The impact of a delay in initiating radiation therapy on prostate-specific antigen outcome for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma

Analyzing the interaction between time to surgery and tumor burden score in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The effect of "time to surgery (TTS)" on outcomes for curative-intent hepatectomy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains debated. The interaction between tumor burden score (TBS) and TTS remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the effects of TBS and TTS on long-term HCC outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with HCC who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy (2000-2022) were analyzed from a multi-institutional database and categorized by TTS (≤60 or >60 days). Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 910 patients, median TTS estimates were 22 days in the short TTS group (n = 485) and 120 days in the long TTS group (n = 425). Patients with long TTS were older and were more likely to have American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2, diabetes mellitus, and cirrhosis. There was no difference in median TBS among patients who had short versus long TTS (4.61 vs 5.00, respectively). In addition, there was no difference in 5-year OS (70.0% vs 63.1%, respectively; P =.05). On multivariate analysis TBS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11; P <.001), log alpha-fetoprotein (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P =.02), and albumin-bilirubin score (HR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.66-3.82; P <.001) were associated with OS. In contrast, TTS was not associated with OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.78-1.77; P =.43). Interaction analysis demonstrated that TBS was asssociated with OS among patients with short TTS (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.17; P <.001), but not among patients with long TTS (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05; P =.56). Among patients with low TBS (≤5), higher mortality was observed with long TTS versus short TTS (5-year OS: 82.4% vs 63.0%, respectively; P =.001); however, TTS was not associated with OS among patients with high TBS (5-year OS: 57.9% vs 63.3%, respectively; P =.92). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that long TTS was a risk factor for OS among patients with low TBS (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.60-6.01; P <.001), but not among individuals with high TBS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30-1.07; P =.08). Similar trends were observed relative to cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

TTS needs to be considered in light of patient and tumor-specific factors. Expediting TTS may be particularly important among patients with HCC and a low TBS.

The impact of a positive COVID-19 test on timeliness of radiation in patients receiving brachytherapy

BACKGROUND

Delays in initiating and completing brachytherapy may have adverse oncologic outcomes for patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on brachytherapy in the United States has not been well-characterized.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to evaluate how a positive COVID-19 test affected timeliness of treatment for patients undergoing brachytherapy for cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer in 2019 and 2020 who received brachytherapy in their treatment. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between cancer diagnosis and start of radiation were compared to those who did not test positive for COVID-19. Time in days from cancer diagnosis to initiation of radiation was compared using two-sample t-tests with p < 0.05 signifying significant differences.

RESULTS

We identified 38,341 patients with cervical (n = 6,925), uterine (n = 18,587), and prostate cancer (n = 12,829). Rates of COVID-19 positivity were cervical cancer (n = 135; 2%), uterine cancer (n = 236; 1.3%), and prostate cancer (n = 141; 1%). Of those, 35% of cervical, 49% of uterine, and 43% of prostate cancer patients tested positive between their cancer diagnosis and initiation of radiation. Median days to radiation was significantly longer in these patients: 78 versus 51 for cervical cancer (p < 0.01), 150 versus 104 for uterine cancer (p < 0.01), and 154 versus 124 for prostate cancer (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer diagnosed between 2019-2020, testing positive for COVID-19 after their cancer diagnosis was associated with a delay to initiation of radiation by 4-7 weeks.

Redesign of radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a proposal for universal healthcare systems

Aim: This study was designed to recommend strategies to improve prostate patients' access to radiotherapy treatment in the Brazilian Unified Health System, along with a cost-tool to support radiotherapy care pathways' lead times and costs. Methods: Data was collected prospectively from patients with prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy in two Brazilian centers to provide data to apply design thinking and process reengineering techniques. The current status of the radiotherapy pathway was determined and the length of time taken for in-hospital activities was measured using data exported from ARIA®. Interviews with patients were used to estimate their waiting periods. This provided the data used to provide recommended strategies and the cost tool based on time-driven activity-based costing. The strategies were classified according to priority. Results: Data from 47 patients were analyzed. The mean interval from diagnosis to start of radiotherapy was 349 days (SD581), and the mean interval from seeking medical attention to starting treatment was 635 days (SD629). Twelve strategies affecting in-hospital processes and 11 impacting patients' care pathways and experiences are recommended, mostly focused on system improvement opportunities. A time-driven activity-based costing monitoring using data extracted from ARIA was coded and can be used by centers as a cost assessment guide. Conclusion: This study uses reengineering and design techniques to introduce priority strategies to allow more efficient and patient-centered radiotherapy.

Trends in prostate cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 crisis: A report from one high-volume Japanese center

Self-isolation to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 began in April 2020. As a result, the number of prostate needle biopsies taken at our hospital for suspicion of prostate cancer decreased by 30.5%, from 403 in 2019 to 280 in 2020. The number of diagnoses of prostate cancer decreased by 35.4% from 189 to 122. High-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancers were 36.5% and 49.7%, respectively, in 2019. Assuming that this situation in our hospital reflects events nationwide, approximately 32,575 (high-risk; 11,890, intermediate risk; 16,189) patients annually would be suffering delays in diagnosis. Furthermore, > 90% of the decrease are curable cases in their 60s and 70s, with prostate specific antigen levels of 30 ng/mL or less, with stage T2, and N0M0. Widely aware that more than 30,000 prostate cancers might be overlooked nationwide in 2020, we recommend establishing a health checkup system with infection control and undergoing early testing.

Waiting Times for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Nigerian Population

Background

Prostate biopsy remains an important surgical procedure in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer, but access to prostate biopsy service is poorly studied in the Nigerian population. While there has been a well-documented delay in patient presentation with prostate cancer in Nigeria, little is however known about how long patients wait to have a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer and start treatment after presenting at Nigerian hospitals.

Method

This was a descriptive retrospective study to document the specific duration of the various timelines in getting a diagnosis of prostate cancer at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, Nigeria.

Results

There were 270 patients. The mean age was 69.50 ± 8.03 years (range 45-90). The mean PSA at presentation was 563.2 ± 1879.2 ng/ml (range 2.05-15400), and the median PSA was 49.3 ng/ml. The median waiting times were (i) 10 days from referral to presentation; (ii) 30 days from presentation to biopsy; (iii) 24 days from biopsy to review of histology; (iv) 1 day from histology review to discussion/planning of treatment. The median overall waiting time from referral to treatment was 103 days. The mean time from presentation to biopsy was significantly shorter for patients with PSA of ≥50 ng/ml compared to those with PSA < 50 ng/ml. p = 0.048. Overall, the median time from biopsy to histology was significantly shorter for patients whose specimens were processed in private laboratories (17 days) compared to those whose specimens were processed at the teaching hospital laboratory (30 days), p ≤ 0.001.

Conclusion

There is a significant delay within the health care system in getting a prostate cancer diagnosis in the Nigerian population studied. The major points of the identified delay were the waiting time from patient presentation to having a biopsy done and the histology report waiting time.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Brachytherapy During the Pandemic: A Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Barnabas Health Multisite Experience

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate whether the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in treatment delays in patients scheduled for or undergoing brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted across 4 affiliated sites after local institutional review board approval. The eligibility criteria were defined as all patients with cancer whose treatment plan included brachytherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 24, 2020 to June 30, 2020. Treatment delays, cancellations, alterations of fractionation regimens, and treatment paradigm changes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were eligible for the analysis. Median patient age at the time of treatment was 62 years (interquartile range, 56-70 years). Endometrial, cervical, and prostate cancers were the most common sites included in this analysis. Three patients (6.4%) with cervical cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the course of their treatment. Interruptions of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), cancellations of EBRT, cancellations of brachytherapy, and treatment delays due to COVID occurred in 5 (10.6%), 3 (6.4%), 8 (17%), and 9 (19%) patients, respectively. The mean and median number of days delayed for patients who experienced treatment interruptions were 16.3 days (standard deviation: 13.9 days) and 14 days (interquartile range, 5.75-23.75 days), respectively. For patients with cervical cancer, the mean and median overall treatment times defined as the time from the start of EBRT to the end of brachytherapy were 56 and 49 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenges the health care system faced during the pandemic, most patients with cancer were safely treated with minor treatment delays and interruptions. Long-term follow up is needed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and treatment interruptions on oncologic outcomes.

Identifying Risk Profiles of Malignant Prostate Cancer Surgical Delay Using a Person-Centered Approach to Understand Prostate Cancer Disparities: The Constellation of Health Determinants Using Latent Class Analysis on Cancer Registry Data

Surgical prostate cancer (PCa) treatment delay (TD) may increase the likelihood of recurrence of disease, and influence quality of life as well as survival disparities between Black and White men. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify risk profiles in localized, malignant PCa surgical treatment delays while assessing co-occurring social determinants of health. Profiles were identified by age, marital status, race, county of residence (non-Appalachian or Appalachian), and health insurance type (none/self-pay, public, or private) reported in the Tennessee Department of Health cancer registry from 2005 to 2015 for adults ≥18 years (N = 18,088). We identified three risk profiles. The highest surgical delay profile (11% of the sample) with a 30% likelihood of delaying surgery >90 days were young Black men, <55 years old, living in a non-Appalachian county, and single/never married, with a high probability of having private health insurance. The medium surgical delay profile (46% of the sample) with a 21% likelihood of delay were 55–69 years old, White, married, and having private health insurance. The lowest surgical delay profile (42% of the sample) with a 14% likelihood of delay were ≥70 years with public health insurance as well as had a high probability of being White and married. We identified that even with health insurance coverage, Blacks living in non-Appalachian counties had the highest surgical delay, which was almost double that of Whites in the lowest delay profile. These disparities in PCa surgical delay may explain differences in health outcomes in Blacks who are most at-risk.

COVID-19 impact on timing of brachytherapy treatment and strategies for risk mitigation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to highlight the importance of timely brachytherapy treatment for patients with gynecologic, breast, and prostate malignancies, and provide a framework for brachytherapy clinical practice and management in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We review amassing evidence to help guide the management and timing of brachytherapy for gynecologic, breast, and prostate cancers. Where concrete data could not be found, peer-reviewed expert opinion is provided.

RESULTS

There may be a significant negative impact on oncologic outcomes for patients with gynecologic malignancies who have a delay in the timely completion of therapy. Delay of prostate or breast cancer treatment may also impact oncologic outcomes. If a treatment delay is expected, endocrine therapy may be an appropriate temporizing measure before delivery of radiation therapy. The use of shorter brachytherapy fractionation schedules will help minimize patient exposure and conserve resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Brachytherapy remains a critical treatment for patients and may shorten treatment time and exposure for some. Reduced patient exposure and resource utilization is important during COVID-19. Every effort should be made to ensure timely brachytherapy delivery for patients with gynecologic malignancies, and endocrine therapy may help temporize treatment delays for breast and prostate cancer patients. Physicians should continue to follow developing institutional, state, and federal guidelines/recommendations as challenges in delivering care during COVID-19 will continue to evolve.

Waiting times for prostate cancer: A review

Prostate cancer is one of the most common diagnosed cancers in men and the waiting time has become an important issue not only for clinical reasons, but also mostly for the psychological implications on patients. The aim of our study was to review and analyze the literature on waiting times for prostate cancer. In February-March 2019 we performed a search for original peerreviewed papers in the electronic database PubMed (MEDLINE). The key search terms were "prostate cancer AND waiting list", "prostate cancer AND waiting times". We included in our narrative review articles in Italian, English or French, published in 2009-2019 containing original data about the waiting times for prostate cancer. The literature search yielded 680 publications. Finally, we identified 8 manuscripts eligible for the review. The articles were published between 2010 and 2019; the studies involved a minimum of 16 to a maximum of 95438 participants. Studies have been conducted in 6 countries. The waiting times from cancer suspicion to histopathological diagnosis and to treatment had an important reduction in the last years, and this constant decrease could lead to an increase of patients' satisfaction.

Risks from Deferring Treatment for Genitourinary Cancers: A Collaborative Review to Aid Triage and Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Context

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is leading to delays in the treatment of many urologic cancers.

Objective

To provide a contemporary picture of the risks from delayed treatment for urologic cancers to assist with triage.

Evidence acquisition

A collaborative review using literature published as of April 2, 2020.

Evidence synthesis

Patients with low-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer are unlikely to suffer from a 3–6-month delay. Patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are at risk of disease progression, with radical cystectomy delays beyond 12 wk from diagnosis or completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prioritization of these patients for surgery or management with radiochemotherapy is encouraged. Active surveillance should be used for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Treatment of most patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be deferred 3–6 mo without change in outcomes. The same may be true for cancers with the highest risk of progression. With radiotherapy, neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care. For surgery, although the added value of neoadjuvant ADT is questionable, it may be considered if a patient is interested in such an approach. Intervention may be safely deferred for T1/T2 renal masses, while locally advanced renal tumors (≥T3) should be treated expeditiously. Patients with metastatic renal cancer may consider vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Risks for delay in the treatment of upper tract urothelial cancer depend on grade and stage. For patients with high-grade disease, delays of 12 wk in nephroureterectomy are not associated with adverse survival outcomes. Expert guidance recommends expedient local treatment of testis cancer. In penile cancer, adverse outcomes have been observed with delays of ≥3 mo before inguinal lymphadenectomy. Limitations include a paucity of data and methodologic variations for many cancers.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians should consider the oncologic risk of delayed cancer intervention versus the risks of COVID-19 to the patient, treating health care professionals, and the health care system.

Patient summary

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to delays in the treatment of patients with urologic malignancies. Based on a review of the literature, patients with high-grade urothelial carcinoma, advanced kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and penile cancer should be prioritized for treatment during these challenging times.

Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer staging: evaluation of morbidity and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the morbidity of different surgical approaches for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), to evaluate the influence of morbidity on radiotherapy (RT) planning and to evaluate a possible therapeutic effect of a more extensive yield of PLND.

METHODS

From 2000-2016, 228 patients received staging PLND before primary RT in a single tertiary care center. Nine patients were excluded for the evaluation of morbidity. Fifty patients were operated in an open approach, 96 laparoscopic and 73 robot-assisted (RA). Clavien-Dindo classification was used for evaluating complications. Predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR), clinical relapse (CR), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by regression analyses to determine a possible therapeutic effect.

RESULTS

Minimal invasive surgery (laparoscopic or RA) caused five times less major complications (22% vs. 4.3%, p = .001) and a median 3 days shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 2 days, p < .001). Major complications resulted in a delayed (23 days, p < .001) RT start but no oncological effect was seen. Independent oncological predictors were the number of positive nodes (BCR, CR, CSS, OS), a lower age (CR), a higher level of initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (BCR) and post-RT PSA (BCR).

CONCLUSION

Minimal invasive surgery can diminish major complications which delay RT start. Nodal staging proved to be of importance for prognosis but no therapeutic effect was seen of performing PLND as such.

[Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence?]

INTRODUCTION

The influence of the delay between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy for patients with localized prostate cancer is controversial. The objective of this study was to establish a time limit between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy beyond which the risks of upgradging and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are increased.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and January 2017, a retrospective analysis of the clinical, biological and histological data of 513 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was performed in a single center. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the risk of BCR by the difference between post-biopsy USCF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of the upgrading by the difference between the Gleason score on biopsy and on surgical specimen. The risks of BCR and upgrading were compared by Student test according to different delays between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The shortest delays for which a significant difference was found were reported.

RESULTS

In this study, 513 patients were included. The median age at the time of the biopsy was 65 years (IQR: 60-69). The median preoperative PSA was 7.30ng/mL (IQR: 5.60-9.94). The median time between biopsy and surgery was 108 days (IQR: 86-141). For the entire cohort, the risk of BCR was significantly higher above a threshold of 90 days (P=0.039). No threshold was found for Gleason 6(3+3) patients. A 90-day threshold was found for Gleason 7(3+4) patients (P=0.038). Gleason patients≥8 had more upgrading beyond a 60-day threshold (P=0.040).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that after a 3 months delay, the risk of BCR was significantly higher for localized prostate cancer. It seemed possible to extend this period for low-risk patients, whereas it seemed necessary to keep it for intermediate-risks and to reduce it to 2 months for high-risks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Curative Radiation Therapy at Time of Progression Under Active Surveillance Compared With Up-front Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To describe and compare outcomes in men with initially presumed indolent prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy after active surveillance (AS) versus those in a risk-matched cohort undergoing up-front radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Men prospectively enrolled in an AS program between 1992 and 2014 and subsequently undergoing curative radiation therapy (ie, image guided radiation therapy [IGRT] or low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT]) were identified. Biochemical relapse-free rate (bRFR), metastasis-free rate (mFR), and overall survival (OS) were compared against a cohort of men treated up front, matched by age, clinical prognostic indices (risk group, prostate-specific antigen, cT category, Gleason score, percentage of involved biopsy cores), and radiation therapy modality.

RESULTS

Of 1070 patients in the AS registry, 200 underwent definitive radiation therapy (143 IGRT and 57 LDR-BT) after a median of 32.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 20.6-59.8) months on surveillance. Main reasons for treatment were grade and volume upgrading (57.5% and 26%, respectively). Median follow-up after radiation therapy was 4.9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. At 5 years the bRFR, mFR, and OS were, respectively, 97%, 99%, and 98.5%. No patient died of prostate cancer. Adequate risk-matching was confirmed in an independent cohort comprising 359 patients receiving up-front IGRT (71%) or LDR-BT (29%) and followed for a median of 9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. There was no difference in the disease-specific outcomes (bRFR, mFR) between the 2 cohorts (Gray's P value of .257 and .934, respectively). In multivariate analyses, timing of radical radiation therapy (deferred vs up-front) was not correlated to biochemical relapse or metastases occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Curative-intent radiation therapy (ie, dose-escalated IGRT or LDR-BT) after a period of AS renders excellent oncologic outcomes at 5 years. Deferring radical therapy after a period of AS does not seem to result in inferior oncologic outcomes compared with patients with similar risk characteristics undergoing up-front treatment.

No clinical significance of the time interval between biopsy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on biochemical recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

To investigate the impact of the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 793 consecutive patients who were treated with RARP at our institution. Patients were divided into three groups, according to TI, to compare BCR-free survival (BCRFS) rates: Group 1 (n = 196), TI < 3 months; Group 2 (n = 513), 3 ≤ TI < 6 months; Group 3 (n = 84), TI ≥ 6 months. Eighty-three patients with TI ≥ 6 months were matched with an equal number of patients with TI < 6 months based on propensity scores by using four preoperative factors: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), primary (pGS) and secondary (sGS) Gleason score and positive prostate biopsy.

Results

The 5-year BCRFS rates for TI Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 76%, 80.7% and 82.6% (P = 0.99), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that PSA, pGS, sGS and a positive prostate biopsy were independent preoperative risk factors for BCR. The propensity adjusted 5-year BCRFS for patients with TI ≥ 6 months was 84.0%. This was not worse than that of patients with TI < 6 months (71.0%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions

In our cohorts, a delay in the time from biopsy to RARP did not significantly affect recurrence. Therefore, hasty treatment decisions are unnecessary for at least 6 months after diagnosis of early prostate cancer.

Definitive Radiotherapy for Older Patients with Prostate Cancer: Experience of a Medical Center in Taiwan

Whether age predicts treatment outcome of prostate cancer remains controversial. With the aging of the world population, properly understanding the effect of age may facilitate both treatment decision-making and defining the natural history of prostate cancer. Consecutive 581 patients with locally-confined adenocarcinoma of the prostate who received radical definitive radiotherapy(RT) (76-78 Gy) between 2004 and 2015 at a medical center in Taiwan were reviewed retrospectively. Median age was 78 years. The median follow-up was 66 months. The 5-year biochemical failure-free survival(BFFS), distant metastasis-free survival(DMFS), disease-specific survival(DSS), and overall survival(OS) rates were 84.9%, 93.8%, 97.8%, and 86.6%, respectively, for all patients. Comparing those above and below the age of 80, no difference in 5-year BFFS, DMFS, or DSS was found. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that tumor stage, Gleason score, initial PSA, and latency before RT were significant risk factors of BFFS. The latency before RT was significantly longer in the older group than in the under 80 group. Delay to start RT might explain the previous finding of inferior disease control in older patients in other studies. With the exception of OS, no other differences in outcomes or toxicities were observed in older patients.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect biochemical recurrence? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

AIM

We sought to explore the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHOD

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database between 2006 and 2015 was conducted on all RARP cases. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on BCR, which was defined as two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/dl, or salvage external beam radiation therapy and/or salvage androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariable analysis (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) with a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on BCR, in each D'Amico risk group and on the overall collective sample.

RESULTS

Patients eligible for analysis were 619. Mean SWT was 153, 169, 150, and 125 days, for overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis on the overall cohort did not show a significant relation between SWT and BCR. On subgroup analysis of D'Amico risk group, SWT was positively correlated to BCR for high-risk group (p = 0.001). On threshold analysis, cut-off was found to be 90 days. SWT did not significantly affect BCR on UVA and MVA in the low- and intermediate-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Increased delay to surgery could affect the BCR, as there was a positive association in high-risk group. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the impact of wait time on BCR, cancer specific survival and overall survival.

Impact of time to surgery in the outcome of patients with liver resection for BCLC 0-A stage hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) guidelines recommend resection for very early and early single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. It is not known whether a delay in resection from the time of diagnosis (the time to surgery [TTS], i.e. the elapsed time from diagnosis to surgery) affects outcomes. We aim to evaluate the impact of TTS on recurrence and survival outcomes in patients with HCC.

METHODS

All patients resected for BCLC stage 0-A single HCC from 2006 to 2016 were studied to evaluate the impact of TTS on recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS), transplantability following recurrence, and intention-to-treat overall survival (ITT-OS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was further performed to ensure comparability.

RESULTS

The study population included 100 patients. Surgery was performed between 0.6 and 77 months after diagnosis (median TTS: three months; interquartile range: 1.8-4.6 months). There was no post-operative mortality. Compared to those with TTS <3 months, patients with TTS ≥3 months (70% of these patients had TTS 3-6 months) had a higher post-operative morbidity (36% vs. 16%, p = 0.02), a similar tumor recurrence rate (32% vs. 32%, p = 1.00), RFS (37% vs. 48%, p = 0.42), transplantability following tumor recurrence (63% vs. 50%, p = 0.48), and five-year ITT-OS (82% vs. 80%, p = 0.20). Similar results were observed after PSM.

CONCLUSION

Patients with BCLC stage 0-A single HCC can undergo surgery with TTS ≥3 months without impaired oncologic outcomes. An increase in the TTS within a safe range could allow time for proper evaluation before surgery, and ethical testing of new neoadjuvant treatments, aiming to reduce the high rate of tumor recurrence despite curative resection.

LAY SUMMARY

A delay of ≥3 months in time to resection after diagnosis in HCC patients meeting the European Association for the Study of Liver Disease/American Association for the Study of Liver Disease criteria for resection does not affect oncological and long-term outcomes compared to those with a delay to surgery of <3 months.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect patient pathological outcome? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on final pathological outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RARP patient records operated between 2006 and 2015 was conducted. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on postoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) score. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis with a generalized linear model was used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on pathological outcome in individual risk group and on the overall sample.

RESULTS

A total of 835 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean SWT was significantly different between the three D'Amico groups, with mean SWT of 180.22 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 169.03; 191.41), 159.14 days (95% CI 152.38; 165.90), and 138.96 days (95% CI 124.60; 153.33) for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). After stratification by D'Amico risk group, no significant association was observed between SWT and CAPRA-S score in the three risk categories on UVA and MVA. Predictors of higher CAPRA-S score in the multivariable model in the overall cohort were: older age (p=0.014), biopsy Gleason score (p<0.001), percentage of positive cores (p<0.001), and clinical stage (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study evaluating SWT for RARP in a Canadian socialized system, increased delay for surgery does not appear to impact the pathological outcome. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of wait time on biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.

Assessment of performance indicators of a radiotherapy department using an electronic medical record system

AIM

To retrospectively assess the performance indicators of our radiotherapy department and their temporal trends, using a commercially available electronic-medical-record (EMR) system.

BACKGROUND

A recent trend in healthcare quality is to define and evaluate performance indicators of the service provided.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient and external-beam-radiotherapy-treatments data were retrieved using the Mosaiq EMR system from 1-January-2012 till 31-December-2015. Annual performance indicators were evaluated as: productivity (number of new cases/year and diagnosis distribution); complexity (ratio of Volumetric-Modulated-Arc-Therapy (VMAT) courses, average number of imaging procedures/patient); and quality (average, median and 90th percentile waiting times from admission to first treatment). The temporal trends of all performance indicators were assessed by linear regression.

RESULTS

Productivity: the number of new cases/year increased with an average rate of 4%. Diagnosis distribution showed that breast is the main pathology treated, followed by gastro-intestinal and head-and-neck. Complexity: the ratio of VMAT courses increased from 13% to 35%, with an average rate of 7% per year. The average number of imaging procedures/patient increased from 8 to 11. Quality: the waiting times from admission to treatment remained stable over time (R² ≤ 0.1), with average, median and 90th percentile values around 20, 15, and 31 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An EMR system can be used to: monitor the performance indicators of a radiotherapy department, identify workflow processes needing attention and improvement, estimate future demands of resources. Temporal analysis of our data showed an increasing trend in productivity and complexity paired with constant waiting times.

Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely?

OBJECTIVE

To test the prognostic role of treatment delay in patients affected by prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 2,653 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at a single institution between 2006 and 2011. The evaluated outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to test the association between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Nonparametric curve fitting methods were used to graphically explore the relationship between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were repeated in the subgroups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 56 months (interquartile range: 26, 92), 283 patients experienced BCR, and 84 patients developed CR. Median time from PCa diagnosis to surgery was 2.8 months (interquartile range: 1.6, 4.7). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, time from biopsy to RP was significantly associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.02, P = 0.0005) and CR (hazard ratio = 1.03, P = 0.0002). Using Nonparametric curve fitting methods, a significant increased risk of BCR and CR after approximately 18 months was observed. However, when sensitivity analyses were repeated according to risk groups, this effect was maintained in high-risk patients only, and such time interval was reduced to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall trend on higher rate of cancer relapse after RP, the effect of treatment delay from biopsy to RP was significantly evident in high-risk patients only. Even in high-risk patients surgical treatment can be postponed safely, but not beyond the 12-month landmark.

Prostate cancer outcomes and delays in care

OBJECTIVES

To examine the survival effect of treatment delays from the time of confirmed diagnosis of prostate cancer to first treatment in an Australian population.

METHODS

Three thousand one hundred and forty patients were identified from the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative database for analysis. Selected patients had dates recorded for both diagnosis and treatment. We examined the effect of treatment delay (the time from diagnosis to date of first treatment) on survival using Cox and competing risks regression and compared quartiles of delay across the cohort. Adjustment was made for age, PSA levels, treatment modality and Gleason score. Outcomes included overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

RESULTS

Quartiles of delay were as follows (days)-Q1: 35, Q2: 86, Q3: 138.0, Q4: 264. Shorter delays were associated with hormonal treatment, high Gleason score and high PSA values. Measuring PCSM with Q2 as reference, age-adjusted associations were-Q1: sHR 4.37 (2.75-6.94), Q3: sHR 1.29 (0.73-2.28), Q4: sHR 1.55 (0.91-2.63). After additional adjustment for treatment type, Gleason score and PSA, Q1 remained at increased risk [sHR 2.46 (1.10-5.54)]. A similar trend was observed for OS. In analysis stratified by Gleason score, delays were not significantly associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with shorter delay in treatment include high Gleason score, high PSA and hormonal treatment. After adjustment for these variables, increased delays were not associated with OS or PCSM in this cohort. The nonlinear association of delay with risk may explain conflicting reports in the literature.

Adjuvant vs.salvage radiotherapy for patients at high risk for recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Prostate cancer patients with adverse pathologic factors (i.e., positive surgical margin, pT3 disease) after radical prostatectomy are more likely not cured (>60%) than cured by surgery alone. Adjuvant radiotherapy compared with observation reduces recurrence by 49% to 57%, may improve overall survival, and improves long-term quality of life without increased long-term patient-reported urinary or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Despite these results, adjuvant radiotherapy is uncommonly received by patients with these adverse factors.We discuss the rationale for adjuvant therapy as part of oncologic treatment and potential reasons why patients do not receive adjuvant radiotherapy in prostate cancer. We conclude that patients need a thorough discussion regarding the potential benefits and harms of both approaches (watch and wait vs. adjuvant radiotherapy) to make an informed decision.

Robotic prostatectomy is associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay

INTRODUCTION

New technologies may limit access to treatment. We investigated radical prostatectomy (RP) access over time since robotic introduction and the impact of robotic use on RP access relative to other approaches in the modern era.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Data Base, RPs performed during the eras of early (2004-2005) and late (2010-2011) robotic dissemination were identified. The primary endpoints, patient travel distance and treatment delay, were compared by era, and for 2010-2011, by surgical approach. Analyses included multivariable and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

138 476 cases were identified, 32% from 2004-2005 and 68% from 2010-2011. In 2010-2011, 74%, 21%, and 4.3% of RPs were robotic, open, and laparoscopic, respectively. Treatment in 2010-2011 and robotic approach were independently associated with increased patient travel distance and longer treatment delay (p<0.001). Men treated robotically had 1.1-1.2 times higher odds of traveling medium-to-long-range distances and 1.2-1.3 higher odds of delays 90 days or greater compared to those treated open (p<0.001). Laparoscopic approach was associated with increased patient travel and treatment delay, but to a lesser extent than the robotic approach (p<0.001). In high-risk patients, treatment delays remained significantly longer for minimally invasive approaches (p<0.001). Other factors associated with the robotic approach included referral from an outside facility, treatment at an academic or high-volume hospital, higher income, and private insurance. Potential limitations include the retrospective observational design and lack of external validation of the primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach is associated with increased travel burden and treatment delay, potentially limiting access to surgical care.

Using big data for quality assessment in oncology

There is increasing attention in the US healthcare system on the delivery of high-quality care, an issue central to oncology. In the report 'Crossing the Quality Chasm', the Institute of Medicine identified six aims for improving healthcare quality: safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient and equitable. This article describes how current big data resources can be used to assess these six dimensions, and provides examples of published studies in oncology. Strengths and limitations of current big data resources for the evaluation of quality of care are also discussed. Finally, this article outlines a vision where big data can be used not only to retrospectively assess the quality of oncologic care, but help physicians deliver high-quality care in real time.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.

CONCLUSION

TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

Delay from biopsy to radical prostatectomy influences the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine maximum wait times between biopsy diagnosis and surgery for localized prostate cancer, beyond which the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes is increased.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 4,610 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 1990 and 2011. Patients were stratified by biopsy Gleason score and PSA value. For each stratification, χ2 analysis was used to determine the smallest 15-day multiple of surgical delay (e.g., 15, 30, 45…180 days) for which adverse pathologic outcomes were significantly more likely after the time interval than before. Adverse outcomes were defined as positive surgical margins, upgrading from biopsy, upstaging, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred twelve patients met inclusion criteria. Median delay was 64 days (mean 76, SD 47). One thousand six hundred seventy-five (75.7%), 537 (24.3%), and 60 (2.7%) patients had delays of <=90, >90, and >180 days, respectively. Twenty-six percent were upgraded on final pathology and 23% were upstaged. The positive surgical margin rate was 24.2% and the positive lymph node rate was 1.1%. Significant increases in the proportion of adverse pathological outcomes were found beyond 75 days in the overall cohort (P = 0.03), 150 days for patients with Gleason <=6, and PSA 0-10 (P = 0.038), 60 days for patients with Gleason 7 and PSA >20 (P = 0.032), and 30 days for patients with Gleason 8-10 and PSA 11-20 (0.041).

CONCLUSION

In low-risk disease, there is a considerable but not unlimited surgical delay which will not adversely impact the rate of adverse pathologic features found. In higher risk disease, this time period is considerably shorter.

Effect of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation against Screening for Prostate Cancer on Incident Prostate Cancer Diagnoses in the United States

PURPOSE

In October 2011 the USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) issued a draft guideline discouraging prostate specific antigen based screening for prostate cancer (grade D recommendation). We evaluated the effect of the USPSTF guideline on the number and distribution of new prostate cancer diagnoses in the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified incident cancers diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2012 in NCDB (National Cancer Database). We performed an interrupted time series to evaluate the trend of new prostate cancers diagnosed each month before and after the draft guideline with colon cancer as a comparator.

RESULTS

Incident monthly prostate cancer diagnoses decreased by -1,363 cases (12.2%, p<0.01) in the month after the USPSTF draft guideline and continued to decrease by 164 cases per month relative to baseline (-1.8%, p<0.01). In contrast monthly colon cancer diagnoses remained stable. Diagnoses of low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancers decreased significantly but new diagnoses of nonlocalized disease did not change. Subgroups of age, comorbidity, race, income and insurance showed comparable decreases in incident prostate cancer following the draft guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a 28% decrease in incident diagnoses of prostate cancer in the year after the USPSTF draft recommendation against prostate specific antigen screening. This study helps quantify the potential benefits (reduced harms of over diagnosis and overtreatment of low risk disease and disease found in elderly men) and potential harms (missed opportunities to diagnose important cancers in men who may benefit from treatment) of this guideline.

Effect of Patient Demographic Characteristics and Radiation Timing on PSA Reduction in Patients Treated With Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess how demographic characteristics and temporal factors including time to treatment (TTT) and elapsed time of treatment (ETT) affect prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels during and after radiation treatment for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 1584 patients was conducted on patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2005 and 2013, from which 147 patients were found to have completed definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) monotherapy. Demographic data, TTT (days between diagnosis and EBRT start date), ETT (days between EBRT start and stop date), and Gleason score were collected on these patients and analysis of variance was performed to analyze the relationship of these factors with PSA changes. PSA changes were calculated during treatment as the difference between pre- and posttreatment PSA levels and after treatment as 3-year and overall PSA velocities.

RESULTS

Patients who spoke Haitian Creole (P = .039) and those with a longer ETT (P = .029) had significantly greater PSA decline during treatment, primarily as a result of higher pretreatment PSA levels. Patients with Gleason score 4+3 disease had significantly greater 3-year (P = .033) and overall (P = .019) PSA velocities. Race and/or ethnicity, insurance type, marital status, and age were not associated with any PSA variable.

CONCLUSION

Disparities in prostate cancer are not reflected in PSA dynamics during or after radiation treatment, but are evident in PSA level at presentation. Timeliness of treatment was not found to affect true PSA change due to EBRT in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

Does the time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy affect Gleason score upgrading in patients with clinical t1c prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

It is debated whether treatment delay worsens oncologic results in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Few studies have focused on the role of a delay between the time of biopsy and the time of surgery. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of the time period between biopsy and surgery on Gleason score upgrading (GSU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 290 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy in Ankara Training and Research Hospital were included in the study. The biopsy Gleason score, age, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, prostate volumes, and PSA density (PSAD) were analyzed in all patients. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with GSU (group 1) and patients without GSU (group 2). Variables having a p-value of ≤0.05 in the univariate analysis were selected and then evaluated by use of multivariate logistic regression models. Results were considered significant at p<0.05.

RESULTS

GSU occurred in 121 of 290 patients (41.7%). The mean age of the patients was 66.0±7.2 years in group 1 and 65.05±5.60 years in group 2 (p=0.18). The mean PSA values of groups 1 and 2 were 8.6±4.1 and 8.8±4.3 ng/dL, respectively. The mean prostate volumes of groups 1 and 2 were 43.8±14.1 and 59.5±29.8 mL, respectively. The PSAD of group 1 was significantly higher than that of group 2 (0.20 vs. 0.17, p=0.003). The mean time to surgery was shorter in group 2 (group 1, 52.2±22.6 days; group 2, 45.3±15.5 days; p=0.004). According to the logistic regression, time from biopsy to surgery is important in the prediction of GSU.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the time period between biopsy and surgery is a significant factor that affects GSU in patients with clinically localized PCa.

Improved wait time intervals for prostate cancer patients in a multidisciplinary rapid diagnostic unit compared to a community-based referral pattern

BACKGROUND

Wait times in cancer diagnosis and treatment may significantly affect a patient's treatment outcome, prognosis and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to capture wait time intervals for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT) at the Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and to compare patients diagnosed in a rapid diagnostic unit (RDU) versus the usual community referral process.

METHODS

Patients agreed to participate in the study during their RT planning sessions. A semi-structured interview and chart abstraction was conducted to record key wait time milestones.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients participated in the study: 44 RDU patients and 43 community patients. The median overall wait time intervals from suspicion of prostate cancer to RT was 138 and 183 days, respectively (p = 0.046). There were statistically significant differences observed for other key wait time intervals favouring the RDU cohort: suspicion to decision-to-treat (DTT; p = 0.012), urologist visit to diagnosis (p = 0.0094), diagnosis to DTT (p = 0.018), and diagnosis to treatment (p = 0.016). Risk category and Gleason sum was independently predictive of longer intervals from diagnosis to DTT.

INTERPRETATION

Wait time intervals from suspicion to treatment are significantly shorter for prostate cancer patients in 2011 to 2012 than in 2003 when patients were diagnosed and referred in the community setting. A prostate-specific RDU further reduced a number of key wait time intervals supporting more multidisciplinary RDUs for common diseases. Further work needs to be done to identify why delays are occurring and to develop new processes to minimize delays.

Racial differences in time from prostate cancer diagnosis to treatment initiation: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Timely delivery of care has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as an indicator for quality health care, and treatment delay is a potentially modifiable obstacle that can contribute to the disparities among African American (AA) and Caucasian patients in prostate cancer recurrence and mortality. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiologic and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database, we compared time from diagnosis to treatment in AA and Caucasian prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 2506 AA and 21,454 Caucasian patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 through 2007 and treated within 12 months were included. Linear regression was used to assess potential differences in time to treatment between AA and Caucasian patients, after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariates.

RESULTS

Time from diagnosis to definitive (prostatectomy and radiation) treatment was longer for AA patients in all risk groups, and most pronounced in high-risk cancer (96 versus 105 days, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, racial differences to any and definitive treatment persisted (β = 7.3 and 7.6, respectively, for AA patients). Delay to definitive treatment was longer in high-risk (versus low-risk) disease and in more recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

AA patients with prostate cancer experienced longer time from diagnosis to treatment than Caucasian patients with prostate cancer. AA patients appear to experience disparities across all aspects of this disease process, and together these factors in receipt of care plausibly contribute to the observed differences in rates of recurrence and mortality among AA and Caucasian patients with prostate cancer.

Association between race and follow-up diagnostic care after a positive prostate cancer screening test in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial

BACKGROUND

Follow-through of a positive screening test is necessary to reap the potential benefits of cancer screening. Racial variation in follow-through diagnostic care may underlie a proportion of the known disparity in prostate cancer mortality. The authors used data from the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial to determine whether race is associated with the use of follow-up diagnostic testing after a positive initial screening evaluation.

METHODS

Men who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >4 ng/mL at any time during the study were included. The proportion of men who underwent follow-up evaluation with a repeat PSA, a prostate biopsy, or either test within 9 months was determined, and the authors tested for differences in follow-through according to race using mixed-effects multivariate models with a random effect for accrual site to account for clustering. Models were stratified according to age (<65 years and ≥65 years).

RESULTS

Among 6294 men who had a PSA elevation during the study period, 70% underwent a repeat PSA or prostate biopsy within 9 months. Non-Hispanic black men aged <65 years had 45% lower odds of undergoing a repeat PSA test or prostate biopsy compared with non-Hispanic white men (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.82), whereas there was no racial difference in follow-through among older men.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results suggest that limitations in access to care among non-Hispanic black men under the age of Medicare eligibility may underlie the paradoxically low use of follow-through diagnostic care among non-Hispanic black men in the United States.

Delay to curative surgery greater than 12 weeks is associated with increased mortality in patients with colorectal and breast cancer but not lung or thyroid cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for cancer is often delayed due to variety of patient-, provider-, and health system-related factors. However, impact of delayed surgery is not clear, and may vary among cancer types. We aimed to determine the impact of the delay from cancer diagnosis to potentially curative surgery on survival.

METHODS

Cohort study based on representative sample of patients (n = 7,529) with colorectal, breast, lung and thyroid cancer with local or regional disease who underwent potentially curative surgery as their first therapeutic modality within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. They were diagnosed in 2006 and followed for mortality until April 2011, a median follow-up of 4.7 years.

RESULTS

For colorectal and breast cancers, the adjusted hazard ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality comparing a surgical delay beyond 12 weeks to performing surgery within weeks 1-4 after diagnosis were 2.65 (1.50-4.70) and 1.91 (1.06-3.49), respectively. No clear pattern of increased risk was observed with delays between 4 and 12 weeks, or for any delay in lung and thyroid cancers. Concordance between the area of the patient's residence and the hospital performing surgery, and the patient's income status were associated with delayed surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays to curative surgery beyond 12 weeks were associated with increased mortality in colorectal and breast cancers, suggesting that health provision services should be organized to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Health care systems should also aim to reduce socioeconomic and geographic disparities and to guarantee equitable access to high quality cancer care.

Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Delaying definitive therapy unfavourably affects outcomes in many malignancies. Diagnostic, psychological, and logistical reasons but also active surveillance (AS) strategies can lead to treatment delay, an increase in the interval between the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the current literature on the impact of treatment delay on PCa oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases until 30 September 2012 was performed. Studies comparing pathologic, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and mortality outcomes between patients receiving direct and delayed curative treatment were included. Studies presenting single-arm results following AS were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventeen studies were included: 13 on radical prostatectomy, 3 on radiation therapy, and 1 combined both. A total of 34 517 PCa patients receiving radical local therapy between 1981 and 2009 were described. Some studies included low-risk PCa only; others included a wider spectrum of disease. Four studies found a significant effect of treatment delay on outcomes in multivariate analysis. Two included low-risk patients only, but it was unknown whether AS was applied or repeat biopsy triggered active therapy during AS. The two other studies found a negative effect on BCR rates of 2.5-9 mo delay in higher risk patients (respectively defined as any with T ≥ 2b, prostate-specific antigen >10, Gleason score >6, >34-50% positive cores; or D'Amico intermediate risk-group). All studies were retrospective and nonrandomised. Reasons for delay were not always clear, and time-to-event analyses may be subject to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delay of several months or even years does not appear to affect outcomes of men with low-risk PCa. Limited data suggest treatment delay may have an impact on men with non-low-risk PCa. Most AS protocols suggest a confirmatory biopsy to avoid delaying treatment in those who harbour higher risk disease that was initially misclassified.

Effect of delaying surgery on radical prostatectomy outcomes: a contemporary analysis

Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? For patients electing surgical treatment, the question of the effect of surgical delay on clinical outcomes in prostate cancer is controversial. In this study we examined the effect of delay from diagnosis to surgery on outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer and found no association between time to surgery and risk of biochemical recurrence, even for patients with longer delays and high-risk disease. Men with localized prostate cancer can be reassured that reasonable delays in treatment will not influence disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

• To examine the effect of time from last positive biopsy to surgery on clinical outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• We conducted a retrospective review of 2739 men who underwent RP between 1990 and 2009 at our institution. • Clinical and pathological features were compared between men undergoing RP ≤ 60, 61-90 and >90 days from the time of prostate biopsy. • A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyse the association between clinical features and surgical delay with biochemical progression. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free rates were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

• Of the 1568 men meeting the inclusion criteria, 1098 (70%), 303 (19.3%) and 167 (10.7%) had a delay of ≤ 60, 61-90 and >90 days, respectively, between biopsy and RP. A delay of >60 days was not associated with adverse pathological findings at surgery. • The 5-year survival rate was similar among the three groups (78-85%, P= 0.11). • In a multivariate Cox model, men with higher PSA levels, clinical stages, Gleason sums, and those of African-American race were all at higher risk for developing BCR. • A delay to surgery of >60 days was not associated with worse biochemical outcomes in a univariate and multivariate model.

CONCLUSIONS

• A delay of >60 days is not associated with adverse pathological outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer, nor does it correlate with worse BCR-free survival. • Patients can be assured that delaying treatment while considering therapeutic options will not adversely affect their outcomes.

Measurement of surgical wait times in a universal health care system

INTRODUCTION

Reported increases in surgical wait times for cancer have intensified the focus on this quality of health care indicator and have created a very public, concerted effort by providers to decrease wait times for cancer surgery in Ontario. Delays in access to health care are multifactorial and their measurement from existing administrative databases can lack pertinent detail. The purpose of our study was to use a real-time surgery-booking software program to examine surgical wait times at a single centre.

METHODS

The real-time wait list management system Axcess.Rx has been used exclusively by the department of urology at the Kingston General Hospital to book all nonemergency surgery for 4 years. We reviewed the length of time from the decision to perform surgery to the actual date of surgery for patients in our group urological practice. Variables thought to be potentially important in predicting wait time were also collected, including the surgeon's assessment of urgency, the type of procedure (i.e., diagnostic, minor cancer, major cancer, minor benign, major benign), age and sex of the patient, inpatient versus outpatient status and year of surgery. Analysis was planned a priori to determine factors that affected wait time by using multivariate analysis to analyze variables that were significant in univariate analysis.

RESULTS

There were 960 operations for cancer and 1654 for benign conditions performed during the evaluation period. The overall mean wait time was 36 days for cancer and 47 days for benign conditions, respectively. The mean wait time for cancer surgery reached a nadir in 2004 at 29.9 days and subsequently increased every year, reaching 56 days in 2007. In comparison, benign surgery reached a nadir wait time of 33.7 days in 2004 and in 2007 reached 74 days at our institution. Multivariate analysis revealed that the year of surgery was still a significant predictor of wait time. Urgency score, type of procedure and inpatient versus outpatient status were also predictive of wait time.

CONCLUSION

The application of a prospectively collected data set is an effective and important tool to measure and subsequently examine surgical wait times. This tool has been essential to the accurate assessment of the effect of resource allocation on wait times for priority and nonpriority surgical programs within a discipline. Such tools are necessary to more fully assess and follow wait times at an institution or across a region.

Wait times in prostate cancer diagnosis and radiation treatment

INTRODUCTION

Wait times for cancer diagnosis and treatment are a significant concern for Canadians. Men with prostate cancer experience longer waiting times for diagnosis and treatment than those observed for other cancers. Longer waits are associated with both patient and family psychosocial distress and may be associated with worse prognosis.

METHODS

Men referred for treatment of prostate cancer at a single Canadian cancer centre were interviewed. The intervals from suspicion to definitive therapy were calculated, factors associated with delays along this pathway were identified, and common causes of delay identified by patients were described.

RESULTS

A total of 41 consecutive patients participated. The median interval from suspicion to the first fraction of radiotherapy for all patients was 247 days (interquartile range [IQR] 168-367 d). The median diagnostic interval was 53 days (IQR 28-166 d). The median treatment interval was 127 days (IQR 100-180 d). Patients under 70 years old and patients with

INTERPRETATION

In this study, 12% and 0% of patients met Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists wait time recommendations, respectively. A large component of wait time is patient driven. Alternate strategies should be developed and measured to shorten the intervals between the suspicion and treatment of prostate cancer.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Christiaan Stevens Fellow, Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, ON
Susan J. Bondy University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON
D. Andrew Loblaw Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

Collapse

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate volume reduction: the optimal duration in prostate cancer radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

For locally advanced prostate cancer, the results of radiotherapy are improved by combination with androgen deprivation therapy. Volume reduction achieved with neoadjuvant hormonal treatment can facilitate dose escalation without increasing the toxicity. The optimal duration of hormonal treatment, however, is unknown. The endpoint of this study is the optimal duration of androgen deprivation for prostate volume reduction in a cohort of patients scheduled for external beam radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty patients scheduled for external beam radiotherapy with cT2-3No/xMo prostate cancer were treated with a luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist (busereline) and nonsteroidal anti-androgen (nilutamide) for 9 months consecutively. Repeated CT scan examination was performed 3-monthly to measure prostate volumes until the start of radiation therapy. The analysis of volume reduction was performed with the Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

RESULTS

The baseline median prostate volume for the cohort of patients was 82 cc (95% CI: 61-104 cc) with a median volume reduction of 31% (95% CI: 26%-35%) (P < 0.0001) after 3 months of androgen deprivation. Between 3 and 6 months, a median volume reduction of 9% (95% CI: 4%-14%) (P < 0.0001) was observed. The effect was more pronounced in large prostates (>60 cc) than in small prostates (≤60 cc). In the total cohort of patients no significant volume reduction occurred between 6 and 9 months of maximal androgen blockade (MAB).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we have shown that the most significant prostate volume reduction is achieved after 3 months of MAB with a maximum reduction after 6 months. Therefore, the optimal duration of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation to reduce prostate volume before prostate cancer radiotherapy is 6 months. In small prostates 3 months of hormonal treatment may be enough for maximal volume reduction.

Interval from diagnosis to treatment onset for six major cancers in Catalonia, Spain

BACKGROUND

Targets set by health care organizations on time intervals between cancer diagnosis and treatment often go unmet. The objective of the study was to analyse the interval from diagnosis to treatment onset, and related factors, in the six most incident cancers in Catalonia (Spain), a developed European region with universal free access to health care.

METHODS

Twenty-two hospitals contributed 1023 incident cancer patients (198 lung, 253 colorectal, 95 prostate, 109 urinary bladder, 266 breast, 102 endometrial). Information was gathered from hospital medical records. The dependent variable was the length of the diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI). Independent variables were age, sex, disease stage, hospital level, mode of admission to hospital, and type of physician seen before admission. Multivariate-adjusted odds ratios were calculated by unconditional logistic regression for each cancer site.

RESULTS

The median DTI (in days) was 39 for lung cancer, 25 for colorectal, 108 for prostate, 69 for bladder, 35 for breast and 40 for endometrial cancer. In prostate and bladder cancers, over 78% of patients showed a DTI >30 days, while in colorectal the figure was 42%. Disseminated stage (distant metastases) was associated with a lower DTI in all sites. Patients admitted to third-level hospitals and with an elective admission were more likely to have a DTI >30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In Catalonia, a substantial proportion of cancer patients experience treatment delays that may impact negatively on psychological well-being, quality of life, and probably survival as well.

Does a delay in initiating definitive therapy affect biochemical recurrence rates in men with clinically localized prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

To assess whether a delay in initiating definitive therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer affects outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 393 men with localized prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy or surgery without systemic therapy between 1991 and 2004. Data included: time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (more or less than 3 months); biopsy Gleason score grouped by low (2-6), intermediate (7), or high risk (8-10); clinical stage grouped by low (T1/T2a) or high risk (T2b or higher); pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) grouped by low (<10 ng/ml), intermediate (10-20), or high risk (>20); and biochemical recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 63.1 years (range 39.7-79.5). Median pretreatment PSA was 6.5 ng/ml (range 0.4-411). Median time from diagnosis to treatment was 57 days (range 8-2927). A total of 310 patients (79%) were treated within 3 months. Median follow-up was 2.3 years (range 0.1-14.0). On univariate analysis using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and the log-rank test, only pretreatment PSA was associated with worse biochemical recurrence-free survival (P = 0.008). Biochemical recurrence-free survival was not associated with time from diagnosis to treatment (P = 0.28), clinical stage (P = 0.50), or biopsy Gleason score (P = 0.19). The results were the same when analyzed in a multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model.

CONCLUSION

A delay in treatment of > or =3 months does not appear to affect adversely biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients who undergo definitive therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer in those with low risk features.

Relationship between delay in radiotherapy and biochemical control in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a delay in radiotherapy is associated with a poorer biochemical control for prostate cancer.

METHODS

The time to treatment (TTT) from diagnosis of prostate cancer to radiotherapy was analyzed with respect to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) control in 1024 hormone-naive patients. The Kaplan-Meier PSA control curves for patients with TTT less than the median were compared with those for patients with TTT greater than the median in 3 predefined risk groups. Statistical significant differences in PSA control were further analyzed using Cox multivariate analysis with pretreatment PSA, Gleason score, T stage, and radiotherapy dose as covariates.

RESULTS

The median TTT and median follow-up are 3.7 months and 49 months respectively. Patients with a longer TTT have a statistically significant better PSA control than patients with a shorter TTT if they have intermediate- or high-risk disease. However in multivariate analysis TTT was not found to be significant in predicting PSA control, with pretreatment PSA and Gleason score emerging as highly significant in predicting PSA failure in both intermediate- and high-risk disease.

CONCLUSION

In this study in prostate cancer patients in British Columbia, there was no evidence that a longer time interval between diagnosis and radiotherapy was associated with poorer PSA control.

Is There a Detrimental Effect of Waiting for Radiotherapy for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a possible deleterious effect of waiting time to radiotherapy on the biochemical relapse (BR) of patients with localized prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients included in this retrospective study had localized prostate adenocarcinoma treated with external-beam irradiation alone. Waiting time was defined as the interval between the first consultation and the first radiation treatment. BR was defined as 3 consecutive rises of prostatic specific antigen (PSA). Patients were split into 3 groups of waiting time: group A were treated within 40 days; group B waited 41 to 80 days; group C waited >80 days to receive radiotherapy. The effect of waiting on BR was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was adjusted for known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

There were 289 patients who participated in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 6.1 year. Overall BR rate was 44% at 5 years. The median waiting time increased over the study period from 26 days in 1992 to 123 days in 2000. In adjusted multivariate analysis there was a nonsignificant higher risk of BR with waiting for 41 to 80 days (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-1.6) and for >80 days (HR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-1.5) when compared with patients treated within 40 days after consultation.

CONCLUSION

Delaying the start of radiotherapy showed little effect on the rate of BR in the group of 288 prostate cancer patients analyzed in this study.

Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

The frequently indolent nature of early-stage prostate cancer in older men and in men with low- or moderate-grade tumors and the demonstration that the survival benefits of radical prostatectomy are primarily among men younger than 65 years have led to concerns about prostate cancer overtreatment.

METHODS

Using data from 13 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 71,602 men who were diagnosed with localized or regional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2002. We quantified the incidence of initial curative therapy (i.e., surgery or radiation therapy) among men with lower-risk cancers as defined by their limited likelihood of either dying from expectantly managed prostate cancer or achieving a survival benefit from local therapy. Stratified analyses and multinomial logistic regression models were used to quantify the absolute and relative rates of curative therapy among men in various age-grade strata. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 24,405 men with lower-risk prostate cancers and complete data for the first course of treatment. Initial curative therapy was undertaken in 13,537 of these men (55%); 81% of treated men received radiation therapy. The likelihood of curative therapy, relative to expectant management, varied statistically significantly among lower-risk age-grade strata (all P<.05). Assuming that initial expectant management is appropriate for all lower-risk cancers, 2564 men (10%) in this population-based sample were overtreated with radical prostatectomy and 10,973 (45%) with radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These data quantify a target population for whom greater use of expectant approaches may reduce overtreatment and improve the quality of localized prostate cancer care.

Does a delay between diagnosis and radical prostatectomy increase the risk of disease recurrence?

BACKGROUND

Men diagnosed with clinically localized prostate carcinoma have several treatment options. The investigation of these options may delay the initiation of definitive therapy. In the current study, the authors evaluated whether time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) was predictive of postoperative biochemical disease recurrence (BCR).

METHODS

A total of 3149 consecutive patients who underwent RP as their initial treatment for prostate carcinoma within a year of diagnosis were identified. The time between diagnosis and RP was entered as a predictor in a multivariate logistic regression model predicting BCR at 3 years, 5 years, 8 years, and 10 years. The year surgery was performed and the nomogram-predicted probability of recurrence, which incorporates stage of disease, Gleason grade, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, were used as covariates.

RESULTS

The authors found no clear evidence of a significant effect of delay to diagnosis on BCR. For those patients treated within 6 months (96% of the total sample) the odds ratio for each additional month of delay was 1.04, 1.07, 1.08, and 1.02, respectively, for 3-year, 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year BCR-free survival (P>0.2 for all analyses). However, the 95% confidence intervals were wide and included the possibility that even a minor delay in surgery might have a large impact on the probability of BCR.

CONCLUSIONS

The time between biopsy and surgery does not appear to have a large effect on the risk of disease recurrence. Counseling patients on the importance of avoiding undue delay to surgery must be based on clinical judgment, particularly with respect to modifying advice based on the patient's risk.

Délais et retards à la radiothérapie : réflexion à propos de trois types de tumeurs

In the following review of the literature, the reasons and consequences of a tendency to the increase of the delay between the diagnosis and the first irradiation session will be studied. The duration of the delay varies according to the protocol of treatment, which itself depends on the tumour. Moreover, all types of radiotherapy are concerned by the increase in delay. A retrospective study enables to determine for a given series of similar tumours and treatments the mean duration of delay and find the excessive duration. The increase of delay phenomenon exists in different countries. We know that before irradiation the tumour grows according to its biological characteristics and the TNM initial determination will no longer be true. On the other hand, effective treatments such as chemotherapy and hormone therapy are increasingly used alone, before or in combination with radiotherapy. Consequently, the classical timing of radiation therapy could be modified often delayed. It is difficult to consider that successive treatments are a real increase of delay and compare its results with previous data from radiotherapy alone. We will study its impact in three types of tumours, including tumours of head and neck, of the breast and prostate, which are the most widely reported. The consequences of prolonged delay are not easily evaluated: one of the more important parameters is the possible modification of the stage of tumour. This phenomenon is not restricted to the studied types of tumours. We will try to find possible ways of reducing abnormal delays before irradiation.