Development and External Validation of the STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) Multivariable Model for Predicting Progression in Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Starting Active Surveillance.

For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, we aimed to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of progression on active surveillance (AS), which could inform more personalised AS strategies. In total, 883 men from 3 European centres were used for model development and internal validation, and 151 men from a fourth European centre were used for external validation. Men with Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1-2 disease at diagnosis were eligible. The endpoint was progression to the composite endpoint of CPG3 disease or worse (≥CPG3). Model performance at 4 years was evaluated through discrimination (C-index), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. The final multivariable model incorporated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Grade Group, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score (Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) or Likert), and prostate volume. Calibration and discrimination were good in both internal validation (C-index 0.742, 95% CI 0.694-0.793) and external validation (C-index 0.845, 95% CI 0.712-0.958). In decision curve analysis, the model offered net benefit compared to a 'follow-all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.08 and ≥0.04 in development and external validation, respectively. In conclusion, our model demonstrated good accuracy and clinical utility in predicting the progression on AS at 4 years post-diagnosis. Men with lower risk predictions could subsequently be offered less-intense surveillance. Further external validation in larger cohorts is now required.

Diagnostic value of the abnormal digital rectal examination in the modern MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Objective: Currently the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) as a standalone referral criterion for suspected prostate cancer. Unlike referrals for a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) which are triaged directly to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), an abnormal DRE requires re-examination in a secondary clinic first. Here, we investigated the ongoing value of the abnormal DRE as a referral criterion. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of patients referred to secondary care for suspected prostate cancer based on an abnormal DRE over a 15-month period at a single UK hospital (n = 158). Age, PSA, primary and repeat DRE findings and eventual diagnosis were collated. Results: A concurrent raised PSA was present in 65/158 (41%). Concordance between primary and secondary care DRE was only 72/158 (46%). The overall and significant cancer detection rate was 26/158 (16%) and 22/158 (14%), respectively. Among men with a concurrent raised PSA, 19/65 (29%) had significant cancer found, whereas with an abnormal primary care DRE and normal PSA (n = 93), only 3/93 (3%) had a significant cancer. Mandating a PSA before referral for an abnormal DRE would have redirected 65/158 (41%) of men to MRI first, negating the need for a repeat DRE (p < 0.0001). This finding was recapitulated in a second prospective validation cohort (n = 30) with 9/30 (30%) redirected to MRI first. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to investigate the value of the DRE in contemporary practice. We propose that PSA is used to triage men with an abnormal DRE to MRI without needing a repeat DRE. If the PSA is normal, the diagnostic yield is low but may still warrant a repeat DRE to assess the need for further investigations. Additional multicentre studies are required to further validate our findings. Level of evidence: 4.

Aiming for a holistic integrated service for men diagnosed with prostate cancer - Definitions of standards and skill sets for nurses and allied healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: To establish a comprehensive set of recommendations for the service structure and skill set of nurses and allied healthcare professionals in prostate cancer care. METHODS: Using components of formal consensus methodology, a 30-member multidisciplinary panel produced 53 items for discussion relating to the provision of care for prostate cancer patients by specialist nurses and allied healthcare professionals. Items were developed by two rounds of email correspondence in which, first, items were generated and, second, items refined to form the basis of a consensus meeting which constituted the third round of review. The fourth and final round was an email review of the consensus output. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 33 items that were appropriate for recommendations to be made. These items were grouped under categories of "Environment" and "Patient Pathway" and included comments on training, leadership, communication and quality assessment as well as specific items related to prostate diagnosis clinics, radical treatment clinics and follow-up survivor groups. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist nurses and allied healthcare professionals play a vital role alongside urologists and oncologists to provide care to men with prostate cancer and their families. We present a set of standards and consensus recommendations for the roles and skill-set required for these practitioners to provide gold-standard prostate cancer care. These recommendations could form the basis for development of comprehensive integrated prostate cancer pathways in prostate cancer centres as well as providing guidance for any units treating men with prostate cancer.