The European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence: A Novel Proposal from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting

Analysis of survival and prognostic factors of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a case-control study for a rare cancer entity

Clear cell adenocarcinoma of the prostate (CCPC) is a rare entity compared to acinar carcinoma of the prostate (APC). The survival rate and prognostic factors of CCPC are still unclear and deserve further study. We downloaded data on prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 1975-2019. After inclusion and exclusion criteria, we compared APC and analyzed cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) in CCPC patients and prognostic risk factors using a propensity score matching (PSM) study and multivariate Cox regression. We included 408,004 cases of APC as a control group and 130 cases of CCPC as a case group. Compared with APC patients, the incidence of CCPC was extremely low, and the median age of diagnosis was older (72.00 years vs. 69.00 years, p < 0.01). In addition, more rates were diagnosed at an earlier stage (1975-1998, 93.1% vs. 50.2%, p < 0.001), more unstaged or unknown stage ratios (87.7% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.001), and more surgical treatments (66.2% vs. 47.6%, p < 0.001), but the prognosis of CCPC patients was worse. After PSM, the median survival time of CCPC patients was shorter (57.50 month vs. 88.00 month, p < 0.01), the rate of CSM was higher (41.5% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.05), and the rate of OM was higher (99.2% vs. 90.8%, p < 0.01). In the adjusted model 2 after PSM, the CSM risk of CCPC patients reached HR 1.76 (95%CI 1.13-2.72), which was 76% higher than that of APC patients (p < 0.05). It was further found that surgical treatment might benefit CSM in CCPC patients (HR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18-0.82, p < 0.05) in Univariate analysis, but it was insignificant in further multivariate analysis. This is the first large-scale case-control report on the survival risk and prognostic factors of CCPC patients. We found that the prognosis of CCPC patients was significantly worse than that of APC. Surgery might be an effective treatment that may improve its prognosis. Clear cell adenocarcinoma, prostate, acinar carcinoma, survival rate, rare cancer, propensity score matching, case-control study.

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Surgeon and Hospital Caseload Volume on Oncological and Nononcological Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

The impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review on the association between surgeon or hospital volume and oncological and nononcological outcomes following RP for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative studies for nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP published between January 1990 and May 2020 were included. For inclusion, studies had to compare hospital or surgeon volume, defined as caseload per unit time. Main outcomes included oncological (including prostate-specific antigen persistence, positive surgical margin [PSM], biochemical recurrence, local and distant recurrence, and cancer-specific and overall survival) and nononcological (perioperative complications including need for blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure and within 90-d death, and continence and erectile function) outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Both a narrative and a quantitative synthesis were planned if the data allowed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Sixty retrospective comparative studies were included. Generally, increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with lower rates of mortality, PSM, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. Combining group size cut-offs as used in the included studies, the median threshold for hospital volume at which outcomes start to diverge is 86 (interquartile range [IQR] 35-100) cases per year. In addition, above this threshold, the higher the caseload, the better the outcomes, especially for PSM. RoB and confounding were high for most domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher surgeon and hospital volumes for RP are associated with lower rates of PSMs, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. This association becomes apparent from a caseload of >86 (IQR 35-100) per year and may further improve hereafter. Both high- and low-volume centres should measure their outcomes, make them publicly available, and improve their quality of care if needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the literature to determine whether the number of prostate cancer operations (radical prostatectomy) performed in a hospital affects the outcomes of surgery. We found that, overall, hospitals with a higher number of operations per year have better outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and complications during or after hospitalisation. However, it must be noted that surgeons working in hospitals with lower annual operations can still achieve similar or even better outcomes. Therefore, making hospital's outcome data publicly available should be promoted internationally, so that patients can make an informed decision where they want to be treated.

Diagnosis of prostate cancer in one day: The benefits of cytology in tumour detection

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a frequent and mortal disease. The aim of this study was to introduce a "diagnosis and handling of PCa in one day" concept, accelerating the handling of PCa patients by giving diagnostic results within 3 hours with the help of prostate cytology. Standard histology served as the control.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After multiparametric MRI, prostate biopsies were taken and one was used for imprint cytology on superfrost slides. The cytology samples were stained by p63/p504s double staining, a standard stain in PCa histology, followed by on-site interpretation.

RESULTS

Among 129 patients, 39.5% had a prior history of PCa and were either under active surveillance or had been treated by focal therapy. The others came with suspicion of PCa. In 80.8% of the cases, the cytology and histology results agreed. In low-grade PCa the detection with cytology was more difficult with 72.4% agreement, whereas for intermediate and high-grade PCa the concordance with histology was 81.8 and 90%, respectively. False positive cases were less than 4.0%.

CONCLUSION

Cytology of the prostate is unusual, but our study is the first to show it is feasible and gives immediate results that are satisfactory, especially in more aggressive cases. Immunocytology can be easily integrated into the laboratory. Our technique allows quicker handling of PCa, which can soften the psychological impact on men waiting for the diagnosis of PCa.

PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review

The steadily increasing demand for diagnostic prostate MRI has led to concerns regarding the lack of access to and the availability of qualified MRI scanners and sufficiently experienced radiologists, radiographers, and technologists to meet the demand. Solutions must enhance operational benefits without compromising diagnostic performance, quality, and delivery of service. Solutions should also mitigate risks such as decreased reader confidence and referrer engagement. One approach may be the implementation of MRI without the use gadolinium-based contrast medium (bipara-metric MRI), but only if certain prerequisites such as high-quality imaging, expert interpretation quality, and availability of patient recall or on-table monitoring are mandated. Alternatively, or in combination, a clinical risk-based approach could be used for protocol selection, specifically, which biopsy-naive men need MRI with contrast medium (multiparametric MRI). There is a need for prospective studies in which biopsy decisions are made according to MRI without contrast enhancement. Such studies must define clinical and operational benefits and identify which patient groups can be scanned successfully without contrast enhancement. These higher-quality data are needed before the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Committee can make evidence-based recommendations about MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic approach for prostate cancer workup.

Is there a clinical benefit from prostate cancer center certification? An evaluation of functional and oncologic outcomes from 22,649 radical prostatectomy patients

PURPOSE

To explore whether patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at a German Cancer Society (DKG: Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft) certified center (CC) have superior functional and surgical outcomes compared to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at a non-certified hospital (nCC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 22,649 patients treated between 2008 and 2017 and subsequently recovered at two rehabilitation clinics within 35 days of surgery were analyzed. Urine loss (24 h-pad-test), margin status, and nerve-sparing status at rehab admission were compared between CC and nCC patients, adjusting for age, histopathology (pT, pN, Gleason score), metastases (cM), Karnofsky performance status, time from surgery to rehabilitation, and insurance provider (statutory vs. private).

RESULTS

Thirty-four percent of patients underwent surgery at a CC. Complete continence is more pronounced in patients treated in CC (16.6% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). In the adjusted models, incontinent patients from CC had less urine loss compared to patients from nCC (- 27.41% difference; 95% CI - 31.71% to - 22.84%, p < 0.001). CC patients were less likely to have positive resection margins (adjusted OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.76, p < 0.001) and more likely to have had a nerve-sparing procedure (adjusted OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated at certified centers presented to rehab with better urinary continence, higher nerve-sparing rates, and lower positive-margin rates. These results imply superior care at DKG certified centers.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of essential care throughout the patient journey.

PROSTATE CANCER

Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer and has a wide variation in outcomes in Europe. It has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges, and is a major healthcare burden. Care must only be a carried out in prostate/urology cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

How to implement the requirements of a quality assurance system for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

In 2003, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) launched a certification program aimed at improving the quality of cancer care. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of the Prostate Cancer Unit (PCU) at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, in the process towards DKG certification.

METHODS

In 2018, PCU decided to apply for certification by adopting DKG catalogue of requirements (CoR) and quality indicators. A multiprofessional working group was established with the aim of acting the necessary steps to meet DKG standards.

RESULTS

Our organizational setting (procedures, personnel) and activities were accurately analyzed, thus outlining strengths and weaknesses, and modified to comply with DKG CoR and indicators. As examples, (1) a quality management plan was developed; (2) measures were taken to strengthen the surgical expertise; (3) cases evaluated in weekly tumor boards were expanded to include surgical cases with pathological risk factors, metastatic, relapsed and castration-resistant patients; (4) a survey was added to the patient-dedicated initiatives already scheduled; (5) the TuDoc software became the tool to register all new cases of prostate cancer patients referred to PCU.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of certification requires many efforts but represents a unique opportunity of improving quality of care of prostate cancer patients, making it comparable on an international scale.

[Interdisciplinary education in urology: innovations for better training]

The current version of the urology training program will concentrate on the mediation of competences and skills in various fields of action for outpatient urology instead of persisting on the minimum and reference numbers of surgical and diagnostic procedures. However, the following fields of action must be fulfilled: microbiology, andrology and systemic cancer therapy. There is justifiable concern that various institutions will lose their permission for a complete 5‑year residency program based on the above-mentioned demands since not all institutions have all subspecialties in urology. Those institutions need to define new ways of residency training such as interdisciplinary programs within their own institution between disciplines like pediatric surgery, gynecology and medical oncology. Other options are combined training programs between regional urology departments with different main focuses or training programs between institutions and urologists in private practice. There is an unmet need to improve residency training as well as board examinations by new structures and a reliable curriculum. Based on the changed main focuses of the new version of urology training, we need to discuss the future of residency programs. It might be helpful to discuss two different types of urology training with a common trunk for the first three years followed by a more outpatient-based residency training for the general urologist and a more specialized training for the inpatient urologist to be educated in complex treatment modalities. An open mind to broadening our own horizon, respectful discussion with other departments and the development of common, reliable and interdisciplinary contents represent indispensable prerequisites to realize such an innovative future training program.

A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in prostate cancer patients

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common diagnosed malignancy among the male population in the United States. The incidence is increasing with an estimated amount of 175.000 cases in 2019. Areas covered: Primarily, PCa is generally detected by an elevated or rising serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) followed by pathological examination. Histopathology ultimately confirms the presence of PCa and determines a Gleason score. However, PSA and DRE have low specificity and sensitivity, respectively. Subsequently, accurate assessment of the aggressiveness of PCa is essential to prevent overdiagnosis and thus overtreatment of low-risk or indolent cancers. By visualizing PCa suspicious lesions and sampling them during the targeted biopsy, it is likely that the diagnostic accuracy of significant PCa improves. This article reviews the current imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in patients with a suspicion of PCa. The advantages and limitations of each technique are described. Expert opinion: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and subsequent-targeted biopsy have improved the diagnostic accuracy of PCa detection in men with an elevated or rising serum PSA. Prostate lesions visible on mpMRI are easily targeted during either in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy or MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy.