Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy Prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Recent Trends in Utilization and Association with Postoperative Surgical Margin Status

Androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone or docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy for very-high-risk prostate cancer: a pooled analysis of two phase II trials

Objective: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone or docetaxel versus ADT alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with very-high-risk localized prostate cancer. Methods: This was a pooled analysis of two single-center, randomized, controlled, phase II clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04356430 and NCT04869371) conducted from December 2018 to March 2021. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (ADT plus abiraterone or docetaxel) and control (ADT alone) groups at a 2:1 ratio. Efficacy was evaluated by pathological complete response (pCR), minimal residual disease (MRD), and 3-year biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Safety was also analyzed. Results: The study included 42 participants in the ADT group, 47 in the ADT plus docetaxel group, and 48 in the ADT plus abiraterone group. A total of 132 (96.4%) participants had very-high-risk prostate cancer, and 108 (78.8%) had locally advanced disease. The ADT plus docetaxel group (28%) and ADT plus abiraterone group (31%) had higher rates of pCR or MRD (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) compared with the ADT group (2%). The 3-year bPFS was 41.9% (95% CI: 26.6-57.2), 51.1% (95% CI: 36.8-65.4), and 61.2% (95% CI: 45.5-76.9), respectively. Significant difference was found among groups in terms of bPFS (p = 0.037). Conclusion: Compared with ADT alone, neoadjuvant therapy with ADT plus docetaxel or abiraterone could achieve better pathological outcomes (pCR or MRD) for very-high-risk localized prostate cancer. The ADT plus abiraterone group showed longer bPFS than ADT alone. The combination regimens were tolerable.

Prostate cancer in transgender women: considerations for screening, diagnosis and management

Transgender individuals represent 0.55% of the US population, equivalent to 1.4 million transgender adults. In transgender women, feminisation can include a number of medical and surgical interventions. The main goal is to deprive the phenotypically masculine body of androgens and simultaneously provide oestrogen therapy for feminisation. In gender-confirming surgery (GCS) for transgender females, the prostate is usually not removed. Due to limitations of existing cohort studies, the true incidence of prostate cancer in transgender females is unknown but is thought to be less than the incidence among cis-gender males. It is unclear how prostate cancer develops in androgen-deprived conditions in these patients. Six out of eleven case reports in the literature presented with metastatic disease. It is thought that androgen receptor-mediated mechanisms or tumour-promoting effects of oestrogen may be responsible. Due to the low incidence of prostate cancer identified in transgender women, there is little evidence to drive specific screening recommendations in this patient subpopulation. The treatment of early and locally advanced prostate cancer in these patients warrants an individualised thoughtful approach with input from patients' reconstructive surgeons. Both surgical and radiation treatment for prostate cancer in these patients can profoundly impact the patient's quality of life. In this review, we discuss the evidence surrounding screening and treatment of prostate cancer in transgender women and consider the current gaps in our knowledge in providing evidence-based guidance at the molecular, genomic and epidemiological level, for clinical decision-making in the management of these patients.

Impacts of Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy Prior to Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Postoperative Hormonal- and Sexual-Related Quality of Life – Assessment by Patient-Reported Questionnaire

Purpose

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended by current guidelines in terms of oncological outcomes. Despite this, neoadjuvant HT is sometimes conducted before RP for a small proportion of patients in clinical practice. This study evaluated the impacts of neoadjuvant HT on hormonal- and sexual-related quality of life (QOL) among patients who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP).

Materials and Methods

Participants comprised 470 patients divided into a non-neoadjuvant HT group (n = 408) and a neoadjuvant HT group (n = 62). Hormonal- and sexual-related QOL were measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire.

Results

Hormonal summary scores at 6 and 9 months, function scores before and 3, 6, and 9 months and bother score at 6 months after RARP were significantly lower in the neoadjuvant HT group than in the non-neoadjuvant HT group. Sexual function scores were decreased in the neoadjuvant HT group compared to the non-neoadjuvant HT group before and 6 months after RARP. In the neoadjuvant HT group, sexual function at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT. Conversely, sexual bother at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT.

Conclusion

Vintage neoadjuvant HT prior to RARP should not be recommended due to not only oncological outcomes, but also the impacts on postoperative hormonal- and sexual-related QOL.

Practice Patterns of Korean Urologists Regarding Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy: a Survey and Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus on the optimal treatment with curative intent for patients with positive surgical margins (PSMs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists regarding the resection margin after RP.

METHODS

A preliminary questionnaire was prepared by analyzing various studies on resection margins after RP. Eight experienced urologists finalized the 10-item questionnaire. In July 2019, the final questionnaire was delivered via e-mail to 105 urologists in Korea who specialize in urinary cancers.

RESULTS

We received replies from 91 of the 105 urologists (86.7%) in our sample population. Among them, 41 respondents (45.1%) had performed more than 300 RPs and 22 (24.2%) had completed 500 or more RPs. In the question about whether they usually performed an additional biopsy beyond the main specimen, to get information about surgical margin invasion during surgery, the main opinion was that if no residual cancer was suspected, it was not performed (74.7%). For PSMs, the Gleason score of the positive site (49.5%) was judged to be a more important prognostic factor than the margin location (18.7%), multifocality (14.3%), or margin length (17.6%). In cases with PSMs after surgery, the prevailing opinion on follow-up was to measure and monitor prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels rather than to begin immediate treatment (68.1%). Many respondents said that they considered postoperative radiologic examinations when PSA was elevated (72.2%), rather than regularly (24.4%). When patients had PSMs without extracapsular extension (pT2R1) or a negative surgical margin with extracapsular extension (pT3aR0), the response 'does not make a difference in treatment policy' prevailed at 65.9%. Even in patients at high risk of PSMs on preoperative radiologic screening, 84.6% of the respondents said that they did not perform neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Most respondents (75.8%) indicated that they avoided nerve-sparing RP in cases with a high risk of PSMs, but 25.7% said that they had tried nerve-sparing surgery. Additional analyses showed that urologists who had performed 300 or more prostatectomies tended to attempt more nerve-sparing procedures in patients with a high risk of PSMs than less experienced surgeons (36.6% vs. 14.0%; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The most common response was to monitor PSA levels without recommending any additional treatment when PSMs were found after RP. Through this questionnaire, we found that the perceptions and treatment patterns of Korean urologists differed considerably according to RP resection margin status. Refined research and standard practice guidelines are needed.

Dual-Tracer Positron-Emission Tomography Using Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen and Fluorodeoxyglucose for Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

PSMA PET is more accurate than conventional imaging (CT/bone scan) for staging of intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but 5–10% of primary tumours have low PSMA ligand uptake. FDG PET has been used to further define disease extent in end-stage castrate-resistant PCa and may be beneficial earlier in the disease course for more accurate staging. The objective of this study was to review the available evidence for patients undergoing both FDG and PSMA PET for PCa staging at initial diagnosis and in recurrent disease. A systematic literature review was performed for studies with direct, intraindividual comparison of PSMA and FDG PET for staging of PCa. Assessment for radioligand therapy eligibility was not considered. Risk of bias was assessed. 543 citations were screened and assessed. 13 case reports, three retrospective studies, and one prospective study were included. FDG after PSMA PET improved the detection of metastases from 65% to 73% in high-risk early castration-resistant PCa with negative conventional imaging (M0). Positive FDG PET was found in 17% of men with negative PSMA PET for postprostatectomy biochemical recurrence. Gleason score ≥8 and higher PSA levels predicted FDG-avid metastases in BCR and primary staging. Variant histology (ductal and neuroendocrine) was common in case reports, resulting in PSMA-negative FDG-positive imaging for 3 patients. Dual-tracer PET for PCa may assist in characterising high-risk disease during primary staging and restaging. Further studies are required to determine the additive benefit of FDG PET and if the FDG-positive phenotype may indicate a poorer prognosis.

Feasibility and outcome of radical prostatectomy following inductive neoadjuvant therapy in patients with suspicion of rectal infiltration

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and outcome of radical prostatectomy (RP) following neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with initial inoperable, rectum-infiltrating cT4 prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

From 01/2018 to 12/2020, 26 patients with clinical (DRE) or radiographical (mpMRI) suspicion of rectum infiltrating PCa at diagnosis and NAT prior to RP were retrospectively identified from our prospective institutional database. Two patients were still inoperable after NAT. Downsizing was administered for at least 20 weeks and RP was performed after excluding ongoing rectal infiltration.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, median PSA was 42.5 ng/ml (IQR: 23.0-66.1). Inductive NAT consisted of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with chemotherapy (n = 9) or without chemotherapy (n = 14). Median preoperative PSA was 0.93 ng/ml (IQR: 0.24-0.40). Median time from NAT to RP was 6 months (IQR: 5-7). Two patients were still inoperable after NAT. Of 24 patients undergoing RP, abortion of surgery due to inoperability was observed in 2 patients (8.4%), demonstrating a total failure rate of NAT in 4 out of 26 patients (15.4%). One patient suffered a rectal injury with consecutive colostomy (4.2%). No Clavien-Dindo complication Grade IV or V were observed. Urinary continence was achieved in 16 patients (84.2%). Sufficient erection for sexual intercourse was present in 2 patients (10.5%). All patients received adjuvant ADT with or without radiation therapy. Median PSA at 13 months was 0.08 ng/ml (IQR: 0.01-0.74).

CONCLUSION

RP of initially rectum infiltrating PCa is feasible and safe after inductive NAT, however complications rates tend to be higher compared to standard RP.

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.

Deep Learning with Quantitative Features of Magnetic Resonance Images to Predict Biochemical Recurrence of Radical Prostatectomy: A Multi-Center Study

Simple Summary

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy is vitally important for long-term oncological control and subsequent treatment of these patients. We applied radiomic technique to extract features from MR images of prostate cancer patients, and used deep learning algorithm to establish a predictive model for biochemical recurrence with high accuracy. The model was validated in 2 indepented cohorts with superior predictive value than traditional stratification systems. With the aid of this model, we are able to distinghuish patients with higher risk of developing biochemical recurrence at early stage, thus providing a window to initiate neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies for prostate cancer patients.

Abstract

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in up to 27% of patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) and often compromises oncologic survival. To determine whether imaging signatures on clinical prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could noninvasively characterize biochemical recurrence and optimize treatment. We retrospectively enrolled 485 patients underwent RP from 2010 to 2017 in three institutions. Quantitative and interpretable features were extracted from T2 delineated tumors. Deep learning-based survival analysis was then applied to develop the deep-radiomic signature (DRS-BCR). The model’s performance was further evaluated, in comparison with conventional clinical models. The model achieved C-index of 0.802 in both primary and validating cohorts, outweighed the CAPRA-S score (0.677), NCCN model (0.586) and Gleason grade group systems (0.583). With application analysis, DRS-BCR model can significantly reduce false-positive predictions, so that nearly one-third of patients could benefit from the model by avoiding overtreatments. The deep learning-based survival analysis assisted quantitative image features from MRI performed well in prediction for BCR and has significant potential in optimizing systemic neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies for prostate cancer patients.

A cohort analysis of patients receiving neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy during the Covid-19 pandemic

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to investigate localised prostate cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, and the impact of Covid-19 treatment disruption, on clinico-pathologic outcomes.

Patients and methods:

Data was retrospectively collected from 124 consecutive patients treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy between November 2019–September 2020. Sixty-two patients were treated before 13 March 2020 (historic cohort) and 62 afterwards (covid cohort). Thirty-seven patients in the covid cohort additionally received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (mean duration of 3 months) consisting of bicalutamide 150 mg once a day for 4 weeks, with leuprolide 3.75 mg monthly injections commencing after week 1, up until the date of surgery.

Results:

Statistical analysis found no difference in peri-operative measures and length of stay for patients treated with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Patients with delayed surgical treatment offered neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy showed a trend towards a reduction in positive surgical margins ( p=0.134), N1 disease ( p=0.424) and pathological down-staging (50% patients with pT2 disease). Patients within the covid cohort experienced significantly increased detectable prostate-specific antigen levels ( p<0.007).

Conclusion:

Our study demonstrated that a three-month duration of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy may improve pathological outcomes but this time-frame is inadequate to influence detectable prostate-specific antigen levels. Covid-19-related treatment delays led to significantly increased detectable prostate-specific antigen levels.

Level of evidence:

2b

Negative impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on detecting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Background

Routine use of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended, but it is sometimes performed to reduce the prostate size and tumor volume or to prevent tumor progression during the wait times for surgery in clinical practice. On the other hand, the impact of NHT on the pattern of biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unknown.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 1749 consecutive patients who underwent RP between 1996 and 2017. Among the patients who met the inclusion criteria, BCR developed in 240 of non-NHT patients and in 120 of NHT patients during the mean follow-up period of 6.9 years. We examined the impact of NHT on the PSA-doubling time (DT) following BCR at different times after RP.

Results

The median PSA-DTs in non-NHT patients who experienced BCR in the first year after surgery, between 1 and 2 years, between 2 and 3 years, between 3 and 4 years, between 4 and 5 years, and at > 5 years were 5.5, 8.8, 11.3, 17.7, 18.2, and 18.4 months, respectively. On the other hand, those in NHT patients were 1.4, 4.1, 9.1, 13.4, 27.2, and 19.3 months, respectively. The differences of PSA-DTs in the first year after surgery (p < 0.001) and between 1 and 2 years (p = 0.005) were significant between non-NHT and NHT patients.

Conclusion

Patients who received NHT had a higher risk of a rapid PSA increase when they experienced BCR, especially within 2 years after RP. In order to not miss the optimal timing of salvage treatment for BCR, intensive PSA follow-up is necessary.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10147-021-01942-8.

Sequential Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Newly Diagnosed High-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Enzalutamide is Predictive of Therapeutic Response

PURPOSE

For high-risk prostate cancer, standard treatment options include radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Despite definitive therapy, many patients will have disease recurrence. Imaging has the potential to better define characteristics of response and resistance. In this study, we evaluated prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) before and after neoadjuvant enzalutamide plus ADT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men with localized intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer underwent a baseline mpMRI and mpMRI-targeted biopsy followed by a second mpMRI after 6 months of enzalutamide and ADT prior to RP. Specimens were sectioned in the same plane as mpMRI using patient-specific 3D-printed molds to permit mpMRI-targeted biopsies to be compared with the same lesion from the RP. Specimens were analyzed for imaging and histologic correlates of response.

RESULTS

Of 39 patients enrolled, 36 completed imaging and RP. Most patients (92%) had high-risk disease. Fifty-eight lesions were detected on baseline mpMRI, of which 40 (69%) remained measurable at 6-month follow-up imaging. Fifty-five of 59 lesions (93%) demonstrated >50% volume reduction on posttreatment mpMRI. Three of 59 lesions (5%) demonstrated growth in size at follow-up imaging, with two lesions increasing more than 3-fold in volume. On whole-mount pathology, 15 patients demonstrated minimal residual disease (MRD) of <0.05 cc or pathologic complete response. Low initial mpMRI relative tumor burden was most predictive of MRD on final pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Low relative lesion volume at baseline mpMRI was predictive of pathologic response. A subset of patients had limited response. Selection of patients based on these metrics may improve outcomes in high-risk disease.

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy for patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) administered to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing NHT plus RP or RT with RP or RT alone, administered to patients with HRPCa. We used a random-effects model to compute risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quantified heterogeneity using the I "2" statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. We selected 16 studies. NHT before RP significantly decreased lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.87) and increased the rates of pathological downstaging (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.22-5.61) and organ-confinement (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.25), but did not improve overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). The administration of NHT before RT to patients with HRPCa was associated with significant benefits for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), disease-free survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.60), and bPFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.46-0.64). Short-term NHT combined with RT administered to patients with HRPCa conferred significant improvements. Although the advantage of local control was observed when NHT was administered before RP, there was no significant survival benefit associated with HRPCa. Therefore, short-term NHT combined with RT is recommended for implementation in standard clinical practice but not for patients who undergo RP.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Local Salvage Therapies After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer (MASTER)

CONTEXT

Management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with any local salvage modality.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitatively compare the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Two- and 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and crude incidences of severe GU and GI toxicity were extracted as endpoints of interest. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to characterize summary effect sizes and quantify heterogeneity. Estimates for each modality were then compared with RP after adjusting for individual study-level covariates using mixed-effect regression models, while allowing for differences in between-study variance across treatment modalities.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 150 studies were included for analysis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies within each modality, and covariates differed between modalities, necessitating adjustment. Adjusted 5-yr RFS ranged from 50% after cryotherapy to 60% after HDR brachytherapy and SBRT, with no significant differences between any modality and RP. Severe GU toxicity was significantly lower with all three forms of radiotherapeutic salvage than with RP (adjusted rates of 20% after RP vs 5.6%, 9.6%, and 9.1% after SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for all). Severe GI toxicity was significantly lower with HDR salvage than with RP (adjusted rates 1.8% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01), with no other differences identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Large differences in 5-yr outcomes were not uncovered when comparing all salvage treatment modalities against RP. Reirradiation with SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, or LDR brachytherapy appears to result in less severe GU toxicity than RP, and reirradiation with HDR brachytherapy yields less severe GI toxicity than RP. Prospective studies of local salvage for radiorecurrent disease are warranted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a large study-level meta-analysis, we looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with a number of salvage treatments for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. We conclude that relapse-free survival at 5 years is equivalent among salvage modalities, but reirradiation may lead to lower toxicity.

Management of urologic cancers during the pandemic and potential impact of treatment deferrals on outcomes

The COVID-19 pandemic-related constraints on healthcare access have raised concerns about adverse outcomes from delayed treatment, including the risk of cancer progression and other complications. Further, concerns were raised about a potentially significant backlog of patients in need of cancer care due to the pandemic-related delays in healthcare, further exacerbating any potential adverse outcomes. Delayed access to surgery is particularly relevant to urologic oncology since one-third of new cancers in men (20% overall) arise from the genitourinary (GU) tract and surgery is often the primary treatment. Herein, we summarize the prepandemic literature on deferred surgery for GU cancers and risk of disease progression. The aforementioned data on delayed surgery were gathered in the context of systemic delays present in certain healthcare systems, or occasionally, due to planned deferral in suboptimal surgical candidates. These data provide indirect, but sufficient insight to develop triage schemas for prioritization of uro-oncological cases. Herein, we outline the extent to which the pandemic-related triage guidelines had influenced urologic practice in various regions. To study the adverse outcomes in the pandemic-era, a survey of urologic oncologists was conducted regarding modifications in their initial management of urologic cancers and any delay-related adverse outcomes. While the adverse effects directly from COVID-19 related delays will become apparent in the coming years, the results showing short-term outcomes are quite instructive. Since cancer care was assigned a higher priority at most centers, this strategy may have avoided significant delays in care and limited the anticipated negative impact of pandemic-related constraints.

Genitourinary cancer management during a severe pandemic: Utility of rapid communication tools and evidence-based guidelines

Objectives: To determine the usefulness of social media for rapid communication with experts to discuss strategies for prioritization and safety of deferred treatment for urologic malignancies during COVID‐19 pandemic, and to determine whether the discourse and recommendations made through discussions on social media (Twitter) were consistent with the current peer‐reviewed literature regarding the safety of delayed treatment. Methods: We reviewed and compiled the responses to our questions on Twitter regarding the management and safety of deferred treatment in the setting of COVID‐19 related constraints on non‐urgent care. We chronicled the guidance published on this subject by various health authorities and professional organizations. Further, we analyzed peerreviewed literature on the safety of deferred treatment (surgery or systemic therapy) to make made evidence‐based recommendations. Results: Due to the rapidly changing information about epidemiology and infectious characteristics of COVID‐19, the health authorities and professional societies guidance required frequent revisions which by design take days or weeks to produce. Several active discussions on Twitter provided real‐time updates on the changing landscape of the restrictions being placed on non‐urgent care. For separate discussion threads on prostate cancer and bladder cancer, dozens of specialists with expertise in treating urologic cancers could be engaged in providing their expert opinions as well as share evidence to support their recommendations. Our analysis of published studies addressing the safety and extent to which delayed cancer care does not compromise oncological outcome revealed that most prostate cancer care and certain aspects of the bladder and kidney cancer care can be safely deferred for 2‐6 months. Urothelial bladder cancer and advanced kidney cancer require a higher priority for timely surgical care. We did not find evidence to support the idea of using nonsurgical therapies, such as hormone therapy for prostate cancer or chemotherapy for bladder cancer for safer deferment of previously planned surgery. We noted that the comments and recommendations made by the participants in the Twitter discussions were generally consistent with our evidence‐based recommendations for safely postponing cancer care for certain types of urologic cancers. Conclusion: The use of social media platforms, such as Twitter, where the comments and recommendations are subject to review and critique by other specialists is not only feasible but quite useful in addressing the situations requiring urgent resolution, often supported by published evidence. In circumstances such as natural disasters, this may be a preferable approach than the traditional expert panels due to its ability to harness the collective intellect to available experts to provide responses and solutions in real‐time. These real‐time communications via Twitter provided sound guidance which was readily available to the public and participants, and was generally in concordance with the peerreviewed data on safety of deferred treatment.

Neoadjuvant Leuprolide Therapy with Radical Prostatectomy: Long-term Effects on Health-related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant androgen ablation (neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy [NADT]) is used prior to radical prostatectomy, contrary to guidelines, but its long-term effects on quality of life is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of NADT on patient's long-term recovery following surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From March 2011 to August 2013, 5808 men with newly diagnosed prostate were followed up to 24 mo. A cohort of men who received NADT prior to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP; n=51) was compared 1:3 with a matched group that underwent RALP only (n=153).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Patients were matched on Charlson comorbidities, biopsy Gleason score, and node status on final pathology. The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to compare the groups on their bowel, urinary, sexual, and hormonal domains of the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo postoperatively.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, and bowel domains were similar in the two groups during the 24 mo (p=0.832, 0.901, and 0.732, respectively). In the hormonal domain, the NADT group did worse (p<0.001). The sexual domain was also worse for the NADT group. However, when accounting for nerve sparing, there was no significant difference in sexual outcomes between the two groups (p=0.069).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received NADT prior to RALP do not have worse sexual function, but have worse hormonal scores for up to 2yr after surgery.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (NADT) is administered prior to robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), contrary to clinical guidelines. NADT may not have worse sexual function outcomes up to 2yr after RALP.