Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021. Intervention: Men received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis. Results: Of 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Radical cystectomy versus trimodality therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a multi-institutional propensity score matched and weighted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomised controlled trials comparing bladder preservation with radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer closed due to insufficient accrual. Given that no further trials are foreseen, we aimed to use propensity scores to compare trimodality therapy (maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumour followed by concurrent chemoradiation) with radical cystectomy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 722 patients with clinical stage T2-T4N0M0 muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (440 underwent radical cystectomy, 282 received trimodality therapy) who would have been eligible for both approaches, treated at three university centres in the USA and Canada between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2017. All patients had solitary tumours less than 7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, and no extensive or multifocal carcinoma in situ. The 440 cases of radical cystectomy represent 29% of all radical cystectomies performed during the study period at the contributing institutions. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Differences in survival outcomes by treatment were analysed using propensity scores incorporated in propensity score matching (PSM) using logistic regression and 3:1 matching with replacement and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). FINDINGS: In the PSM analysis, the 3:1 matched cohort comprised 1119 patients (837 radical cystectomy, 282 trimodality therapy). After matching, age (71·4 years [IQR 66·0-77·1] for radical cystectomy vs 71·6 years [64·0-78·9] for trimodality therapy), sex (213 [25%] vs 68 [24%] female; 624 [75%] vs 214 [76%] male), cT2 stage (755 [90%] vs 255 [90%]), presence of hydronephrosis (97 [12%] vs 27 [10%]), and receipt of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (492 [59%] vs 159 [56%]) were similar between groups. Median follow-up was 4·38 years (IQR 1·6-6·7) versus 4·88 years (2·8-7·7), respectively. 5-year metastasis-free survival was 74% (95% CI 70-78) for radical cystectomy and 75% (70-80) for trimodality therapy with IPTW and 74% (70-77) and 74% (68-79) with PSM. There was no difference in metastasis-free survival either with IPTW (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·67-1·20]; p=0·40) or PSM (SHR 0·93 [0·71-1·24]; p=0·64). 5-year cancer-specific survival for radical cystectomy versus trimodality therapy was 81% (95% CI 77-85) versus 84% (79-89) with IPTW and 83% (80-86) versus 85% (80-89) with PSM. 5-year disease-free survival was 73% (95% CI 69-77) versus 74% (69-79) with IPTW and 76% (72-80) versus 76% (71-81) with PSM. There were no differences in cancer-specific survival (IPTW: SHR 0·72 [95% CI 0·50-1·04]; p=0·071; PSM: SHR 0·73 [0·52-1·02]; p=0·057) and disease-free survival (IPTW: SHR 0·87 [0·65-1·16]; p=0·35; PSM: SHR 0·88 [0·67-1·16]; p=0·37) between radical cystectomy and trimodality therapy. Overall survival favoured trimodality therapy (IPTW: 66% [95% CI 61-71] vs 73% [68-78]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92]; p=0·010; PSM: 72% [69-75] vs 77% [72-81]; HR 0·75 [0·58-0·97]; p=0·0078). Outcomes for radical cystectomy and trimodality therapy were not statistically different among centres for cancer-specific survival and metastasis-free survival (p=0·22-0·90). Salvage cystectomy was done in 38 (13%) trimodality therapy patients. Pathological stage in the 440 radical cystectomy patients was pT2 in 124 (28%), pT3-4 in 194 (44%), and 114 (26%) node positive. The median number of nodes removed was 39, the soft tissue positive margin rate was 1% (n=5), and the perioperative mortality rate was 2·5% (n=11). INTERPRETATION: This multi-institutional study provides the best evidence to date showing similar oncological outcomes between radical cystectomy and trimodality therapy for select patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. These results support that trimodality therapy, in the setting of multidisciplinary shared decision making, should be offered to all suitable candidates with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and not only to patients with significant comorbidities for whom surgery is not an option. FUNDING: Sinai Health Foundation, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Impact of an Expanded Definition of Family History on Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite family history being an established risk factor for prostate cancer, the role of a broader definition of family history inclusive of not just prostate cancer but other genetically related malignancies has not been investigated in the active surveillance population. Here, we evaluate the impact of an expanded definition of family history on active surveillance outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1997-2019 with detailed data available on family cancer history were identified. Primary outcome was biopsy progression-free survival, and secondary outcomes were treatment-free survival, adverse pathological features at prostatectomy, and biochemical recurrence after treatment. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 855 evaluable patients, 300 (35.1%) patients had any family history of prostate cancer, and 95 (11.1%) had a family history of related malignancies suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Family history of prostate cancer alone was not associated with biopsy progression, whereas family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome was associated with a significantly increased risk of biopsy progression (HR 1.43, 95%CI 1.01-2.02), independent of other known clinicopathological risk factors in multivariable analysis. Similarly, family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome was associated with significantly lower treatment-free survival (HR 1.58, 95%CI 1.14-2.18) in multivariable analysis. No significant association was found between family history and adverse features on surgical pathology or biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: An expanded family history suggestive of a hereditary cancer syndrome is an independent predictor of biopsy progression during active surveillance. Men with such a family history may still be offered active surveillance but should be counseled regarding the higher risk of disease progression.

Public reporting of outcomes in radiation oncology: the National Prostate Cancer Audit.

The public reporting of patient outcomes is crucial for quality improvement and informing patient choice. However, outcome reporting in radiotherapy, despite being a major component of cancer control, is extremely sparse globally. Public reporting has many challenges, including difficulties in defining meaningful measures of treatment quality, limitations in data infrastructure, and fragmented health insurance schemes. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA), done in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), shows that it is feasible to develop outcome indicators for radiotherapy treatment, including patient-reported outcomes. The NPCA provides a transparent mechanism for comparing the performance of all NHS providers, with results accessible to patients, providers, and policy makers. Using the NPCA as a case study, we discuss the development of a radiotherapy-outcomes reporting programme, its impact and future potential, and the challenges and opportunities to develop this approach across other tumour types and in different health systems.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with castration-resistant disease. Please refer to Part I for discussion of the management of patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline discussing prognostic and treatment recommendations for patients with biochemical recurrence without metastatic disease after exhaustion of local treatment options as well as those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Please refer to Part II for discussion of the management of castration-resistant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1998 to January Week 5 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through December 2018), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 through February 6, 2019). An updated search was conducted prior to publication through January 20, 2020. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Such statements are summarized in figure 1[Figure: see text] and detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to treat patients diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to improve the level of care for these patients.

Radiation treatment in prostate cancer: covering the waterfront.

OBJECTIVES: To present an overview of radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer over the past decade. METHODS: The literature on prostate cancer radiation therapy was reviewed and summarised. Radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has dramatically evolved in the past decade, with superior techniques and exciting advances, pushing the role of the radiation oncologist to new frontiers. RESULTS: Innovations in imaging, treatment delivery, and a deeper understanding of biology has resulted in more tailored RT for individuals. In the present review, we summarise the changing landscape and broadly discuss new developments in prostate RT. CONCLUSIONS: Questions and challenges remain in the field, however there are multiple opportunities to further improve upon RT for our patients with prostate cancer.

Radiation with or without Antiandrogen Therapy in Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radiation therapy is often necessary in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy and have evidence of prostate-cancer recurrence signaled by a persistently or recurrently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Whether antiandrogen therapy with radiation therapy will further improve cancer control and prolong overall survival is unknown. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 1998 through 2003, we assigned 760 eligible patients who had undergone prostatectomy with a lymphadenectomy and had disease, as assessed on pathological testing, with a tumor stage of T2 (confined to the prostate but with a positive surgical margin) or T3 (with histologic extension beyond the prostatic capsule), no nodal involvement, and a detectable PSA level of 0.2 to 4.0 ng per milliliter to undergo radiation therapy and receive either antiandrogen therapy (24 months of bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily) or daily placebo tablets during and after radiation therapy. The primary end point was the rate of overall survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up among the surviving patients was 13 years. The actuarial rate of overall survival at 12 years was 76.3% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 71.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.99; P=0.04). The 12-year incidence of death from prostate cancer, as assessed by means of central review, was 5.8% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 13.4% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at 12 years was 14.5% in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 23.0% in the placebo group (P=0.005). The incidence of late adverse events associated with radiation therapy was similar in the two groups. Gynecomastia was recorded in 69.7% of the patients in the bicalutamide group, as compared with 10.9% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 24 months of antiandrogen therapy with daily bicalutamide to salvage radiation therapy resulted in significantly higher rates of long-term overall survival and lower incidences of metastatic prostate cancer and death from prostate cancer than radiation therapy plus placebo. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; RTOG 9601 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002874 .).

Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer is a Viable Option for Men Younger than 60 Years.

PURPOSE: At most centers strict age criteria are lacking for eligibility for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Younger men are often counseled to undergo definitive treatment despite limited data on the outcomes of active surveillance in younger men. We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes in men who enrolled in active surveillance at age less than 60 vs 60 years old or older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 2 institutional cohorts of a total of 2,084 men in whom prostate cancer was managed by active surveillance between 1995 and 2016. We compared outcomes in men who began active surveillance at age 60 vs 60 years or older using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: We identified 417 and 1,667 men who began active surveillance at younger than 60 and 60 years old or older, respectively, who met study inclusion criteria. At a median followup of 6.2 years we found no significant difference between men younger than 60 and 60 years old or older in the 5-year rates of biopsy progression-free survival (83% vs 83%), treatment-free survival (74% vs 71%), metastasis-free survival (99.7% vs 99.0%) or prostate cancer specific survival (100% vs 99.7%). Of the younger men 131 (31%) ultimately underwent treatment, including for pathological progression in 67% and prostate specific antigen progression in 18%. On multivariate analysis significant predictors of biopsy progression and progression to treatment among younger men were 20% or greater involvement of any core on diagnostic biopsy (HR 2.21, p = 0.003) and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater (HR 1.93, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is a viable option in select men younger than 60 years with low volume, low risk prostate cancer. However, patients must be surveyed closely and understand the significant likelihood of ultimately requiring treatment.

Incidence, Clinicopathological Risk Factors, Management and Outcomes of Nonmuscle Invasive Recurrence after Complete Response to Trimodality Therapy for Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: We describe the incidence, clinicopathological risk factors, management and outcomes of recurrent nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer after a complete response to trimodality therapy of muscle invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 342 patients with cT2-4aN0M0 muscle invasive bladder cancer and a complete response after trimodality therapy from 1986 to 2013. Using competing risks analyses we examined the association between baseline clinicopathological variables and nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer outcomes. Kaplan-Meier and the generalized Fleming-Harrington test were used to compare disease specific and overall survival. RESULTS: At a median followup of 9 years nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer recurred in 85 patients (25%) who had had a complete response. On Kaplan-Meier analysis baseline carcinoma in situ was associated with recurrent nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (p = 0.02). However, on multivariate analysis carcinoma in situ and other baseline clinicopathological characteristics did not predict such recurrence. Patients with recurrent nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer had worse 10-year disease specific survival than those without recurrence (72.1% vs 78.4%, p = 0.002), although overall survival was similar (p = 0.66). Of the 39 patients (46%) who received adjuvant intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin 29 (74%) completed induction therapy and 19 (49%) reported bacillus Calmette-Guérin toxicity. Three-year recurrence-free and progression-free survival after induction bacillus Calmette-Guérin was 59% and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After a complete response to trimodality therapy nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer recurred in 25% of patients, developing in some of them more than a decade after trimodality therapy. No baseline clinicopathological characteristics were associated with such recurrence after a complete response. Patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer recurrence had worse disease specific survival than those without such recurrence but similar overall survival. Adjuvant intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin had a reasonable toxicity profile and efficacy in this population. Properly selected patients with recurrent nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer after a complete response may avoid immediate salvage cystectomy.

Treatment of Non-Metastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO Guideline.

PURPOSE: This multidisciplinary, evidence-based guideline for clinically non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer focuses on the evaluation, treatment and surveillance of muscle-invasive bladder cancer guided toward curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review utilizing research from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as well as additional supplementation by the authors and consultant methodologists was used to develop the guideline. Evidence-based statements were based on body of evidence strengths Grade A, B or C and were designated as Strong, Moderate and Conditional Recommendations with additional statements presented in the form of Clinical Principles or Expert Opinions. RESULTS: For the first time for any type of malignancy, the American Urological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology and Society of Urologic Oncology have formulated an evidence-based guideline based on a risk-stratified clinical framework for the management of muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer. This document is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity and scope of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer should focus on the patient, disease and treatment response characteristics. This guideline attempts to improve a clinician's ability to evaluate and treat each patient, but higher quality evidence in future trials will be essential to improve level of care for these patients.

Hydrogel rectum-prostate spacers mitigate the uncertainties in proton relative biological effectiveness associated with anterior-oblique beams.

AIM: Anterior-oblique (AO) proton beams can form an attractive option for prostate patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as they avoid the femoral heads. For a cohort with hydrogel prostate-rectum spacers, we asked whether it was possible to generate AO proton plans robust to end-of-range elevations in linear energy transfer (LET) and modeled relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Additionally we considered how rectal spacers influenced planned dose distributions for AO and standard bilateral (SB) proton beams versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied three treatment strategies for 10 patients with rectal spacers: (A) AO proton beams, (B) SB proton beams and (C) IMRT. For strategy (A) dose and LET distributions were simulated (using the TOPAS Monte Carlo platform) and the McNamara model was used to calculate proton RBE as a function of LET, dose per fraction, and photon α/ß. All calculations were performed on pretreatment scans: inter- and intra-fractional changes in anatomy/set-up were not considered. RESULTS: For 9/10 patients, rectal spacers enabled generation of AO proton plans robust to modeled RBE elevations: rectal dose constraints were fulfilled even when the variable RBE model was applied with a conservative α/ß = 2 Gy. Amongst a subset of patients the proton rectal doses for the planning target volume plans were remarkably low: for 2/10 SB plans and 4/10 AO plans, ≤10% of the rectum received ≥20 Gy. AO proton plans delivered integral doses a factor of approximately three lower than IMRT and spared the femoral heads almost entirely. CONCLUSION: Typically, rectal spacers enabled the generation of anterior beam proton plans that appeared robust to modeled variation in RBE. However, further analysis of day-to-day robustness would be required prior to a clinical implementation of AO proton beams. Such beams offer almost complete femoral head sparing, but their broader value relative to IMRT and SB protons remains unclear.

Dosimetric impacts of endorectal balloon in CyberKnife stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: In SBRT for prostate cancer, higher fractional dose to the rectum is a major toxicity concern due to using smaller PTV margin and hypofractionation. We investigate the dosimetric impact on rectum using endorectal balloon (ERB) in prostate SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer patients were included in a retrospective study, ten with ERB and 10 without ERB. Optimized SBRT plans were generated on CyberKnife MultiPlan for 5 × 7.25 Gy to PTV under RTOG-0938 protocol for early-stage prostate cancer. For the rectum and the anterior half rectum, mean dose and percentage of volumes receiving 50%, 80%, 90%, and 100% prescription dose were compared. RESULTS: Using ERB, mean dose to the rectum was 62 cGy (P = 0.001) lower per fraction, and 50 cGy (P = 0.024) lower per fraction for the anterior half rectum. The average V50% , V80% , V90% , and V100% were lower by 9.9% (P = 0.001), 5.3% (P = 0.0002), 3.4% (P = 0.0002), and 1.2% (P = 0.005) for the rectum, and lower by 10.4% (P = 0.009), 8.3% (P = 0.0004), 5.4% (P = 0.0003), and 2.1% (P = 0.003) for the anterior half rectum. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions of dose to the rectum using ERB were observed. This may lead to improvement of the rectal toxicity profiles in prostate SBRT.

Contemporary accuracy of death certificates for coding prostate cancer as a cause of death: Is reliance on death certification good enough? A comparison with blinded review by an independent cause of death evaluation committee.

BACKGROUND: Accurate cause of death assignment is crucial for prostate cancer epidemiology and trials reporting prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes. METHODS: We compared death certificate information with independent cause of death evaluation by an expert committee within a prostate cancer trial (2002-2015). RESULTS: Of 1236 deaths assessed, expert committee evaluation attributed 523 (42%) to prostate cancer, agreeing with death certificate cause of death in 1134 cases (92%, 95% CI: 90%, 93%). The sensitivity of death certificates in identifying prostate cancer deaths as classified by the committee was 91% (95% CI: 89%, 94%); specificity was 92% (95% CI: 90%, 94%). Sensitivity and specificity were lower where death occurred within 1 year of diagnosis, and where there was another primary cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: UK death certificates accurately identify cause of death in men with prostate cancer, supporting their use in routine statistics. Possible differential misattribution by trial arm supports independent evaluation in randomised trials.

Using patient-reported outcomes to assess and improve prostate cancer brachytherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a successful quality improvement process that arose from unexpected differences in control groups' short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within a comparative effectiveness study of a prostate brachytherapy technique intended to reduce urinary morbidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients planning prostate brachytherapy at one of three institutions were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Patients were surveyed using a validated instrument to assess treatment-related toxicity before treatment and at pre-specified intervals. Unexpectedly, urinary PROs were worse in one of two standard brachytherapy technique control populations (US-BT1 and US-BT2 ). Therefore, we collaboratively reviewed treatment procedures, identified a discrepancy in technique, made a corrective modification, and evaluated the change. RESULTS: The patient groups were demographically and clinically similar. In the first preliminary analysis, US-BT2 patients reported significantly more short-term post-treatment urinary symptoms than US-BT1 patients. The study's treating physicians reviewed the US-BT1 and US-BT2 treatment protocols and found that they differed in whether they used an indwelling urinary catheter. After adopting the US-BT1 approach, short-term urinary morbidity in US-BT2 patients decreased significantly. Brachytherapy procedures were otherwise unchanged. CONCLUSION: Many procedures in cancer treatments are not evaluated, resulting in practice variation and suboptimal outcomes. Patients, the primary medical consumers, provide little direct input in evaluations of their care. We used PROs, a sensitive and valid measure of treatment-related toxicity, for quality assessment and quality improvement (QA/QI) of prostate brachytherapy. This serendipitous patient-centred QA/QI process may be a useful model for empirically evaluating complex cancer treatment procedures and for screening for substandard care.

Transurethral surgery and twice-daily radiation plus paclitaxel-cisplatin or fluorouracil-cisplatin with selective bladder preservation and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (RTOG 0233): a randomised multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of paclitaxel or fluorouracil when added to radiation plus cisplatin followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in a programme of selected bladder preservation for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: In our randomised phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with T2-4a transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder at 24 medical centres in the USA. We randomly allocated patients to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin (paclitaxel group) or fluorouracil plus cisplatin (fluorouracil group) with twice-daily radiation in random block sizes per site on the basis of clinical T-stage (T2 vs T3-4). Patients and physicians were aware of treatment assignment. All patients had transurethral resection of bladder tumour and twice-daily radiotherapy to 40·3 Gy, along with allocated chemotherapy, followed by cystoscopic and biopsy assessment of response. Patients who had a tumour response with downstaging to T0, Tcis, or Ta received consolidation chemoradiotherapy to 64·3 Gy, with the same chemotherapy regimen as in the induction phase. Patients received adjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel after the end of chemoradiotherapy. If, after induction, persistent disease was graded as T1 or worse, we recommended patients undergo cystectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. We assessed the primary endpoints of rates of treatment completion and toxic effects in all randomly allocated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055601. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2002, and Jan 11, 2008, we enrolled 97 patients, of whom 93 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 5·0 years (IQR 5·0-6·2). Of 46 patients in the paclitaxel group, 45 (98%) completed induction (16 [35%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (85%) completed induction and consolidation (11 [24%] with grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 31 (67%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 34 (85%) of 40 assessable patients in the paclitaxel group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Of 47 patients in the fluorouracil group, 45 (96%) completed induction (nine [19%] with grade 3-4 toxicity), 39 (83%) completed induction and consolidation (12 [26%] had grade 3-4 toxicity due to consolidation), and 25 (53%) completed the entire protocol with adjuvant chemotherapy. 31 (76%) of 41 assessable patients in the fluorouracil group had grade 3-4 toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Five (11%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and three (6%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 radiotherapy toxicities. 11 (24%) patients treated with the paclitaxel regimen and 16 (34%) patients treated with the fluorouracil regimen developed late grade 3-4 toxicities unrelated to radiotherapy. One patient (in the fluorouracil group) died during follow-up. Six (13%) patients in the paclitaxel group and in three (6%) patients in the fluorouracil group discontinued due to treatment-related toxicity. INTERPRETATION: In the absence of phase 3 data, our findings could inform selection of a bladder-sparing trimodality chemotherapy regimen for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Recent Trends in "Manels" and Gender Representation Among Panelists at North American Annual Radiation Oncology Meetings.

PURPOSE: Achieving gender equity in radiation oncology is an important goal, as a smaller proportion of women enter radiation oncology residency compared with those graduating from medical school. As invited speaking opportunities at academic medical conferences are vital for promotion/tenure, we investigated the prevalence of all-men panels ("manels") at American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and Canadian Society of Radiation Oncology (CARO) annual meetings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using ASTRO and CARO online meeting programs, 2018 to 2021 faculty information was obtained, including gender, panel role (chair vs nonchair), type of session, and topic. Primary outcomes included percentage of manels and proportion of female panelists over time. Representation of women among chairs was also evaluated. RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period across both conferences, a total of 765 panel sessions were held with 2973 faculty members, of whom 1287 (43.3%) were women. Of these sessions, 127 of 765 (16.6%) were manels. ASTRO meetings had 1169 of 2742 (42.6%) female faculty members and held 107 of 680 (15.7%) manels, whereas CARO meetings had 118 of 231 (51.1%) female faculty and held 20 of 85 manels (23.5%). From 2018 to 2021, the proportion of manels decreased at ASTRO and CARO meetings from 25.6% to 8.2% (P < .001) and from 29.6% to 15.0% (P = .130), respectively. The role of chair was majority male in every year from 2018 to 2021 at ASTRO meetings (58.6% overall), but more balanced at CARO meetings (48.0% overall). Among session types, the highest proportion of manels was observed for scientific sessions (19.1%, P = .011) at ASTRO meetings and leadership sessions (29.4%, P = .533) at CARO meetings. The lowest proportion of female panelists was on genitourinary cancer topics at ASTRO meetings (31.9%, P = .018) and physics topics at CARO meetings (40.4%, P = .085). CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, the proportion of female panelists increased with a corresponding decrease in manels. ASTRO and CARO should strive for further involvement of women and the elimination of manels whenever possible.