Genetic testing in prostate cancer management: Considerations informing primary care.

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care.

Can MRI Help Inform Which Men With a History of Multifocal High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation Remain at an Elevated Risk for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of MRI findings in men with a previous diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) or multifocal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) with pathologic findings on repeat biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with ASAP/multifocal HGPIN undergoing a repeat biopsy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. We included men with and without an MRI after the index biopsy demonstrating ASAP/multifocal HGPIN but before the repeat biopsy. Men with an MRI prior to the index biopsy were excluded. We compared the proportion of men with ≥ GG2 CaP (Grade Group 2 prostate cancer) on repeat biopsy among the following groups with the χ2 test: no MRI, PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) ≥ 4, and PIRADS ≤ 3. Multivariable models were used to estimate the adjusted association between MRI findings and ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. RESULTS: Among the 207 men with a previous diagnosis of ASAP/multifocal HGPIN that underwent a repeat biopsy, men with a PIRADS ≥ 4 lesion had a higher proportion of ≥ GG2 CaP (56%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P < .001). A lower proportion of men with PIRADS ≤ 3 lesions had ≥ GG2 CaP (3.0%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P = .13). In the adjusted model, men with a PIRADS 4 to 5 lesion had higher odds (OR: 11.4, P < .001) of ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a valuable diagnostic tool to triage which men with a history of ASAP or multifocal HGPIN on initial biopsy should undergo or avoid repeat biopsy without missing clinically significant CaP.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

Single-cell analyses of renal cell cancers reveal insights into tumor microenvironment, cell of origin, and therapy response.

Diverse subtypes of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) display a wide spectrum of histomorphologies, proteogenomic alterations, immune cell infiltration patterns, and clinical behavior. Delineating the cells of origin for different RCC subtypes will provide mechanistic insights into their diverse pathobiology. Here, we employed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to develop benign and malignant renal cell atlases. Using a random forest model trained on this cell atlas, we predicted the putative cell of origin for more than 10 RCC subtypes. scRNA-seq also revealed several attributes of the tumor microenvironment in the most common subtype of kidney cancer, clear cell RCC (ccRCC). We elucidated an active role for tumor epithelia in promoting immune cell infiltration, potentially explaining why ccRCC responds to immune checkpoint inhibitors, despite having a low neoantigen burden. In addition, we characterized an association between high endothelial cell types and lack of response to immunotherapy in ccRCC. Taken together, these single-cell analyses of benign kidney and RCC provide insight into the putative cell of origin for RCC subtypes and highlight the important role of the tumor microenvironment in influencing ccRCC biology and response to therapy.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Using Protocol-Directed Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Outcomes from protocol-directed active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancers are needed to support decision-making. Objective: To characterize the long-term oncological outcomes of patients receiving active surveillance in a multicenter, protocol-directed cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) is a prospective cohort study initiated in 2008. A cohort of 2155 men with favorable-risk prostate cancer and no prior treatment were enrolled at 10 North American centers through August 2022. Exposure: Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative incidence of biopsy grade reclassification, treatment, metastasis, prostate cancer mortality, overall mortality, and recurrence after treatment in patients treated after the first or subsequent surveillance biopsies. Results: Among 2155 patients with localized prostate cancer, the median follow-up was 7.2 years, median age was 63 years, 83% were White, 7% were Black, 90% were diagnosed with grade group 1 cancer, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 5.2 ng/mL. Ten years after diagnosis, the incidence of biopsy grade reclassification and treatment were 43% (95% CI, 40%-45%) and 49% (95% CI, 47%-52%), respectively. There were 425 and 396 patients treated after confirmatory or subsequent surveillance biopsies (median of 1.5 and 4.6 years after diagnosis, respectively) and the 5-year rates of recurrence were 11% (95% CI, 7%-15%) and 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%), respectively. Progression to metastatic cancer occurred in 21 participants and there were 3 prostate cancer-related deaths. The estimated rates of metastasis or prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years after diagnosis were 1.4% (95% CI, 0.7%-2%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.4%), respectively; overall mortality in the same time period was 5.1% (95% CI, 3.8%-6.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 10 years after diagnosis, 49% of men remained free of progression or treatment, less than 2% developed metastatic disease, and less than 1% died of their disease. Later progression and treatment during surveillance were not associated with worse outcomes. These results demonstrate active surveillance as an effective management strategy for patients diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Impact of Maximal Transurethral Resection on Pathological Outcomes at Cystectomy in a Large, Multi-institutional Cohort.

PURPOSE: While the presence of residual disease at the time of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer is an established prognostic indicator, controversy remains regarding the importance of maximal transurethral resection prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We characterized the influence of maximal transurethral resection on pathological and survival outcomes using a large, multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 785 patients from a multi-institutional cohort undergoing radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We employed bivariate comparisons and stratified multivariable models to quantify the effect of maximal transurethral resection on pathological findings at cystectomy and survival. RESULTS: Of 785 patients, 579 (74%) underwent maximal transurethral resection. Incomplete transurethral resection was more frequent in patients with more advanced clinical tumor (cT) and nodal (cN) stage (P < .001 and P < .01, respectively), with more advanced ypT stage at cystectomy and higher rates of positive surgical margins (P < .01 and P < .05, respectively). In multivariable models, maximal transurethral resection was associated with downstaging at cystectomy (adjusted odds ratio 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.5). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, maximal transurethral resection was not associated with overall survival (adjusted HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing transurethral resection for muscle-invasive bladder cancer prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, maximal resection may improve pathological response at cystectomy. However, the ultimate effects on long-term survival and oncologic outcomes warrant further investigation.

Dietary Patterns and Risk of Gleason Grade Progression among Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study.

Modifiable lifestyle factors, such as following a healthy dietary pattern may delay or prevent prostate cancer (PCa) progression. However, few studies have evaluated whether following specific dietary patterns after PCa diagnosis impacts risk of disease progression among men with localized PCa managed by active surveillance (AS). 564 men enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study, a protocol-driven AS study utilizing a pre-specified prostate-specific antigen monitoring and surveillance biopsy regimen, completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at enrollment and had ≥ 1 surveillance biopsy during follow-up. FFQs were used to evaluate adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Healthy Eating index (HEI))-2015, alternative Mediterranean Diet (aMED), and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary patterns. Multivariable-adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 237 men experienced an increase in Gleason score on subsequent biopsy (grade reclassification). Higher HEI-2015, aMED or DASH diet scores after diagnosis were not associated with significant reductions in the risk of grade reclassification during AS. However, these dietary patterns have well-established protective effects on chronic diseases and mortality and remain a prudent choice for men with prostate cancer managed by AS.

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort. METHODS: This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions. LAY SUMMARY: This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.

Evaluating the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer: Prospective Results from the Canary PASS Cohort.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) for grade group (GG) 2 patients is not yet well defined. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of men with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer undergoing AS in a large prospective North American cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were prospectively enrolled in an AS study with protocol-directed followup at 10 centers in the U.S. and Canada. We evaluated time from diagnosis to biopsy grade reclassification and time to treatment. In men treated after initial surveillance, adverse pathology and recurrence were also analyzed. RESULTS: At diagnosis, 154 (9%) had GG2 and 1,574 (91%) had GG1. Five-year reclassification rates were similar between GG2 and GG1 (30% vs 37%, p=0.11). However, more patients with GG2 were treated at 5 years (58% vs 34%, p <0.001) and GG at diagnosis was associated with time to treatment (HR=1.41; p=0.01). Treatment rates were similar in patients who reclassified during AS, but in patients who did not reclassify, those diagnosed with GG2 underwent definitive treatment more often than GG1 (5-year treatment rates 52% and 12%, p <0.0001). In participants who underwent radical prostatectomy after initial surveillance, the adjusted risk of adverse pathology was similar (HR=1.26; p=0.4). Biochemical recurrence within 3 years of treatment for GG2 and GG1 patients was 6% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on AS, the rate of definitive treatment is higher after an initial diagnosis of GG2 than GG1. Adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy and short-term biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment were similar between GG2 and GG1.

Satisfaction With Clinician-Led Germline Genetic Counseling in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Indications for germline testing in prostate cancer patients have expanded substantially over the past decade. With a near-universal shortage of genetic counselors and increasing demand, increased access to genetic counseling is crucial. We sought to prospectively implement and assess a clinician-led approach to genetic counseling and testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or localized prostate cancer meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network® criteria for consideration of genetic testing were offered pre-test genetic counseling by their urologist or medical oncologist as part of their routine clinical care and concurrently approached for enrollment in the Germline Genetics in Prostate Cancer Study. Consented patients filled out a post-counseling survey using validated instruments to assess the quality of counseling. For patients who elected to undergo genetic testing, an additional validated questionnaire was completed following disclosure of results. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing testing, with a target >60% of patients. The secondary outcome was overall satisfaction with counseling, with a target >85% of patients. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients enrolled, and 203 patients elected to undergo genetic testing. Post-counseling surveys were obtained from 265 patients, and post-genetic testing surveys were obtained from 132 patients. Patient satisfaction was high, with 98% of patients reporting being satisfied with the overall quality of pre-test counseling, and 74% of patients elected to undergo genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the effectiveness of clinician-led genetic counseling in prostate cancer. With clinician training, this approach can be utilized to expand access to appropriate germline genetic testing.

Impact of Prostate Health Index Results for Prediction of Biopsy Grade Reclassification During Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: We assessed whether Prostate Health Index results improve prediction of grade reclassification for men on active surveillance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified men in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Grade Group 1 cancer. Outcome was grade reclassification to Grade Group 2+ cancer. We considered decision rules to maximize specificity with sensitivity set at 95%. We derived rules based on clinical data (R1) vs clinical data+Prostate Health Index (R3). We considered an "or"-logic rule combining clinical score and Prostate Health Index (R4), and a "2-step" rule using clinical data followed by risk stratification based on Prostate Health Index (R2). Rules were applied to a validation set, where values of R2-R4 vs R1 for specificity and sensitivity were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 1,532 biopsies (n = 610 discovery; n = 922 validation) among 1,142 men. Grade reclassification was seen in 27% of biopsies (23% discovery, 29% validation). Among the discovery set, at 95% sensitivity, R2 yielded highest specificity at 27% vs 17% for R1. In the validation set, R3 had best performance vs R1 with Δsensitivity = -4% and Δspecificity = +6%. There was slight improvement for R3 vs R1 for confirmatory biopsy (AUC 0.745 vs R1 0.724, ΔAUC 0.021, 95% CI 0.002-0.041) but not for subsequent biopsies (ΔAUC -0.012, 95% CI -0.031-0.006). R3 did not have better discrimination vs R1 among the biopsy cohort overall (ΔAUC 0.007, 95% CI -0.007-0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Among active surveillance patients, using Prostate Health Index with clinical data modestly improved prediction of grade reclassification on confirmatory biopsy and did not improve prediction on subsequent biopsies.

Leveraging artificial intelligence to predict ERG gene fusion status in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: TMPRSS2-ERG gene rearrangement, the most common E26 transformation specific (ETS) gene fusion within prostate cancer, is known to contribute to the pathogenesis of this disease and carries diagnostic annotations for prostate cancer patients clinically. The ERG rearrangement status in prostatic adenocarcinoma currently cannot be reliably identified from histologic features on H&E-stained slides alone and hence requires ancillary studies such as immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) or next generation sequencing (NGS) for identification. METHODS: OBJECTIVE: We accordingly sought to develop a deep learning-based algorithm to identify ERG rearrangement status in prostatic adenocarcinoma based on digitized slides of H&E morphology alone. DESIGN: Setting, and Participants: Whole slide images from 392 in-house and TCGA cases were employed and annotated using QuPath. Image patches of 224 × 224 pixel were exported at 10 ×, 20 ×, and 40 × for input into a deep learning model based on MobileNetV2 convolutional neural network architecture pre-trained on ImageNet. A separate model was trained for each magnification. Training and test datasets consisted of 261 cases and 131 cases, respectively. The output of the model included a prediction of ERG-positive (ERG rearranged) or ERG-negative (ERG not rearranged) status for each input patch. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Various accuracy measurements including area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the deep learning model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All models showed similar ROC curves with AUC results ranging between 0.82 and 0.85. The sensitivity and specificity of these models were 75.0% and 83.1% (20 × model), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning-based model can successfully predict ERG rearrangement status in the majority of prostatic adenocarcinomas utilizing only H&E-stained digital slides. Such an artificial intelligence-based model can eliminate the need for using extra tumor tissue to perform ancillary studies in order to assess for ERG gene rearrangement in prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance (AS) has been widely adopted for the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding the optimal approach for monitoring men in AS protocols. While conservative management aims to reduce the burden of invasive testing without compromising oncological safety, inadequate assessment can result in misclassification and unintended over- or undertreatment, leading to increased patient morbidity, cost, and undue risk. No universally accepted AS protocol exists, although numerous strategies have been developed in an attempt to optimize the management of clinically localized disease. Variability in selection criteria, reclassification, triggers for definitive treatment, and follow-up exists between guidelines and institutions for AS. In this review, we summarize the landscape of AS by providing an overview of the existing AS protocols, guidelines, and their published outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify representative studies and guidelines pertaining to AS selection criteria and outcomes. CONCLUSION: While AS is a safe and increasingly utilized treatment modality for lower-risk forms of PCa, ongoing research is needed to optimize patient selection as well as surveillance protocols along with improved implementation across practices. Further, assessment of companion risk assessment tools, such as mpMRI and tissue-based biomarkers, is also needed and will require rigorous prospective study.

Multicenter evaluation of neoadjuvant and induction gemcitabine-carboplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin followed by radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is recommended in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, up to 50% of patients are cisplatin ineligible. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes after ≥ 3 cycles of preoperative gemcitabine-carboplatin (gem-carbo) versus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gem-cis). METHODS: We identified 1865 patients treated at 19 centers between 2000 and 2013. Patients were included if they had received ≥ 3 cycles of neoadjuvant (cT2-4aN0M0) or induction (cTanyN + M0) gem-carbo or gem-cis followed by RC. RESULTS: We included 747 patients treated with gem-carbo (n = 147) or gem-cis (n = 600). Patients treated with gem-carbo had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.016) and more clinically node-positive disease (32% versus 20%; p = 0.013). The complete pathological response (pCR; ypT0N0) rate did not significantly differ between gem-carbo and gem-cis (20.7% versus 22.1%; p = 0.73). Chemotherapeutic regimen was not significantly associated with pCR (OR 0.99 [95%CI 0.61-1.59]; p = 0.96), overall survival (OS) (HR 1.20 [95%CI 0.85-1.67]; p = 0.31), or cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 1.35 [95%CI 0.93-1.96]; p = 0.11). Median OS of patients treated with gem-carbo and gem-cis was 28.6 months (95%CI 18.1-39.1) and 45.1 months (95%CI 32.7-57.6) (p = 0.18), respectively. Median CSS of patients treated with gem-carbo and gem-cis was 28.8 months (95%CI 9.8-47.8) and 71.0 months (95%CI median not reached) (p = 0.02), respectively. Subanalyses of the neoadjuvant and induction setting did not show significant survival differences. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a subset of cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC achieve pCR on gem-carbo and that survival outcomes seem comparable to gem-cis provided patients are able to receive ≥ 3 cycles and undergo RC.

Delayed urologic cancer care in the COVID-19 pandemic: Patients' experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To understand experiences of patients with genitourinary cancer who experienced delayed cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design. Qualitative findings are reported here. Patients with muscle invasive bladder, advanced prostate or kidney cancer were eligible. Participants were selected for interviews if they self-reported low (0-3/10) or high (6-10/10) levels of distress on a previous survey. Participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, coded and categorised using thematic data analysis methodology. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed. Seven had prostate cancer, six bladder cancer and five kidney cancer. Six themes were derived from the interviews: (1) arriving at cancer diagnosis was hard enough, (2) response to treatment delay, (3) labelling cancer surgery as elective, (4) fear of COVID-19 infection, (5) quality of patient-provider relationship and communication and (6) what could have been done differently. CONCLUSION: These findings offer insight into the concerns of patients with genitourinary cancers who experienced treatment delays due to COVID-19. This information can be applied to support patients with cancers more broadly, should treatment delays occur in the future.

Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The international Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate working group has established metastasis-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in localised prostate cancer based on the findings of 19 predominantly radiotherapy-based trials. We sought to comprehensively assess aggregate trial-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints across all randomised trials in localised prostate cancer. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed for all trials in localised or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer published between Jan 1, 1970, and Jan 15, 2020. Eligible trials had to be randomised, therapeutic, reporting overall survival and at least one intermediate clinical endpoint, and with a sample size of at least 70 participants. Trials of metastatic disease were excluded. Intermediate clinical endpoints included biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastases, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed using the second condition of the meta-analytical approach (ie, correlation of the treatment effect of the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival), using R2 weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical endpoint hazard ratio. The intermediate clinical endpoint was deemed to be a surrogate for overall survival if R2 was 0·7 or greater. FINDINGS: 75 trials (53 631 patients) were included in our analysis. Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·7-10·6). Biochemical failure (R2 0·38 [95% CI 0·11-0·64]), biochemical failure-free survival (R2 0·12 [0·0030-0·33]), biochemical failure and clinical failure (R2 0·28 [0·0045-0·65]), and local failure (R2 0·085 [0·00-0·37]) correlated poorly with overall survival. Progression-free survival (R2 0·46 [95% CI 0·22-0·67]) showed moderate correlation with overall survival, and metastasis-free survival (R2 0·78 [0·59-0·89]) correlated strongly. INTERPRETATION: Intermediate clinical endpoints based on biochemical and local failure did not meet the second condition of the meta-analytical approach and are not surrogate endpoints for overall survival in localised prostate cancer. Our findings validate metastasis-free survival as the only identified surrogate endpoint for overall survival to date. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation and National Institutes of Health.