Combining PSMA-PET and PROMISE to re-define disease stage and risk in patients with prostate cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET was introduced into clinical practice in 2012 and has since transformed the staging of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria were proposed to standardise PSMA-PET reporting. We aimed to compare the prognostic value of PSMA-PET by PROMISE (PPP) stage with established clinical nomograms in a large prostate cancer dataset with follow-up data for overall survival. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, we used data from patients of any age with histologically proven prostate cancer who underwent PSMA-PET at the University Hospitals in Essen, Münster, Freiburg, and Dresden, Germany, between Oct 30, 2014, and Dec 27, 2021. We linked a subset of patient hospital records with patient data, including mortality data, from the Cancer Registry North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany. Patients from Essen University Hospital were randomly assigned to the development or internal validation cohorts (2:1). Patients from Münster, Freiburg, and Dresden University Hospitals were included in an external validation cohort. Using the development cohort, we created quantitative and visual PPP nomograms based on Cox regression models, assessing potential PPP predictors for overall survival, with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalty for overall survival as the primary endpoint. Performance was measured using Harrell's C-index in the internal and external validation cohorts and compared with established clinical risk scores (International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate [STARCAP], European Association of Urology [EAU], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] risk scores) and a previous nomogram defined by Gafita et al (hereafter referred to as GAFITA) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curve (AUC) estimates. FINDINGS: We analysed 2414 male patients (1110 included in the development cohort, 502 in the internal cohort, and 802 in the external validation cohort), among whom 901 (37%) had died as of data cutoff (June 30, 2023; median follow-up of 52·9 months [IQR 33·9-79·0]). Predictors in the quantitative PPP nomogram were locoregional lymph node metastases (molecular imaging N2), distant metastases (extrapelvic nodal metastases, bone metastases [disseminated or diffuse marrow involvement], and organ metastases), tumour volume (in L), and tumour mean standardised uptake value. Predictors in the visual PPP nomogram were distant metastases (extrapelvic nodal metastases, bone metastases [disseminated or diffuse marrow involvement], and organ metastases) and total tumour lesion count. In the internal and external validation cohorts, C-indices were 0·80 (95% CI 0·77-0·84) and 0·77 (0·75-0·78) for the quantitative nomogram, respectively, and 0·78 (0·75-0·82) and 0·77 (0·75-0·78) for the visual nomogram, respectively. In the combined development and internal validation cohort, the quantitative PPP nomogram was superior to STARCAP risk score for patients at initial staging (n=139 with available staging data; AUC 0·73 vs 0·54; p=0·018), EAU risk score at biochemical recurrence (n=412; 0·69 vs 0·52; p<0·0001), and NCCN pan-stage risk score (n=1534; 0·81 vs 0·74; p<0·0001) for the prediction of overall survival, but was similar to GAFITA nomogram for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC; n=122; 0·76 vs 0·72; p=0·49) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC; n=270; 0·67 vs 0·75; p=0·20). The visual PPP nomogram was superior to EAU at biochemical recurrence (n=414; 0·64 vs 0·52; p=0·0004) and NCCN across all stages (n=1544; 0·79 vs 0·73; p<0·0001), but similar to STARCAP for initial staging (n=140; 0·56 vs 0·53; p=0·74) and GAFITA for mHSPC (n=122; 0·74 vs 0·72; p=0·66) and mCRPC (n=270; 0·71 vs 0·75; p=0·23). INTERPRETATION: Our PPP nomograms accurately stratify high-risk and low-risk groups for overall survival in early and late stages of prostate cancer and yield equal or superior prediction accuracy compared with established clinical risk tools. Validation and improvement of the nomograms with long-term follow-up is ongoing (NCT06320223). FUNDING: Cancer Registry North-Rhine Westphalia.

Health-Related Complications during Follow-Up and Their Impact on Blood Cancer Survivors: Results from the "Aftercare in Blood Cancer Survivors" (ABC) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Blood cancer survivors are at increased risk for medical complications. METHODS: Our questionnaire-based study involved 1,551 blood cancer survivors with a ≥3-year interval since the last intense treatment. Its goal was to quantify health-related complications during follow-up and assess their impact on the patients' lives. RESULTS: A total of 20.4% of the responding survivors reported a disease relapse, most often in indolent lymphomas. Second primary malignancies occurred in 14.1%, primarily in lymphoma and allogeneic transplantation survivors. The most frequent malignancy was basal cell carcinoma of the skin, but myeloid malignancies, melanoma, bladder, head-and-neck, and thyroid cancer also appeared disproportionately frequent. An increased infection rate was reported by 43.7%, most often after allogeneic transplantation. New cardiovascular diseases were reported by 30.2%, with a high rate of thromboembolic events in multiple myeloma (MM) and myeloproliferative diseases. Polyneuropathies were reported by 39.1%, most often by survivors with a history of MM or aggressive lymphoma. Disease relapse was perceived as the highest burden, followed by second primary malignancy, increased infection frequency, and polyneuropathy. In each area investigated, the range of perceived severities was wide. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related complications are frequent during blood cancer follow-up, with significant repercussions on the patients' lives.

Patterns of follow-up care in adult blood cancer survivors-Prospective evaluation of health-related outcomes, resource use, and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Information about follow-up care in blood cancer survivors is limited. The questionnaire-based "Aftercare in Blood Cancer Survivors" (ABC) study aimed to identify patterns of follow-up care in Germany and compare different types of follow-up institutions. METHODS: The study's 18-month prospective part compared the follow-up institutions identified in the preceding retrospective part (academic oncologists, community oncologists, primary care physicians). The questionnaires were completed by the follow-up physicians. RESULTS: Of 1070 physicians named by 1479 blood-cancer survivors, 478 (44.7%) consented to participate. For provision of care, most oncologists relied on published guidelines, while most primary care physicians depended on information from other physicians. Survivors with a history of allogeneic transplantation or indolent lymphoma were mainly seen by academic oncologists, whereas survivors with monoclonal gammopathy, multiple myeloma, or myeloproliferative disorders were often seen by community oncologists, and survivors with a history of aggressive lymphoma or acute leukemia by primary care physicians. Detection of relapse and secondary diseases was consistently viewed as the most important follow-up goal. Follow-up visits were most extensively documented by academic oncologists (574 of 1045 survivors cared for, 54.9%), followed by community oncologists (90/231, 39.0%) and primary care physicians (51/203, 25.1%). Relapse and secondary disease detection rates and the patients' quality of life were similar at the three institutions. Laboratory tests were most often ordered by academic oncologists, and imaging by primary care physicians. Psychosocial issues and preventive care were more often addressed by primary care physicians than by oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk of relapse or late complications were preferentially treated by academic oncologists, while patients in stable condition requiring continuous monitoring were also seen by community oncologists, and patients with curable diseases in long-term remission by primary care physicians. For the latter, transfer of follow-up care from oncologists to well-informed primary care providers appears feasible.

Preventive health care in blood cancer survivors: results from the ABC study.

BACKGROUND: Blood cancer survivors are at increased risk for second primary malignancies, cardiovascular diseases, and infections. Little is known about preventive care in blood cancer survivors. METHODS: Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer patients diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval from the last intense treatment. One section of the retrospective study covered preventive care (cancer screening, cardiovascular screening, vaccination). RESULTS: Preventive care was delivered by a general practitioner for 1100 of 1504 responding survivors (73.1%), by an oncologist for 125 (8.3%), by a general practitioner together with an oncologist for 156 (10.4%), and by other disciplines for 123 (8.2%). Cancer screening was more consistently performed by general practitioners than by oncologists. The converse was true for vaccination, with particularly high vaccination rates in allogeneic transplant recipients. Cardiovascular screening did not differ between care providers. Cancer and cardiovascular screening rates in survivors eligible for statutory prevention programs were higher than in the general population (skin cancer screening 71.1%; fecal occult blood testing 70.4%; colonoscopy 64.6%; clinical breast examination 92.1%; mammography 86.8%; cervical smear 86.0%; digital rectal examination 61.9%; blood pressure test 69.4%; urine glucose test 54.4%; blood lipid test 76.7%; information about overweight 71.0%). The Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination rate was higher (37.0%) and the influenza vaccination rate was lower (57.0%) than in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of preventive care is high among German blood cancer survivors. To ensure widespread delivery and avoid redundancy, communication between oncologists and preventive care providers is essential.

Patient-reported patterns of follow-up care in the 'Aftercare in Blood Cancer Survivors' (ABC) study.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care provides long-term support for cancer survivors. Little is known about follow-up care in hematologic malignancies. METHODS: Our questionnaire-based study included blood cancer survivors diagnosed at the University Hospital of Essen before 2010, with a ≥ 3-year interval since the last intense treatment. The primary goal of the retrospective study was the identification and characterization of follow-up institutions. RESULTS: Of 2386 survivors meeting the inclusion criteria, 1551 (65.0%) consented to participate, with a follow-up duration > 10 years in 731. The university hospital provided care for 1045 participants (67.4%), non-university oncologists for 231 (14.9%), and non-oncological internists or general practitioners for 203 (13.1%). Seventy-two participants (4.6%) abstained from follow-up care. The disease spectrum differed among follow-up institutions (p < 0.0001). While allogeneic transplant recipients clustered at the university hospital, survivors with monoclonal gammopathy, multiple myeloma, myeloproliferative disorders, or indolent lymphomas were often seen by non-university oncologists, and survivors with a history of aggressive lymphoma or acute leukemia by non-oncological internists or general practitioners. Follow-up intervals mirrored published recommendations. Follow-up visits were dominated by conversations, physical examination, and blood tests. Imaging was more often performed outside than inside the university hospital. Satisfaction with follow-up care was high, and quality of life was similar in all follow-up institutions. A need for improvement was reported in psychosocial support and information about late effects. CONCLUSIONS: The naturally evolved patterns identified in the study resemble published care models: Follow-up clinics for complex needs, specialist-led care for unstable disease states, and general practitioner-led care for stable conditions.

Impairment of vocational activities and financial problems are frequent among German blood cancer survivors.

Little is known about changes in the personal living conditions of long-term blood cancer survivors in Germany. To gather information about social relationships, work life, overall well-being, and religion, we performed a questionnaire-based retrospective study on 1551 survivors who had been on follow-up for ≥ 3 years (median, 9 years). Most survivors reported that marital status and relationships with relatives and friends remained constant before and after blood cancer. Vocational activities were temporarily impaired for 47.5%, with a median time of 11 months to return to work. More than a third of the patients (35.6%) discontinued work permanently, with disability and retirement pension rates of 7.9% and 38.1%, respectively, at the time of the survey. Financial problems due to reduced income were reported by 26.2%, in particular after relapse or allogeneic transplantation. Patient reports addressing their quality of life showed large variations. It was best in acute leukemia survivors without a history of allogeneic transplantation and worst in patients with myeloproliferative disorders. Religion tended to become more important after blood cancer. In conclusion, vocational impairment and financial problems are frequent among German blood cancer survivors. Efforts should be made at an early stage to reestablish the patients' ability to work.