Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway. Objective: To systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with systematic biopsy strategies. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023). Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening. Data Extraction: Number of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa. Data Synthesis: The generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication. Results: Data were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; P ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; P = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; P = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; P = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .22). Conclusion and relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.

Adaption and National Validation of a Tool for Predicting Mortality from Other Causes Among Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: An electronic health record-based tool could improve accuracy and eliminate bias in provider estimation of the risk of death from other causes among men with nonmetastatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To recalibrate and validate the Veterans Aging Cohort Study Charlson Comorbidity Index (VACS-CCI) to predict non-prostate cancer mortality (non-PCM) and to compare it with a tool predicting prostate cancer mortality (PCM). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational cohort of men with biopsy-confirmed nonmetastatic prostate cancer, enrolled from 2001 to 2018 in the national US Veterans Health Administration (VA), was divided by the year of diagnosis into the development (2001-2006 and 2008-2018) and validation (2007) sets. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Mortality (all cause, non-PCM, and PCM) was evaluated. Accuracy was assessed using calibration curves and C statistic in the development, validation, and combined sets; overall; and by age (<65 and 65+ yr), race (White and Black), Hispanic ethnicity, and treatment groups. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 107 370 individuals, we observed 24 977 deaths (86% non-PCM). The median age was 65 yr, 4947 were Black, and 5010 were Hispanic. Compared with CCI and age alone (C statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.68), VACS-CCI demonstrated improved validated discrimination (C statistic 0.75, 95% CI 0.74-0.75 for non-PCM). The prostate cancer mortality tool also discriminated well in validation (C statistic 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.83). Both were well calibrated overall and within subgroups. Owing to missing data, 18 009/125 379 (14%) were excluded, and VACS-CCI should be validated outside the VA prior to outside application. CONCLUSIONS: VACS-CCI is ready for implementation within the VA. Electronic health record-assisted calculation is feasible, improves accuracy over age and CCI alone, and could mitigate inaccuracy and bias in provider estimation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Veterans Aging Cohort Study Charlson Comorbidity Index is ready for application within the Veterans Health Administration. Electronic health record-assisted calculation is feasible, improves accuracy over age and Charlson Comorbidity Index alone, and might help mitigate inaccuracy and bias in provider estimation of the risk of non-prostate cancer mortality.

Patient experiences with tissue-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. Methods: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients' decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. Results: Participants' (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians' recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians' explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusion: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Trends in new and persistent opioid use in older adults with and without cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program-Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone ("surgery alone"), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy ("surgery+"). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. RESULTS: New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P < .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P < .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

Reliable Prostate Cancer Risk Mapping From MRI Using Targeted and Systematic Core Needle Biopsy Histopathology.

OBJECTIVE: To compute a dense prostate cancer risk map for the individual patient post-biopsy from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to provide a more reliable evaluation of its fitness in prostate regions that were not identified as suspicious for cancer by a human-reader in pre- and intra-biopsy imaging analysis. METHODS: Low-level pre-biopsy MRI biomarkers from targeted and non-targeted biopsy locations were extracted and statistically tested for representativeness against biomarkers from non-biopsied prostate regions. A probabilistic machine learning classifier was optimized to map biomarkers to their core-level pathology, followed by extrapolation of pathology scores to non-biopsied prostate regions. Goodness-of-fit was assessed at targeted and non-targeted biopsy locations for the post-biopsy individual patient. RESULTS: Our experiments showed high predictability of imaging biomarkers in differentiating histopathology scores in thousands of non-targeted core-biopsy locations (ROC-AUCs: 0.85-0.88), but also high variability between patients (Median ROC-AUC [IQR]: 0.81-0.89 [0.29-0.40]). CONCLUSION: The sparseness of prostate biopsy data makes the validation of a whole gland risk mapping a non-trivial task. Previous studies i) focused on targeted-biopsy locations although biopsy-specimens drawn from systematically scattered locations across the prostate constitute a more representative sample to non-biopsied regions, and ii) estimated prediction-power across predicted instances (e.g., biopsy specimens) with no patient distinction, which may lead to unreliable estimation of model fitness to the individual patient due to variation between patients in instance count, imaging characteristics, and pathologies. SIGNIFICANCE: This study proposes a personalized whole-gland prostate cancer risk mapping post-biopsy to allow clinicians to better stage and personalize focal therapy treatment plans.

Association between sociodemographic factors and diagnosis of lethal prostate cancer in early life.

OBJECTIVE: A subset of patients are diagnosed with lethal prostate cancer (CaP) early in life before prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is typically initiated. To identify opportunities for improved detection, we evaluated patient sociodemographic factors associated with advanced vs. localized (CaP) diagnosis across the age spectrum. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database, identifying patients diagnosed with CaP from 2004 to 2020. We compared characteristics of patients diagnosed at the advanced (cN1 or M1) versus localized (cT1-4N0M0) stage. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the associations among patient clinical and sociodemographic factors and advanced diagnosis, stratifying patients by age as ≤55 (before screening is recommended for most patients), 56 to 65, 66 to 75, and ≥76 years. RESULTS: We identified 977,722 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at diagnosis was 65.3 years and 50,663 (5.1%) had advanced disease. Overall, uninsured (OR = 3.20, 95% CI 3.03-3.78) and Medicaid-insured (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.48-2.69) vs. privately insured status was associated with higher odds of diagnosis with advanced disease and this effect was more pronounced for younger patients. Among patients ≤55 years, uninsured (OR 4.14, 95% CI 3.69-4.65) and Medicaid-insured (OR 3.39, 95% CI 3.10-3.72) vs. privately insured patients were associated with higher odds of advanced cancer at diagnosis. Similarly, residence in the lowest vs. highest income quartile was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP in patients ≤55 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30). Black vs. White race was associated with increased odds of advanced CaP at diagnosis later in life (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25); however, race was not significantly associated with advanced stage CaP in those ≤55 years (P = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic disparities in diagnosis at advanced stages of CaP were more pronounced in younger patients, particularly with respect to insurance status. These findings may support greater attention to differential use of early CaP screening based on patient health insurance.

Prostate cancer risk stratification using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion vs systematic prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Image-guided approaches improve the diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy and frequently modify estimates of clinical risk. To better understand the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) on risk assessment, we compared the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groupings, as calculated from MRF-TB vs systematic biopsy alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 713 patients who underwent MRF-TB from January 2017 to July 2021. The primary study objective was to compare the distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groupings obtained using MRF-TB (systematic + targeted) vs systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Systematic biopsy alone classified 10% of samples as very low risk and 18.7% of samples as low risk, while MRF-TB classified 10.5% of samples as very low risk and 16.1% of samples as low risk. Among patients with benign findings, low-risk disease, and favorable/intermediate-risk disease on systematic biopsy alone, 4.6% of biopsies were reclassified as high risk or very high risk on MRF-TB. Of 207 patients choosing active surveillance, 64 (31%), 91 (44%), 42 (20.2%), and 10 (4.8%) patients were classified as having very low-risk, low-risk, and favorable/intermediate-risk and unfavorable/intermediate-risk criteria, respectively. When using systematic biopsy alone, 204 patients (28.7%) were classified as having either very low-risk and low-risk disease per NCCN guidelines, while 190 men (26.6%) received this classification when using MRF-TB. CONCLUSION: The addition of MRF-TB to systematic biopsy may change eligibility for active surveillance in only a small proportion of patients with prostate cancer. Our findings support the need for routine use of quantitative risk assessment over risk groupings to promote more nuanced decision making for localized cancer.

Implementation of a health system intervention to reduce time from presentation to surgical intervention for pediatric testicular torsion.

PURPOSE: Testicular salvage rates for torsion are time-dependent1. Door to detorsion time has been identified as an independent testicular survival factor2. We describe an initiative to reduce door to incision (DTI) time for pediatric testicular torsion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative with a primary outcome of reducing DTI time for pediatric testicular torsion was developed with multidisciplinary stakeholders. Several process and balancing measures were used as secondary outcomes to help interpret and verify the observed change in DTI time. Interventions were implemented in cycles. Initial interventions standardized assessment of suspected torsion by Emergency Medicine utilizing a validated scoring system. A threshold Testicular Workup for Ischemia and Suspected Torsion (TWIST) score led to parallel notification of essential services for rapid assessment and case prioritization3. Subsequently, bedside ultrasound in the Emergency Department was implemented. Progress was tracked in a live dashboard and analyzed with X-mR process control charts and Nelson rules. These tools are used in quality improvement and process control to demonstrate the significance of changes as they are being implemented, prior to when traditional hypothesis testing would be able to do so. We aimed to increase the proportion of cases with DTI times under 4 h from 64% to >90% within one year. RESULTS: We observed 22 torsion cases prior to and 62 following initial implementation. The percentage of cases with DTI times under 4 h improved from 64% to 95%. At week 29, a shift identified a significant change on the X chart, with reduction in mean DTI time from 221 to 147 min. At the same time, a shift on the mR chart identified reduction in patient-to-patient variation. Mean time from arrival to Urology evaluation decreased from 140 to 56 min, mean time from arrival to scrotal ultrasound decreased from 70 to 36 min, and mean time from scrotal ultrasound to surgical incision decreased from 128 to 80 min. These improvements highlight the two key successes of our project: application of the TWIST score and bedside ultrasound for rapid assessment of suspected testicular torsions, and parallel processing of the evaluation and management. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a protocol for pediatric testicular torsion increased the proportion of cases with DTI time <4 h to 95%, decreased mean DTI time, and decreased variation. Our protocol provides a model to improve timeliness of care in treating pediatric testicular torsion.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Survival outcomes of patients treated with local therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer with high prostate-specific antigen concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (nmPCa) and high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels due to the high likelihood of metastasis pose a clinical dilemma regarding their optimal treatment and long-term outcomes after initial local therapy. We aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for nmPCa with high PSA levels. METHODS: We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify patients diagnosed with nmPCa who received RP or RT from 2004 through 2015. We included nmPCa patients with high PSA levels categorized as ≥50 and ≥98 ng/mL, the highest level recorded in SEER. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards to analyze cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We included 6177 patients with nmPCa and PSA ≥ 50 ng/mL at diagnosis; 1698 (27%) had PSA ≥ 98 ng/mL. Of these, 1658 (26.8%) underwent RP and 4519 (73.16%) patients received primary RT. Within a median of 113 months (interquartile range 74-150 months), the 5- and 10-year CSS estimates were 92.3% and 81.5% respectively; 10-year OS was 61%. In the PSA ≥ 98 ng/mL subgroup 5- and 10-year CSS estimates were 89.2% and 76%, respectively. In multivariable analyses for CSS, ISUP grade group (p < 0.001), N stage (p < 0.001), treatment with RP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.83, p < 0.001), and patient's age (p < 0.05) were associated with improved CSS. In the whole cohort of patients with PSA ≥ 50 ng/mL and RP subgroup, PSA failed to retain its independent prognostic value for CSS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with local therapy for nmPCa with very high PSA at diagnosis have relatively good long-term oncological outcomes. Therefore, among well-selected patients with nmPCa, high PSA levels alone should not preclude the use of radical local therapy. Potential selection bias limits inferences about the relative effectiveness of specific local therapies in this setting.

Relative Burden of Cancer and Noncancer Mortality Among Long-Term Survivors of Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer in the US.

Importance: Improvements in cancer outcomes have led to a need to better understand long-term oncologic and nononcologic outcomes and quantify cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality risks among long-term survivors. Objective: To assess absolute and relative cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific mortality rates among long-term survivors of cancer, as well as associated risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 627 702 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer who received a diagnosis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014, who received definitive treatment for localized disease and who were alive 5 years after their initial diagnosis (ie, long-term survivors of cancer). Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival time ratios (TRs) were calculated using accelerated failure time models, and the primary outcome of interest examined was death from index cancer vs alternative (nonindex cancer) mortality across breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer cohorts. Secondary outcomes included subgroup mortality in cancer-specific risk groups, categorized based on prognostic factors, and proportion of deaths due to cancer-specific vs noncancer-specific causes. Independent variables included age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, residence, stage, grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score. Follow-up ended in 2019. Results: The study included 627 702 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.1 [12.3] years; 434 848 women [69.3%]): 364 230 with breast cancer, 118 839 with prostate cancer, and 144 633 with colorectal cancer who survived 5 years or more from an initial diagnosis of early-stage cancer. Factors associated with shorter median cancer-specific survival included stage III disease for breast cancer (TR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.55) and colorectal cancer (colon: TR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62; rectal: TR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), as well as a Gleason score of 8 or higher for prostate cancer (TR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63). For all cancer cohorts, patients at low risk had at least a 3-fold higher noncancer-specific mortality compared with cancer-specific mortality at 10 years of diagnosis. Patients at high risk had a higher cumulative incidence of cancer-specific mortality than noncancer-specific mortality in all cancer cohorts except prostate. Conclusions and Relevance: This study is the first to date to examine competing oncologic and nononcologic risks focusing on long-term adult survivors of cancer. Knowledge of the relative risks facing long-term survivors may help provide pragmatic guidance to patients and clinicians regarding the importance of ongoing primary and oncologic-focused care.

Local Therapeutics for the Treatment of Oligo Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Metastatic prostate cancer remains universally lethal. Although de-novo metastatic prostate cancer was historically managed with systemic therapy alone, local therapies are increasingly utilized in the early treatment of the disease, particularly in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). OMPC represents an intermediate stage between clinically localized and widespread metastatic disease. Diseases classified within this stage present an opportunity for localized targeting of the disease prior to progression to widespread metastases. The purpose of this review is to discuss the contemporary and emerging local therapies for the treatment of OMPC. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, there are three utilized forms of local therapy for OMPC: cryoablation, radiation therapy, and cytoreductive prostatectomy. Cryoablation can be utilized for the total ablation of the prostate and has shown promising results in patients with OMPC either in combination with ADT or with ADT and systemic chemotherapy. Radiation therapy along with ADT has demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival. The STAMPEDE Arm G, PEACE-1, and the HORRAD clinical trials have investigated radiation therapy for mPCa compared to standard of care versus systemic therapy with varying results. Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) in conjunction with ADT has also been proposed in the management of OPMC with promising results from case-control and retrospective studies. Currently there are larger controlled trials investigating CRP for OPMC including the SIMCAP, LoMP, TRoMbone, SWOG 1802, IP2-ATLANTA, g-RAMPP, and FUSCC-OMPCa trials. Given the novel nature of local treatments for OPMC, treatment selection is still controversial and requires long-term follow-up and randomized clinical trials to aid patient and clinician decision making.

Personalizing approaches to the management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: role of advanced imaging, genetics and therapeutics.

PURPOSE: To summarize contemporary and emerging strategies for the diagnosis and management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), focusing on diagnostic testing and therapeutics. METHODS: Literature review using PUBMED-Medline databases as well as clinicaltrials.gov to include reported or ongoing clinical trials on treatment for mHSPC. We prioritized the findings from phase III randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: There have been significant changes to the diagnosis and staging evaluation of mHSPC with the integration of increasingly accurate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging tracers that exceed the performance of conventional computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan. Germline multigene testing is recommended for the evaluation of patients newly diagnosed with mHSPC given the prevalence of actionable alterations that may create candidacy for specific therapies. Although androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the backbone of treatment for mHSPC, approaches to first-line treatment include the integration of multiple agents including androgen receptor synthesis inhibitors (ARSI; abiraterone) Androgen Receptor antagonists (enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalautamide), and docetaxel chemotherapy. The combination of ADT, ARSI, and docetaxel chemotherapy has recently been evaluated in a randomized trial and was associated with significantly improved overall survival including in patients with a high burden of disease. The role of local treatment to the prostate with radiation has been evaluated in randomized trials with additional studies underway evaluating the role of cytoreductive radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: The staging and initial management of patients with mHSPC has undergone significant advances in the last decade with advancements in the diagnosis, treatment and sequencing of therapies.

Disparities in immune and targeted therapy utilization for older US patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Disparities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) outcomes persist in the era of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) and immunotherapies (IOs). We examined variation in the utilization of mRCC systemic therapies among US Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2019. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between therapy receipt and demographic covariates including patient race, ethnicity, and sex. In total, 15 407 patients met study criteria. After multivariable adjustment, non-Hispanic Black race and ethnicity was associated with reduced IO (adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.95; P = .015) and OAA receipt (aRRR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.90; P = .002) compared with non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity. Female sex was associated with reduced IO (aRRR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.81; P < .001) and OAA receipt (aRRR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.81; P < .001) compared with male sex. Thus, disparities by race, ethnicity, and sex were observed in mRCC systemic therapy utilization for Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2019.

Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether compliance with recommended monitoring tests during observation of localized prostate cancer has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer in 2004-2016 who were initially managed with observation for a minimum of 12 months. The primary objective was to examine rates of PSA testing, prostate biopsy, and prostate MRI. We used multivariable mixed effects Poisson regression to determine whether rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy increased over time. In addition, we identified clinical, sociodemographic, and provider factors associated with the frequency of monitoring tests during observation. RESULTS: We identified 10,639 patients diagnosed at a median age of 73 (IQR 69-77) years. The median follow-up time was 4.3 (IQR 2.7-6.6) years after diagnosis. Among patients managed without treatment for 5 years, 98% received at ≥1 PSA test, 48.0% ≥1 additional prostate biopsy, and 31.0% ≥1 prostate MRI. Among patients managed with observation for ≥12 months, mixed effects Poisson regression revealed that rates of PSA testing and biopsy increased over time (per calendar year: RR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03 and RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11, respectively). Clinical and sociodemographic factors including age, clinical risk, race/ethnicity, census tract poverty, and region were associated with rates of biopsy and PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Use of recommended monitoring tests including repeat prostate biopsy remains low among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing observation for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

Prostate cancer risk, screening and management in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.

Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour suppressor genes are associated with prostate cancer risk; however, optimal screening protocols for individuals with these mutations have been a subject of debate. Several prospective studies of prostate cancer incidence and screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have indicated at least a twofold to fourfold increase in prostate cancer risk among carriers of BRCA2 mutations compared with the general population. Moreover, BRCA2 mutations are associated with more aggressive, high-grade disease characteristics at diagnosis, more aggressive clinical behaviour and greater prostate cancer-specific mortality. The risk for BRCA1 mutations seems to be attenuated compared with BRCA2. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement or prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone is an imperfect indicator of clinically significant prostate cancer; therefore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers might benefit from refined risk stratification strategies. However, the long-term impact of prostate cancer screening is unknown, and the optimal management of BRCA1/2 carriers with prostate cancer has not been defined. Whether timely localized therapy can improve overall survival in the screened population is uncertain. Long-term results of prospective studies are awaited to confirm the optimal screening strategies and benefits of prostate cancer screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and whether these approaches ultimately have a positive impact on survival and quality of life in these patients.