Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network.

BACKGROUND: Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system. DESIGN: Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018). PARTICIPANTS: Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider. INTERVENTIONS: The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates. KEY RESULTS: During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The NRG/RTOG 9413 study showed that whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) plus neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) improved progression-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localised prostate cancer compared with prostate only radiotherapy (PORT) plus NHT, WPRT plus adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), and PORT plus AHT. We provide a long-term update after 10 years of follow-up of the primary endpoint (progression-free survival) and report on the late toxicities of treatment. METHODS: The trial was designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study with hormonal sequencing as one stratification factor and radiation field as the other factor and tested whether NHT improved progression-free survival versus AHT, and NHT plus WPRT versus NHT plus PORT. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed, clinically localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate, an estimated risk of lymph node involvement of more than 15% and a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70, with no age limitations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by permuted block randomisation to receive either NHT 2 months before and during WPRT followed by a prostate boost to 70 Gy (NHT plus WPRT group), NHT 2 months before and during PORT to 70 Gy (NHT plus PORT group), WPRT followed by 4 months of AHT (WPRT plus AHT group), or PORT followed by 4 months of AHT (PORT plus AHT group). Hormonal therapy was combined androgen suppression, consisting of goserelin acetate 3·6 mg once a month subcutaneously or leuprolide acetate 7·5 mg once a month intramuscularly, and flutamide 250 mg twice a day orally for 4 months. Randomisation was stratified by T stage, Gleason Score, and prostate-specific antigen concentration. NHT was given 2 months before radiotherapy and was continued until radiotherapy completion; AHT was given at the completion of radiotherapy for 4 months. The primary endpoint progression-free survival was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769548. The trial has been terminated to additional follow-up collection and this is the final analysis for this trial. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 1995, and June 1, 1999, 1322 patients were enrolled from 53 centres and randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. With a median follow-up of 8·8 years (IQR 5·07-13·84) for all patients and 14·8 years (7·18-17·4) for living patients (n=346), progression-free survival across all timepoints continued to differ significantly across the four treatment groups (p=0·002). The 10-year estimates of progression-free survival were 28·4% (95% CI 23·3-33·6) in the NHT plus WPRT group, 23·5% (18·7-28·3) in the NHT plus PORT group, 19·4% (14·9-24·0) in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 30·2% (25·0-35·4) in the PORT plus AHT group. Bladder toxicity was the most common grade 3 or worse late toxicity, affecting 18 (6%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, 17 (5%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, 22 (7%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and 14 (4%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. Late grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 22 (7%) of 316 patients in the NHT plus WPRT group, five (2%) of 313 in the NHT plus PORT group, ten (3%) of 317 in the WPRT plus AHT group, and seven (2%) of 315 in the PORT plus AHT group. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer, NHT plus WPRT improved progression-free survival compared with NHT plus PORT and WPRT plus AHT at long-term follow-up albeit increased risk of grade 3 or worse intestinal toxicity. Interactions between radiotherapy and hormonal therapy suggests that WPRT should be avoided without NHT. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Quantitative comparison of automatic and manual IMRT optimization for prostate cancer: the benefits of DVH prediction.

A recent publication indicated that the patient anatomical feature (PAF) model was capable of predicting optimal objectives based on past experience. In this study, the benefits of IMRT optimization using PAF-predicted objectives as guidance for prostate were evaluated. Three different optimization methods were compared.1) Expert Plan: Ten prostate cases (16 plans) were planned by an expert planner using conventional trial-and-error approach started with institutional modified OAR and PTV constraints. Optimization was stopped at 150 iterations and that plan was saved as Expert Plan. 2) Clinical Plan: The planner would keep working on the Expert Plan till he was satisfied with the dosimetric quality and the final plan was referred to as Clinical Plan. 3) PAF Plan: A third sets of plans for the same ten patients were generated fully automatically using predicted DVHs as guidance. The optimization was based on PAF-based predicted objectives, and was continued to 150 iterations without human interaction. DMAX and D98% for PTV, DMAX for femoral heads, DMAX, D10cc, D25%/D17%, and D40% for bladder/rectum were compared. Clinical Plans are further optimized with more iterations and adjustments, but in general provided limited dosimetric benefits over Expert Plans. PTV D98% agreed within 2.31% among Expert, Clinical, and PAF plans. Between Clinical and PAF Plans, differences for DMAX of PTV, bladder, and rectum were within 2.65%, 2.46%, and 2.20%, respectively. Bladder D10cc was higher for PAF but < 1.54% in general. Bladder D25% and D40% were lower for PAF, by up to 7.71% and 6.81%, respectively. Rectum D10cc, D17%, and D40% were 2.11%, 2.72%, and 0.27% lower for PAF, respectively. DMAX for femoral heads were comparable (< 35 Gy on average). Compared to Clinical Plan (Primary + Boost), the average optimization time for PAF plan was reduced by 5.2 min on average, with a maximum reduction of 7.1min. Total numbers of MUs per plan for PAF Plans were lower than Clinical Plans, indicating better delivery efficiency. The PAF-guided planning process is capable of generating clinical-quality prostate IMRT plans with no human intervention. Compared to manual optimization, this automatic optimization increases planning and delivery efficiency, while maintainingplan quality.

Palliative radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Radiotherapy is an effective tool for the palliation of symptoms commonly caused by prostate cancer. The majority of painful bone metastases respond equally well to single or multiple fractions of external radiotherapy. Retreatment with a second course of radiation induces pain responses in approximately 50% of patients. For more diffuse metastases, either hemibody radiation or systemic radiopharmaceuticals can reduce pain, and radium-223 is associated with improved survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Hematuria, bladder outlet obstruction, and rectal compression are all improved with palliative radiotherapy. The ability of stereotactic body radiation therapy to reduce pain compared with standard external radiation is being investigated, as is its role in treating those with limited metastatic disease.

Does the multidisciplinary approach improve oncological outcomes in men undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether oncological outcomes are improved in prostate cancer patients by using a multidisciplinary strategy as compared with a standard clinic paradigm, and whether time to treatment is delayed when using a multidisciplinary approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who were evaluated and pursued radical prostatectomy as primary treatment, by the same surgeons, in the prostate cancer multidisciplinary clinic (n = 194) and standard urology clinic (n = 741) at Duke University Medical Center from 2005 to 2009. Comparisons of baseline characteristics were examined using rank sum and χ(2) -tests. Differences in time to radical prostatectomy and oncological outcomes were evaluated using multivariate linear and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: A greater proportion of high-risk patients (D'Amico criteria) were evaluated at the multidisciplinary clinic compared with the urology clinic (23.2% vs 15.6%, P = 0.014). Mean-adjusted time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy was shorter for multidisciplinary clinic patients (85.6 vs 96.8 days, P = 0.006). After a median follow up of 21 months, no significant difference was found between the multidisciplinary clinic and urology clinic in the risk of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, whether controlling for clinical (hazard ratio 0.71, P = 0.249) or pathological variables (hazard ratio 0.75, P = 0.349). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher-risk disease, men evaluated using the multidisciplinary approach have similar oncological outcomes compared with men undergoing standard evaluation. Furthermore, time to radical prostatectomy is not delayed by the multidisciplinary management of these patients.

Radiation technique and outcomes following moderately hypofractionated treatment of low risk prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of RTOG 0415.

BACKGROUND: While moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) for prostate cancer (PC) is commonly delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT has not been prospectively compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in this context. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III RTOG 0415 trial comparing survival and toxicity outcomes for low-risk PC following MHRT with IMRT versus 3D-CRT. METHODS: RTOG 0415 was a phase III, non-inferiority trial randomizing low-risk PC patients to either MHRT or conventionally fractionated radiation with stratification by RT technique. A secondary analysis for differences in overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS), or toxicity by EPIC scores and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was performed. RESULTS: 1079 patients received the allocated intervention with a median follow up of 5.8 years. 79.1% of patients were treated with IMRT and radiation technique was balanced between arms. Across all patients, RT technique was not associated with significant differences in BRFS, OS, or rates of acute and late toxicities. For patients completing MHRT, there was a difference in the late GU toxicity distribution between 3D-CRT and IMRT but no difference in late grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity. Stratifying patients by RT technique and fractionation, no significant differences were observed in the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in EPIC urinary and bowel scores following RT. CONCLUSIONS: RT technique did not impact clinical outcomes following MHRT for low-risk PC. Despite different late GU toxicity distributions in patients treated with MHRT by IMRT or 3D-CRT, there was no difference in late Grade 2 or greater GU or GI toxicity or patient reported toxicity. Increases in late GU and GI toxicity following MHRT compared to CFRT, as demonstrated in the initial publication of RTOG 0415, do not appear related to a 3D-CRT treatment technique.

Updated 5-year results for short course abiraterone acetate and LHRH agonist for unfavorable intermediate and favorable high-risk prostate cancer.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) improves outcomes for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Treatment intensification with abiraterone acetate/prednisone (AAP) provides additional benefit for high-risk disease. We previously reported 3-year outcomes of a single-arm prospective multicenter trial (AbiRT trial) of 33 patients with unfavorable intermediate risk (UIR) and favorable high risk (FHR) prostate cancer undergoing short course, combination therapy with ADT, AAP, and RT. Here we report the final analysis demonstrating a high rate of testosterone recovery (97%) and excellent biochemical progression-free survival (97%) at 5 years. These data support comparative prospective studies of shorter, more potent ADT courses in favorable high-risk prostate cancer.