥ISUP2).The ERSPC-MRI risk calculator had AUCs of 0.758 (p = 0.02) for overall PCa and 0.805 (p = 0.001) for csPCa. Both the MRI and MRI-PSMA risk calculators were superior to the ERSPC-MRI for both overall PCa and csPCa. Conclusions: These novel risk calculators incorporate clinical and radiological parameters for stratification of men at risk of csPCa. The risk calculator including PSMA PET/CT data is superior to a calculator incorporating mpMRI data alone. Patient summary: We evaluated a new risk calculator that uses clinical information and results from two types of scan to predict the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. This risk model can guide patients and clinicians in shared decision-making and may help in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies.

Can 68 Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography and multiparametric MRI guide treatment for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Gallium-68 (68 Ga)-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in guiding salvage therapy for patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) post-radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were evaluated with paired mpMRI and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans for BCR (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL). Patient, tumour, PSA and imaging characteristics were analysed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients underwent paired scans to investigate BCR, of whom 53.0% (62/117) had detectable lesions on initial scans and 47.0% (55/117) did not. Of those without detectable lesions, 8/55 patients proceeded to immediate salvage radiotherapy (sRT) and 47/55 were observed. Of patients with negative imaging who were initially observed, 46.8% (22/47) did not reach threshold for repeat imaging, while 53.2% were rescanned due to rising PSA levels. Of these rescanned patients, 31.9% (15/47) were spared sRT due to proven distant disease, or due to absence of disease on repeat imaging. Of the original 117 patients, 53 (45.3%) were spared early sRT due to absence of disease on imaging or presence of distant disease, while those undergoing delayed sRT still maintained good PSA responses. Of note, patients with high-risk features who underwent sRT despite negative imaging demonstrated satisfactory PSA responses to sRT. Study limitations include the observational design and absence of cause-specific or overall survival data. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the use of mpMRI and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in guiding timing and necessity of salvage therapy tailored to detected lesions, with potential to reduce unnecessary sRT-related morbidity. Larger or randomized trials are warranted to validate this.

Trends and variation in prostate cancer diagnosis via transperineal biopsy in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: To describe changes in the use of prostate biopsy techniques among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Australia and New Zealand and examine factors associated with these changes. METHODS: We extracted data between 2015 and 2019 from 7 jurisdictions of the Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Distribution and time trend of transrectal (TR) vs. transperineal (TP) biopsy type, differences in the proportion of biopsy type by geographic jurisdiction, diagnosing institute characteristics (public vs. private, metropolitan vs. regional, case volume) and patient characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES), and location of residence were analyzed. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 37,638 patients. The overall proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed by TP increased from 26% to 57% between 2015 and 2019. Patients living in a major city, a more socioeconomically advantaged area or who were diagnosed in a metropolitan or private hospital were more likely to have TP than TR. While all subgroups were observed to increase their use of TP over the study period, uptake grew faster for men from low SES areas and those diagnosed at a regional or low-volume hospital but slower for men living in outer regional/remote areas or treated at a public hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In this binational registry, prostate cancer is now more commonly diagnosed by TP than the TR approach. While the gap between uptakes of TP has diminished for patients with low vs. high SES, disparity has widened for patients from outer regional areas vs major cities and public vs. private hospitals.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Decade-long trends in prostate cancer biopsy grade groups and treatment within a population-based registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in diagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) grade, biopsy and treatment approach over a decade (2011-2020) at a population level within a clinical quality cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed by prostate biopsy between 2011 and 2020 were retrieved from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, a prospective, state-wide clinical quality registry in Australia. Distributions of each grade group (GG) proportion over time were modelled with restricted cubic splines, separately by biopsy technique, age group and subsequent treatment method. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2020, 24 308 men were diagnosed with PCa in the registry. The proportion of GG 1 disease declined from 36-23%, with commensurate rises in GG 2 (31-36%), GG 3 (14-17%) and GG 5 (9.3-14%) disease. This pattern was similar for men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography or transperineal biopsy. Patients aged <55 years had the largest absolute reduction in GG 1 PCa, from 56-35%, compared to patients aged 55-64 (41-31%), 65-74 (31-21%), and ≥75 years (12-10%). The proportion of prostatectomies performed for patients with GG 1 disease fell from 28% to 7.1% and, for primary radiation therapy, the proportion fell from 22% to 3.5%. CONCLUSION: From 2011 to 2020, there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of GG 1 PCa diagnosed, particularly in younger men. The percentage of interventional management performed in GG 1 disease has fallen to very low levels. These results reflect the implementation of major changes to diagnostic and treatment guidelines and inform the future allocation of treatment methods.

Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma.

Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy on the Risk of Upgrading in Final Pathology in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy? An European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists Prostate Cancer Working Group Multi-institutional Study.

BACKGROUND: The concordance rates of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) prostate biopsies with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen have been assessed poorly in men diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) concordance rates between the final pathology at RP and MRI-TBx or MRI-TBx + random biopsy (RB) according to the biopsy approach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multi-institutional database included patients diagnosed with TP or TR treated with RP. INTERVENTION: TP-TBx or TR-TBx of the prostate. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The ISUP grade at biopsy was compared with the final pathology. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) was performed to assess the association between the biopsy approach (TP-TBx vs TR-TBx) and ISUP upgrading, downgrading, concordance, and clinically relevant increase (CRI). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 752 (59%) versus 530 (41%) patients underwent TR versus TP. At the MVA, TP-TBx was an independent predictor of upgrading (odds ratio [OR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.9, p < 0.01) and improved concordance relative to the final pathology (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.5, p < 0.01) after adjusting for age, cT stage, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, number of targeted cores, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume. Moreover, TP-TBx was associated with a lower risk of CRI than TR-TBx (OR 0.7, p < 0.01). This held true when considering patients who underwent MRI-TBx + RB (OR 0.6, p < 0.01). The inclusion of men who had RP represents a potential selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of TP-TBx compared with TR-TBx may reduce the risk of upgrading and improve the concordance of biopsy grade with the final pathology. The TP approach decreases the odds of CRI with improved patient selection for the correct active treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we evaluated whether transperineal (TP) targeted biopsy (TBx) may improve the concordance of clinically significant prostate cancer with the final pathology in comparison with transrectal (TR) TBx in a large worldwide population. We found that TP-TBx might increase concordance compared with TR-TBx. Adding random biopsies to target one increases accuracy; however, concordance with the final pathology is overall suboptimal even with the TP approach.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support. OBJECTIVE: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

Variation in patient reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy: A bi-national registry-based study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common and widely used treatment for localized prostate cancer. Sequela following RP may include urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, outcomes which are recorded within a bi-national Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The objective was to report population-wide urinary incontinence and sexual function outcomes recorded at 12 months following RP; and to quantify and explore factors associated with variation in outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry of Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) was used for this study. Participants were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2020. Domain summary scores for urinary incontinence and sexual function from the EPIC-26 instrument were the main outcomes, taken at 12 months following surgery (6-18 months). "Major" urinary and sexual function bother were also assessed. Variation in outcomes was investigated using linear and logistic multivariable regression models adjusted for covariates: age, socioeconomic status, PSA at diagnosis, surgical technique, surgical specimen grade group, margin status, and clinician surgical volume. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analytic cohort included 13,083 men with the mean urinary incontinence domain score being 76/100 (SD = 25) with 9.2% reporting major bother. For sexual function, the mean score was 29/100 (SD = 26) with 46% reporting major bother. Of the examined variables, age at surgery and surgical volume category were most predictive of function, with disparities exceeding minimally important differences, though large variation was observed between urologists within volume categories. There is considerable variation in 12-month postprostatectomy functional outcomes. Variation is explained by both patient and clinician factors, though some confounders are unmeasured in this cohort.

Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties. OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Estetrol Prevents Hot Flushes and Improves Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy: The PCombi Study.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is accompanied by side effects affecting health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objective: To assess the effects of the fetal estrogen estetrol (E4) on symptoms related to estrogen and androgen deficiency, and on HRQL measured using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire. Design setting and participants: This was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with advanced PCa. Intervention: Patients receiving ADT were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to daily treatment with a high dose of E4 (HDE4; n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) for 24 wk. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the effect of HDE4 cotreatment on hot flushes (HFs). Secondary outcomes were the Q-Man questionnaire for evaluation of the effect on estrogen and androgen deficiency symptoms, and the FACT-P questionnaire for evaluating HRQL. Results and limitations: At 24 wk, the number of patients experiencing HFs was significantly lower in the HDE4 group than in the placebo group (14.3% vs 60.0%; p < 0.001). HDE4 treatment was associated with lower incidence of night sweats, arthralgia, and fatigue, but more nipple tenderness and gynecomastia. At 24 wk, the mean HRQL score favored HDE4 over placebo for the FACT-P total score (122.2 ± 12.3 vs 118.7 ± 19.7) and for several other FACT subscales. Conclusions: Daily HDE4 coadministration almost completely prevented HFs in patients with advanced PCa treated with ADT. HDE4 also had positive effects on HRQL and counteracted other estrogen deficiency symptoms caused by ADT. These data support the dual efficacy concept of ADT and HDE4 to improve HRQL and increase the antitumor effect of ADT. Patient summary: For patients on androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer, cotreatment with a high dose of estetrol almost completely prevents the occurrence of hot flushes and improves quality of life and well-being, but nipple sensitivity and an increase in breast size may occur.