Prostate cancer outcomes and delays in care

Sociodemographic and Geographic Disparities of Prostate Cancer Treatment Delay in Tennessee: A Population-Based Study

The relationship of social determinants of health, Appalachian residence, and prostate cancer treatment delay among Tennessee adults is relatively unknown. We used multivariate logistic regression on 2005–2015 Tennessee Cancer Registry data of adults aged ≥18 diagnosed with prostate cancer. The outcome of treatment delay was more than 90 days without surgical or nonsurgical intervention from date of diagnosis. Social determinants in the population-based registry were race (White, Black, Other) and marital status (single, married, divorced/separated, widow/widower). Tennessee residence was classified as Appalachian versus non-Appalachian (urban/rural). Covariates include age at diagnosis (18–54, 54–69, ≥70), health insurance type (none, public, private), derived staging of cancer (localized, regional, distant), and treatment type (non-surgical/surgical). We found that Black and divorced/separated patients had 32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22–1.42) and 15% (95% CI: 1.01–1.31) increased odds to delay prostate cancer treatment. Patients were at decreased odds of treatment delay when living in an Appalachian county, both urban (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82–0.95) and rural (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.78–0.89), diagnosed at ≥70 (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53–0.66), and received surgical intervention (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.68–0.76). Our study was among the first to comprehensively examine prostate cancer treatment delay in Tennessee, and while we do not make clinical recommendations, there is a critical need to further explore the unique factors that may propagate disparities. Prostate cancer treatment delay in Black patients may be indicative of ongoing health and access disparities in Tennessee, which may further affect quality of life and survivorship among this racial group. Divorced/separated patients may need tailored interventions to improve social support.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Preoperative exercise interventions to optimize continence outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Urinary incontinence is a common and predictable consequence among men with localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Despite advances in the surgical technique, urinary continence recovery time remains variable. A range of surgical and patient-related risk factors contributing to urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy have been described, including age, BMI, membranous urethral length and urethral sphincter insufficiency. Physical activity interventions incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training and pelvic floor muscle training programmes can positively influence the return to continence in men after radical prostatectomy. Traditional approaches to improving urinary continence after radical prostatectomy have typically focused on interventions delivered during the postoperative period (rehabilitation). However, the limited efficacy of these postoperative approaches has led to a shift from the traditional reactive model of care to more comprehensive interventions incorporating exercise-based programmes that begin in the preoperative period (prehabilitation) and continue after surgery. Comprehensive prehabilitation interventions include appropriately prescribed aerobic exercise, resistance training and specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and exercise training programmes. Transperineal ultrasonography is a non-invasive and validated method for the visualization of the action of the pelvic floor musculature, providing real-time visual biofeedback to the patient during specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and training. Importantly, the waiting time before surgery can be used for the delivery of comprehensive prehabilitation exercise-based interventions to increase patient preparedness in the lead-up to surgery and optimize continence and health-related quality-of-life outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Is time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy associated with oncological outcomes?

PURPOSE

To study the association between time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy (RP-interval) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), histological findings in the RP-specimen and failure after RP (RP-failure).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) in 2001-2010 and prostatectomized within 180 days of biopsy were identified in the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients were stratified according to risk groups and RP-intervals of 0-60, 61-90, 91-120 and 121-180 days. Aalen-Johansen and Kaplan-Meier methods estimated curves for PCSM, RP-failure and overall mortality. Multivariable Cox regressions and Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the impact of RP-interval on outcomes.

RESULTS

In 5163 eligible patients, the median time from diagnosis to RP was 93 days (range 1-180). Risk group distribution was similar in all RP-interval groups. With almost eight years of observation, no association was found between RP-interval and PCSM in the intermediate-or high-risk groups. Increasing RP-interval did not increase the rate of adverse histological outcomes or incidence of RP-failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing RP-interval up to 180 days was not associated with adverse oncological outcomes at eight years follow-up. These findings should be considered when planning for prostatectomy.