1
|
Light A, Mayor N, Cullen E, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Arya M, Bomers JGR, Dudderidge T, Ehdaie B, Freeman A, Guillaumier S, Hindley R, Lakhani A, Pendse D, Punwani S, Rastinehad AR, Rouvière O, Sanchez-Salas R, Schoots IG, Sokhi HK, Tam H, Tempany CM, Valerio M, Verma S, Villeirs G, van der Meulen J, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations. Eur Urol 2024; 85:466-482. [PMID: 38519280 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/24/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. METHODS A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. PATIENT SUMMARY Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Nikhil Mayor
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Cullen
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Kirkham
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Joyce G R Bomers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Pathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Richard Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Amish Lakhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Douglas Pendse
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Olivier Rouvière
- Department of Vascular and Urinary Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | | | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Heminder K Sokhi
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Radiology, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Massimo Valerio
- Department of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Sadhna Verma
- Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Geert Villeirs
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wilcox Vanden Berg RN, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Cha EK, Coleman JA, Donahue TF, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B, Laudone VP, Pietzak EJ, Smith RC, Goh AC. Implementation and Validation of an Automated, Longitudinal Robotic Surgical Evaluation and Feedback Program at a High-volume Center and Impact on Training. EUR UROL SUPPL 2024; 62:81-90. [PMID: 38468865 PMCID: PMC10926308 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Surgical education lacks a standardized, proficiency-based approach to evaluation and feedback. Objective To assess the implementation and reception (ie, feasibility) of an automated, standardized, longitudinal surgical skill assessment and feedback system, and identify baseline trainee (resident and fellow) characteristics associated with achieving proficiency in robotic surgery while learning robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Design setting and participants A quality improvement study assessing a pilot of a surgical experience tracking program was conducted over 1 yr. Participants were six fellows, eight residents, and nine attending surgeons at a tertiary cancer center. Intervention Trainees underwent baseline self-assessment. After each surgery, an evaluation was completed independently by the trainee and attending surgeons. Performance was rated on a five-point anchored Likert scale (trainees were considered "proficient" when attending surgeons' rating was ≥4). Technical skills were assessed using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and Prostatectomy Assessment and Competency Evaluation (PACE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Program success and utility were assessed by evaluating completion rates, evaluation completion times, and concordance rates between attending and trainee surgeons, and exit surveys. Baseline characteristics were assessed to determine associations with achieving proficiency. Results and limitations Completion rates for trainees and attending surgeons were 72% and 77%, respectively. Fellows performed more steps/cases than residents (median [interquartile range]: 5 [3-7] and 3 [2-4], respectively; p < 0.01). Prior completion of robotics or laparoscopic skill courses and surgical experience measures were associated with achieving proficiency in multiple surgical steps and GEARS domains. Interclass correlation coefficients on individual components were 0.27-0.47 on GEARS domains. Conclusions An automated surgical experience tracker with structured, longitudinal evaluation and feedback can be implemented with good participation and minimal participant time commitment, and can guide curricular development in a proficiency-based education program by identifying modifiable factors associated with proficiency, individualizing education, and identifying improvement areas within the education program. Patient summary An automated, standardized, longitudinal surgical skill assessment and feedback system can be implemented successfully in surgical education settings and used to inform education plans and predict trainee proficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emily A. Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel D. Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eugene K. Cha
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jonathan A. Coleman
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Timothy F. Donahue
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A. Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vincent P. Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eugene J. Pietzak
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert C. Smith
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alvin C. Goh
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carlsson SV, Preston MA, Vickers A, Malhotra D, Ehdaie B, Healey MJ, Kibel AS. A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15:274-281. [PMID: 38599618 PMCID: PMC11006556 DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1780511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid V. Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Division of Urological Cancers, Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Mark A. Preston
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Deepak Malhotra
- Negotiation, Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Michael J. Healey
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Carlsson SV, Preston M, Vickers A, Malhotra D, Ehdaie B, Healey M, Kibel AS. Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15:282-294. [PMID: 38599619 PMCID: PMC11006557 DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid V. Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Division of Urological Cancers, Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Mark Preston
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Deepak Malhotra
- Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Michael Healey
- Brigham and Women's Hospital Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Cohen AJ, Ristau BT, Green DA, Han M, Rezaee ME, Pavlovich CP, Montgomery JS, Kowalczyk KJ, Ross AE, Kundu SD, Patel HD, Wang GJ, Graham JN, Shoag JE, Ghazi A, Singla N, Gorin MA, Schaeffer AJ, Schaeffer EM. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial. Eur Urol 2024:S0302-2838(23)03342-0. [PMID: 38212178 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 12/10/2023] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The transrectal biopsy approach is traditionally used to detect prostate cancer. An alternative transperineal approach is historically performed under general anesthesia, but recent advances enable transperineal biopsy to be performed under local anesthesia. We sought to compare infectious complications of transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis. METHODS We assigned biopsy-naïve participants to undergo transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis (rectal culture screening for fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria and antibiotic targeting to culture and sensitivity results) through a multicenter, randomized trial. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection captured by a prospective medical review and patient report on a 7-d survey. The secondary outcomes included cancer detection, noninfectious complications, and a numerical rating scale (0-10) for biopsy-related pain and discomfort during and 7-d after biopsy. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 658 participants were randomized, with zero transperineal versus four (1.4%) transrectal biopsy infections (difference -1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.2%, 0.3%; p = 0.059). The rates of other complications were very low and similar. Importantly, detection of clinically significant cancer was similar (53% transperineal vs 50% transrectal, adjusted difference 2.0%; 95% CI -6.0, 10). Participants in the transperineal arm experienced worse periprocedural pain (0.6 adjusted difference [0-10 scale], 95% CI 0.2, 0.9), but the effect was small and resolved by 7-d. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Office-based transperineal biopsy is tolerable, does not compromise cancer detection, and did not result in infectious complications. Transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis achieved similar infection rates, but requires rectal cultures and careful attention to antibiotic selection and administration. Consideration of these factors and antibiotic stewardship should guide clinical decision-making. PATIENT SUMMARY In this multicenter randomized trial, we compare prostate biopsy infectious complications for the transperineal versus transrectal approach. The absence of infectious complications with transperineal biopsy without the use of preventative antibiotics is noteworthy, but not significantly different from transrectal biopsy with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jim C Hu
- Brady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Melissa Assel
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mohamad E Allaf
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Cohen
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Benjamin T Ristau
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA
| | - David A Green
- Brady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Queens, New York, NY, USA
| | - Misop Han
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael E Rezaee
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Christian P Pavlovich
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Keith J Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ashley E Ross
- Department of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Shilajit D Kundu
- Department of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Hiten D Patel
- Department of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Gerald J Wang
- Brady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Queens, New York, NY, USA
| | - John N Graham
- Brady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jonathan E Shoag
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Ahmed Ghazi
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Nirmish Singla
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael A Gorin
- Department of Urologic Surgery, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anthony J Schaeffer
- Department of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Edward M Schaeffer
- Department of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gaffney CD, Vertosick EA, Carlsson SV, Lin X, Wolchasty N, Hardbattle R, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B. A brief mind-body intervention to reduce pain and anxiety during prostate needle biopsy: a clinically integrated randomized controlled trial with 2-staged consent. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:484.e1-484.e5. [PMID: 37977915 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.09.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Many patients experience pain, anxiety, and discomfort with prostate biopsy, which may discourage enrollment in active surveillance programs or follow-up biopsy. Guided meditation can significantly reduce pain and anxiety during percutaneous biopsy. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief mind-body intervention on patient-reported outcomes after prostate biopsy. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a clinically-integrated randomized controlled trial of a brief mind-body intervention during biopsy compared to usual care at a single tertiary care center from 2018 to 2022. All patients offered transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the clinic with local anesthesia were eligible for enrollment. This clinically integrated trial was conducted simultaneously with a randomized controlled trial of 1-stage and 2-stage consent. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain, anxiety, discomfort, and tolerability on a visual-analog scale (0-10). A 15% improvement was prespecified as clinically relevant. We compared the proportion of men in each arm reporting a severe score (7-10) on any of the 4 scales using Fisher's exact test and then compared means for each scale separately using ANCOVA with randomization stratum (first vs. prior biopsy) as a covariate. RESULTS Of 263 eligible patients, 238 enrolled (119 per arm). One hundred seventy-two (72%) enrolled with 2-stage consent. A total of 37/94 (39%) and 38/102 (37%) patients randomized to usual care and intervention, respectively, reported severe scores in any of the 4 domains, a difference of 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13, 17%, P = 0.8). There was no evidence of a difference in mean postbiopsy anxiety (P = 0.3), discomfort (P = 0.09), pain (P = 0.4) or tolerability scores (P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS A clinically meaningful benefit for this brief mind-body intervention during prostate biopsy is unlikely. Robust patient enrollment is feasible using 2-stage consent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Gaffney
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Emily A Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Xin Lin
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Natalie Wolchasty
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Robin Hardbattle
- Department of Integrative Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, NY
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Vickers AJ, Vertosick EA, Austria M, Gaffney CD, Carlsson SV, Kim SY, Ehdaie B. A randomized comparison of two-stage versus traditional one-stage consent for a low-stakes randomized trial. Clin Trials 2023; 20:642-648. [PMID: 37403311 PMCID: PMC10764653 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231185058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS It has been proposed that informed consent for randomized trials should be split into two stages, with the purported advantage of decreased information overload and patient anxiety. We compared patient understanding, anxiety and decisional quality between two-stage and traditional one-stage consent. METHODS We approached patients at an academic cancer center for a low-stakes trial of a mind-body intervention for procedural distress during prostate biopsy. Patients were randomized to hear about the trial by either one- or two-stage consent (n = 66 vs n = 59). Patient-reported outcomes included Quality of Informed Consent (0-100); general and consent-specific anxiety and decisional conflict, burden, and regret. RESULTS Quality of Informed Consent scores were non-significantly superior for two-stage consent, by 0.9 points (95% confidence interval = -2.3, 4.2, p = 0.6) for objective and 1.1 points (95% CI = -4.8, 7.0, p = 0.7) for subjective understanding. Differences between groups for anxiety and decisional outcomes were similarly small. In a post hoc analysis, consent-related anxiety was lower among two-stage control patients, likely because scores were measured close to the time of biopsy in the two-stage patients receiving the experimental intervention. CONCLUSION Two-stage consent maintains patient understanding of randomized trials, with some evidence of lowered patient anxiety. Further research is warranted on two-stage consent in higher-stakes settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emily A Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mia Austria
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher D Gaffney
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Scott Yh Kim
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gaffney CD, Tin AL, Fainberg J, Fine S, Jibara G, Touijer K, Eastham J, Scardino P, Laudone V, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B. The oncologic risk of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic cores in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2023; 129:3790-3796. [PMID: 37584213 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 05/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/26/2023] [Indexed: 08/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-biopsy) detects high-Grade Group (GG) prostate cancers not identified by systematic biopsy (S-biopsy). However, questions have been raised whether cancers detected by MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy, grade-for-grade, are of equivalent oncologic risk. The authors evaluated the relative oncologic risk of GG diagnosed by S-biopsy and MRI-biopsy. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of all patients who had both MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy and underwent with prostatectomy (2014-2022) at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Three logistic regression models were used with adverse pathology as the primary outcome (primary pattern 4, any pattern 5, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node involvement). The first model included the presurgery prostate-specific antigen level, the number of positive and negative S-biopsy cores, S-biopsy GG, and MRI-biopsy GG. The second model excluded MRI-biopsy GG to obtain the average risk based on S-biopsy GG. The third model excluded S-biopsy GG to obtain the risk based on MRI-biopsy GG. A secondary analysis using Cox regression evaluated the 12-month risk of biochemical recurrence. RESULTS In total, 991 patients were identified, including 359 (36%) who had adverse pathology. MRI-biopsy GG influenced oncologic risk compared with S-biopsy GG alone (p < .001). However, if grade was discordant between biopsies, then the risk was intermediate between grades. For example, the average risk of advanced pathology for patients who had GG2 and GG3 on S-biopsy was 19% and 66%, respectively, but the average risk was 47% for patients who had GG2 on S-biopsy and patients who had GG3 on MRI-biopsy. The equivalent estimates for 12-month biochemical recurrence were 5.8%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The current findings cast doubt on the practice of defining risk group based on the highest GG. Because treatment algorithms depend fundamentally on GG, further research is urgently required to assess the oncologic risk of prostate tumors depending on detection technique. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help diagnose prostate cancer can help identify more high-grade cancers than using a systematic template biopsy alone. However, we do not know if high-grade cancers diagnosed with the help of an MRI are as dangerous to the patient as high-grade cancers diagnosed with a systematic biopsy. We examined all of our patients who had an MRI biopsy and a systematic biopsy and then had their prostates removed to find out if these patients had risk factors and signs of aggressive cancer (cancer that spread outside the prostate or was very high grade). We found that, if there was a difference in grade between the systematic biopsy and the MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of aggressive cancer was between the two grades.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Gaffney
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Amy L Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jonathan Fainberg
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Samson Fine
- Department of Genitourinary Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ghalib Jibara
- Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Fontana, California, USA
| | - Karim Touijer
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - James Eastham
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Peter Scardino
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Vincent Laudone
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Pandey A, Linxweiler M, Kuo F, Marti JL, Roman B, Ehdaie B, Vos JL, Morris LGT. Patterns of immune equilibrium and escape in indolent and progressing tumors. Cancer Cell 2023; 41:1389-1391. [PMID: 37419120 PMCID: PMC10849086 DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 05/18/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 07/09/2023]
Abstract
By comparing indolent/slowly progressing with aggressive/rapidly progressing tumor types, Pandey et al. identify human evidence of immune equilibrium in indolent tumors and immune escape in progressing tumors, suggesting a link between these mechanisms and the epidemiologic phenomenon of overdiagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abhinav Pandey
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Maximilian Linxweiler
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
| | - Fengshen Kuo
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jennifer L Marti
- Breast Cancer Center, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Benjamin Roman
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Joris L Vos
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Luc G T Morris
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Perera M, Jibara G, Tin AL, Haywood S, Sjoberg DD, Benfante NE, Carlsson SV, Eastham JA, Laudone V, Touijer KA, Fine S, Scardino PT, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B. Outcomes of Grade Group 2 and 3 Prostate Cancer on Initial Versus Confirmatory Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Focus 2023; 9:662-668. [PMID: 36566100 PMCID: PMC10285029 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) is recommended as the preferred treatment for men with low-risk disease. In order to optimize risk stratification and exclude undiagnosed higher-grade disease, most AS protocols recommend a confirmatory biopsy. OBJECTIVE We aimed to compare outcomes among men with grade group (GG) 2/3 prostate cancer on initial biopsy with those among men whose disease was initially GG1 but was upgraded to GG2/3 on confirmatory biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We reviewed patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) in two cohorts: "immediate RP group," with GG2/3 cancer on diagnostic biopsy, and "AS group," with GG1 cancer on initial biopsy that was upgraded to GG2/3 on confirmatory biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Probabilities of biochemical recurrence (BCR) and salvage therapy were determined using multivariable Cox regression models with risk adjustment. Risks of adverse pathology at RP were also compared using logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The immediate RP group comprised 4009 patients and the AS group comprised 321 patients. The AS group had lower adjusted rates of adverse pathology (27% vs 35%, p = 0.003). BCR rates were lower in the AS group, although this did not reach conventional significance (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.06, p = 0.10) compared with the immediate RP group. Risk-adjusted 1- and 5-yr BCR rates were 4.6% (95% CI 3.0-6.5%) and 10.4% (95% CI 6.9-14%), respectively, for the AS group compared with 6.3% (95% CI 5.6-7.0%) and 20% (95% CI 19-22%), respectively, in the immediate RP group. A nonsignificant association was observed for salvage treatment-free survival favoring the AS group (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42, 1.06, p = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS We found that men with GG1 cancer who were upgraded on confirmatory biopsy tend to have less aggressive disease than men with the same grade found at initial biopsy. These results must be confirmed in larger series before recommendations can be made regarding a more conservative approach in men with upgraded pathology on surveillance biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY We studied men with low-risk prostate cancer who were initially eligible for active surveillance but presented with more aggressive cancer on confirmatory biopsy. We found that outcomes for these men were better than the outcomes for those diagnosed initially with more serious cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marlon Perera
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ghalib Jibara
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Amy L Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samuel Haywood
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole E Benfante
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vincent Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Karim A Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samson Fine
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hu J, Zhu A, Vickers A, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Schaeffer A, Pavlovich C, Ross AE, Green DA, Wang G, Ginzburg S, Montgomery JS, George A, Graham JN, Ristau BT, Correa A, Shoag JE, Kowalczyk KJ, Zhang TR, Schaeffer EM. Protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing transperineal prostate biopsy to reduce infectiouscomplications. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e071191. [PMID: 37208135 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Approximately one million prostate biopsies are performed annually in the USA, and most are performed using a transrectal approach under local anaesthesia. The risk of postbiopsy infection is increasing due to increasing antibiotic resistance of rectal flora. Single-centre studies suggest that a clean, percutaneous transperineal approach to prostate biopsy may have a lower risk of infection. To date, there is no high-level evidence comparing transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We hypothesise that transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia has a significantly lower risk of infection, similar pain/discomfort levels and comparable detection of non-low-grade prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will perform a multicentre, prospective randomised clinical trial to compare transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for elevated prostate-specific antigen in the first biopsy, prior negative biopsy and active surveillance biopsy setting. Prostate MRI will be performed prior to biopsy, and targeted biopsy will be conducted for suspicious MRI lesions in addition to systematic biopsy (12 cores). Approximately 1700 men will be recruited and randomised in a 1:1 ratio to transperineal versus transrectal biopsy. A streamlined design to collect data and to determine trial eligibility along with the two-stage consent process will be used to facilitate subject recruitment and retention. The primary outcome is postbiopsy infection, and secondary outcomes include other adverse events (bleeding, urinary retention), pain/discomfort/anxiety and critically, detection of non-low-grade (grade group ≥2) prostate cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The Institutional Review Board of the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York approved the research protocol (protocol number #18-02-365, approved 20 April 2020). The results of the trial will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT04815876.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jim Hu
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Alec Zhu
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Anthony Schaeffer
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Christian Pavlovich
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Ashley E Ross
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - David A Green
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Gerald Wang
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Serge Ginzburg
- Einstein Urology, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jeffrey S Montgomery
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Arvin George
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - John N Graham
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Benjamin T Ristau
- Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA
| | - Andres Correa
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jonathan E Shoag
- Department of Urology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Keith J Kowalczyk
- Department of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Tenny R Zhang
- Department of Urology, NewYork-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - E M Schaeffer
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mamtani A, Sjoberg DD, Vincent A, Ehdaie B, Malhotra D, Vickers A, Morrow M. Does a brief surgeon training in negotiation theory principles decrease rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023; 199:119-126. [PMID: 36881270 PMCID: PMC10542969 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-06891-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Despite the lack of any oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use among women with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. This patient-driven trend is influenced by fear of recurrence and desire for peace of mind. Traditional educational strategies have been ineffective in reducing CPM rates. Here we employ training in negotiation theory strategies for counseling and determine the effect on CPM rates. METHODS In consecutive patients with unilateral breast cancer treated with mastectomy from 05/2017 to 12/2019, we examined CPM rates before and after a brief surgeon training in negotiation skills. This comprised a systematic framework for patient counseling utilizing early setting of the default option, leveraging social proof, and framing. RESULTS Among 2144 patients, 925 (43%) were treated pre-training and 744 (35%) post-training. Those treated in the 6-month transition period were excluded (n = 475, 22%). Median patient age was 50 years; most patients had T1-T2 (72%), N0 (73%), and estrogen receptor-positive (80%) tumors of ductal histology (72%). The CPM rate was 47% pre-training versus 48% post-training, with an adjusted difference of -3.7% (95% CI -9.4 to 2.1, p = 0.2). In a standardized self-assessment survey, all 15 surgeons reported a high baseline use of negotiation skills and no significant change in conversational difficulty with the structured approach. CONCLUSION Brief surgeon training did not affect self-reported use of negotiation skills or reduce CPM rates. The choice of CPM is a highly individual decision influenced by patient values and decision styles. Further research to identify effective strategies to minimize surgical overtreatment with CPM is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anita Mamtani
- Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alain Vincent
- Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Deepak Malhotra
- Negotiation, Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
- Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Monica Morrow
- Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Perera M, Lebdai S, Tin AL, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, Beech BB, Alvim RG, Touijer AS, Jenjitranant P, Ehdaie B, Laudone VP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Touijer KA. Oncologic outcomes of patients with lymph node invasion at prostatectomy and post-prostatectomy biochemical persistence. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:105.e19-105.e23. [PMID: 36435708 PMCID: PMC10391319 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.10.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Revised: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pathologic nodal invasion at prostatectomy is frequently associated with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and with increased risk of disease recurrence. Management strategies for these patients are poorly defined. We aimed to explore the long-term oncologic outcomes and patterns of disease progression. METHODS We included men treated between 2000 and 2017 who had lymph node invasion at radical prostatectomy and persistently detectable prostate-specific antigen post-prostatectomy. Postoperative imaging and management strategies were collated. Patterns of recurrence and probability of metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS Among our cohort of 253 patients, 126 developed metastasis. Twenty-five had a positive scan within 6 months of surgery; of these, 15 (60%) had a nodal metastasis, 10 (40%) had a bone metastasis, and 4 (16%) had local recurrence. For metastasis-free survival, 5- and 10-year probabilities were 52% (95% CI 45%, 58%) and 37% (95% CI 28%, 46%), respectively. For prostate cancer-specific survival, 5- and 10-year probabilities were 89% (95% CI 84%, 93%) and 67% (95% CI 57%, 76%), respectively. A total of 221 patients proceeded to hormonal deprivation treatment alone. Ten patients received postoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Biochemical persistence in patients with lymph node invasion is associated with high risk of disease progression and reduced prostate cancer-specific survival. Management was hindered by the limitation of imaging modalities utilized during the study period in accurately detecting residual disease. Novel molecular imaging may improve staging and help design a therapeutic strategy adapted to patients' specific needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marlon Perera
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Souhil Lebdai
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, University of Angers, France
| | - Amy L Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Benjamin B Beech
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Ricardo G Alvim
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Adam S Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Pocharapong Jenjitranant
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Vincent P Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Karim A Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Thompson D, Bensley JG, Tempo J, Ehdaie B, Carlsson S, Eastham J, Bolton D, Perera M, Papa N. Long-term Health-related Quality of Life in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2023; 6:4-15. [PMID: 36156268 PMCID: PMC9908828 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2022] [Revised: 08/25/2022] [Accepted: 09/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Active surveillance (AS) represents the preferred treatment option in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Optimised patient selection has enabled more patients to be managed with AS for a longer time. Thus, there is growing interest in its effect on long-term quality of life compared with interventional management. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review evaluating the long-term patient-reported outcomes regarding mental health, and sexual and urinary function in patients on AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. We included series assessing validated patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life, and sexual and urinary function in AS patients followed up for at least 5 yr. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Our search yielded 1854 citations, including 19 papers involving 3643 patients on AS, 14 651 patients receiving surgery or radiotherapy, and 2478 controls without prostate cancer. In ten studies, major differences were observed in sexual and urinary symptoms between groups, such as better sexual function and fewer irritative urinary symptoms in patients on AS, though overall functional outcomes were comparable. In all studies, health-related quality of life for patients on AS was better than, or similar to, that for patients who had undergone surgery or radiotherapy and comparable with that for individuals without cancer. CONCLUSIONS We observed differences in specific functional outcomes between patients on AS and surgery or radiotherapy, ≥5 yr after treatment. Patients on AS reported good quality of life, similar to that in individuals without prostate cancer. AS should continue to be a recommended management strategy for appropriately selected patients. PATIENT SUMMARY Active surveillance is an accepted pathway for patients with low-risk localised prostate cancer. Previous literature has shown that it did not negatively affect short-term quality of life. This review finds that long-term quality of life for these patients is similar to that for people without prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daryl Thompson
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jonathan G Bensley
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jake Tempo
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Damien Bolton
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marlon Perera
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nathan Papa
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gaffney CD, Ehdaie B. Thermal Partial Prostate Ablation for Intermediate- and High-risk Prostate Cancer: Con. Eur Urol Focus 2023:S2405-4569(22)00293-0. [PMID: 36604237 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 11/25/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Thermal partial-gland ablation (TPGA) is a promising treatment option for patients with prostate cancer (PCa) that has an excellent side-effect profile. However, the literature on TPGA in high-risk PCa is not robust enough to discount the risk of undertreatment and understaging in this population. Future studies, especially with incorporation of advanced imaging to better select patients, are necessary to understand the safety and efficacy of TPGA in high-risk disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Truong H, Breen K, Nandakumar S, Sjoberg DD, Kemel Y, Mehta N, Lenis AT, Reisz PA, Carruthers J, Benfante N, Joseph V, Khurram A, Gopalan A, Fine SW, Reuter VE, Vickers AJ, Birsoy O, Liu Y, Walsh M, Latham A, Mandelker D, Stadler ZK, Pietzak E, Ehdaie B, Touijer KA, Laudone VP, Slovin SF, Autio KA, Danila DC, Rathkopf DE, Eastham JA, Chen Y, Morris MJ, Offit K, Solit DB, Scher HI, Abida W, Robson ME, Carlo MI. Gene-based Confirmatory Germline Testing Following Tumor-only Sequencing of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2023; 83:29-38. [PMID: 36115772 PMCID: PMC10208030 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2022] [Revised: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tumor-only genomic profiling is an important tool in therapeutic management of men with prostate cancer. Since clinically actionable germline variants may be reflected in tumor profiling, it is critical to identify which variants have a higher risk of being germline in origin to better counsel patients and prioritize genetic testing. OBJECTIVE To determine when variants found on tumor-only sequencing of prostate cancers should prompt confirmatory germline testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Men with prostate cancer who underwent both tumor and germline sequencing at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2020 were evaluated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Tumor and germline profiles were analyzed for pathogenic and likely pathogenic ("pathogenic") variants in 60 moderate- or high-penetrance genes associated with cancer predisposition. The germline probability (germline/germline + somatic) of a variant was calculated for each gene. Clinical and pathologic factors were analyzed as potential modifiers of germline probability. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of the 1883 patients identified, 1084 (58%) had a somatic or germline pathogenic variant in one of 60 cancer susceptibility genes, and of them, 240 (22%) had at least one germline variant. Overall, the most frequent variants were in TP53, PTEN, APC, BRCA2, RB1, ATM, and CHEK2. Variants in TP53, PTEN, or RB1 were identified in 746 (40%) patients and were exclusively somatic. Variants with the highest germline probabilities were in PALB2 (69%), MITF (62%), HOXB13 (60%), CHEK2 (55%), BRCA1 (55%), and BRCA2 (47%), and the overall germline probability of a variant in any DNA damage repair gene was 40%. Limitations were that most of the men included in the cohort had metastatic disease, and different thresholds for pathogenicity exist for somatic and germline variants. CONCLUSIONS Of patients with pathogenic variants found on prostate tumor sequencing, 22% had clinically actionable germline variants, for which the germline probabilities varied widely by gene. Our results provide an evidenced-based clinical framework to prioritize referral to genetic counseling following tumor-only sequencing. PATIENT SUMMARY Patients with advanced prostate cancer are recommended to have germline genetic testing. Genetic sequencing of a patient's prostate tumor may also identify certain gene variants that are inherited. We found that patients who had variants in certain genes, such as ones that function in DNA damage repair, identified in their prostate tumor sequencing, had a high risk for having an inherited cancer syndrome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hong Truong
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kelsey Breen
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Subhiksha Nandakumar
- Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yelena Kemel
- Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nikita Mehta
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew T Lenis
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter A Reisz
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jessica Carruthers
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vijai Joseph
- Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Aliya Khurram
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anuradha Gopalan
- Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samson W Fine
- Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Victor E Reuter
- Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ozge Birsoy
- Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ying Liu
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael Walsh
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alicia Latham
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Diana Mandelker
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Zsofia K Stadler
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Eugene Pietzak
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Karim A Touijer
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vincent P Laudone
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Susan F Slovin
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Karen A Autio
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel C Danila
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Dana E Rathkopf
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A Eastham
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yu Chen
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael J Morris
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kenneth Offit
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - David B Solit
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Howard I Scher
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wassim Abida
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mark E Robson
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Maria I Carlo
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Niehaus Center for Inherited Cancer Genomics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Austria M, Kimberlin C, Le T, Lynch KA, Ehdaie B, Atkinson TM, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV. Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer. MDM Policy Pract 2023; 8:23814683231156427. [PMID: 36922982 PMCID: PMC10009039 DOI: 10.1177/23814683231156427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2022] [Accepted: 01/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose. To evaluate patient perceptions of a Web-based decision aid for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods. We assessed patient perceptions of a multicomponent, Web-based decision aid with a preference elicitation/values clarification exercise using adaptive conjoint analysis, the generation of a summary report, and provision of information about localized prostate cancer treatment options. Using a think-aloud approach, we conducted 21 cognitive interviews with prostate cancer patients presented with the decision aid prior to seeing their urologist. Thematic content analysis was used to examine patient perceptions of the tool's components and content prior to engaging in shared decision making with their clinician. Results. Five themes were identified: 1) patients had some negative emotional reactions to the tool, pointing out what they perceived to be unnecessarily negative framing and language used; 2) patients were forced to stop and think about preferences while going through the tool and found this deliberation to be useful; 3) patients were confused by the tool; 4) patients tried to discern the intent of the conjoint analysis questions; and 5) there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and a contrasting general satisfaction with the final "values profile" created by the tool. Conclusions. Studies are needed to explore the disconnect between patients' expressing negative reactions while going through some components of decision aids but satisfaction with the final output. In particular, we hypothesize that this effect might be explained by cognitive biases such as choice-supportive bias, hindsight bias, and the "IKEA effect." This is one of the first projects to elicit patient reactions while they were completing a decision aid, and we recommend further similar, qualitative postprocess evaluation studies. Highlights We explored perceptions of a decision aid with education about localized prostate cancer treatment and preference elicitation using adaptive conjoint analysis.Patients found the tool useful but were also confused by it, tried to discern the intent of the questions, and expressed negative emotional reactions.In particular, there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and general satisfaction with the final values profile generated by the tool, which is an area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mia Austria
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Colin Kimberlin
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Tiffany Le
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Kathleen A Lynch
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Thomas M Atkinson
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.,Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Zelefsky M, Kollmeier M, White C, Zhang Z, Reuter V, Ehdaie B, Moore A, Samson F, Gorovets D, Damato A, Elsayegh A, McBride S. Superior Post-Treatment Biopsy Outcomes with High Dose SBRT Compared to High-Dose Conventionally Fractionated IMRT for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
19
|
Fainberg J, Vanden Berg RNW, Chesnut G, Coleman JA, Donahue T, Ehdaie B, Goh AC, Laudone VP, Lee T, Pyon J, Scardino PT, Smith RC. A Novel Expert Coaching Model in Urology, Aimed at Accelerating the Learning Curve in Robotic Prostatectomy. J Surg Educ 2022; 79:1480-1488. [PMID: 35872029 PMCID: PMC10353766 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/10/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The surgical residency model assumes that upon completion, a surgeon is ready to practice and grow independently. However, many surgeons fail to improve after reaching proficiency, which in certain instances has correlated with worse clinical outcomes. Coaching addresses this problem and furthers surgeons' education post-residency. Currently, surgical coaching programs focus on medical students and residents, and have been shown to improve residents' and medical students' technical and non-technical abilities. Coaching programs also increase the accuracy of residents, fellows, and attendings in self-assessing their surgical ability. Despite the potential benefits, coaching remains underutilized and poorly studied. We developed an expert-led, face-to-face, video-based surgical coaching program at a tertiary medical center among specialized attending surgeons. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of such a program, measure surgeons' attitudes towards internal peer coaching, determine whether surgeons found the sessions valuable and educational, and to subjectively self-assess changes in operative technique. METHODS/MATERIALS Surgeons who perform robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies were chosen and grouped by number of cases completed: junior (<100 cases), intermediate (100-500 cases), and senior (>500 cases). Surgeons were scheduled for 3 1-hour coaching sessions 1-2 months apart (February-October 2019), meeting individually with the coach (PS), an expert Urologic Oncologist with thousands of cases of experience performing radical prostatectomy. He received training on coaching methodology prior to beginning the coaching program. Before each session, surgeons selected 1 of their recent intraoperative videos to review. During sessions, the coach led discussion on topics chosen by the surgeon (i.e. neurovascular bundle dissection, apical dissection, bladder neck); together, they developed goals to achieve before the next session. Subsequent sessions included presentation and discussion of a case occurring subsequent to the prior session. Sessions were coded by discussion topics and analyzed based on level of experience. Surgeons completed a survey evaluating the experience. RESULTS All 6 surgeons completed 3 sessions. Five surgeons completed the survey; most respondents evaluated themselves as having improved in desired areas and feeling more confident performing the discussed steps of the operation. Discussed surgical principles varied by experience group; when subjectively quantifying the difficulty of surgical steps, the more difficult steps were discussed by the higher experience groups compared to the junior surgeons. The senior surgeons also focused more on oncologic potency, continence outcomes, and more theory-driven questions while the junior surgeons tended to focus more on anatomic and technique-based questions such as tissue handling and the use of cautery and clips. Overall, the surgeons thought this program provoked critical discussion and subsequently modified their technique, and "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they would seek further sessions. CONCLUSIONS Surgical coaching at a large medical center is not only feasible but was rated positively by surgeons across all levels of experience. Coaching led to subjective self-improvement and increased self-confidence among most surgeons. Surgeons also felt that this program offered a safe space to acquire new skills and think critically after finishing residency/fellowship. Themes discussed and takeaways from the sessions varied based on surgeon experience level. While further research is needed to more objectively quantify the impact coaching has on surgeon metrics and patient outcomes, the results of this study supports the initial "proof-of-concept" of peer-based surgical coaching and its potential benefits in accelerating the learning curve for surgeons' post-residency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Fainberg
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
| | | | - Gregory Chesnut
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jonathan A Coleman
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Timothy Donahue
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Alvin C Goh
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Vincent P Laudone
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Taehyoung Lee
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jin Pyon
- Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
McIntosh M, Opozda MJ, Short CE, Galvão DA, Tutino R, Diefenbach M, Ehdaie B, Nelson C. Social ecological influences on treatment decision-making in men diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2022; 31:e13697. [PMID: 36138320 PMCID: PMC9786728 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13697] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Individuals diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) face a difficult decision between active surveillance (AS) and definitive treatment. We aimed to explore perceived influences on treatment decision-making from the patient and partner's perspectives. METHODS Patients (and partners) who met AS criteria and had chosen their treatment were recruited. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted via telephone to explore experiences of diagnosis, impact on patient lifestyle, experiences with physicians, treatment preferences/choice, treatment information understanding and needs, and overall decision-making process. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS Twenty-four male patients (18 chose AS) and 12 female partners participated. Five themes relating to social-ecological influences on treatment choice were identified: (1) partner support and direct influence on patient treatment choice, (2) patient and partner vicarious experiences may influence treatment decisions, (3) the influence of the patient's life circumstances, (4) disclosing to wider social networks: friends, family, and co-workers, and (5) the importance of a good relationship and experience with physicians. Additionally, two themes were identified relating to information patients and partners received about the treatment options during their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS A range of individual and social influences on treatment decision-making were reported. Physicians providing treatment recommendations should consider and discuss the patient and partner's existing beliefs and treatment preferences and encourage shared decision-making. Further research on treatment decision-making of partnered and non-partnered PCa patients is required. We recommend research considers social ecological factors across the personal, interpersonal, community, and policy levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan McIntosh
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideSAAustralia,Freemasons Centre for Male Health and WellbeingSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and The University of AdelaideAdelaideSAAustralia
| | - Melissa J. Opozda
- Freemasons Centre for Male Health and WellbeingSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and The University of AdelaideAdelaideSAAustralia
| | - Camille E. Short
- Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences and Melbourne School of Health Sciences (jointly appointed)The University of MelbourneMelbourneVICAustralia
| | - Daniel A. Galvão
- Exercise Medicine Research InstituteEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupWAAustralia
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Ehdaie B, Sonn GA, Ghanouni P. Tempering optimism for MRI-guided focused ultrasound therapy – Authors' reply. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:e439. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00557-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
22
|
Ehdaie B, Tempany CM, Holland F, Sjoberg DD, Kibel AS, Trinh QD, Durack JC, Akin O, Vickers AJ, Scardino PT, Sperling D, Wong JYC, Yuh B, Woodrum DA, Mynderse LA, Raman SS, Pantuck AJ, Schiffman MH, McClure TD, Sonn GA, Ghanouni P. MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a phase 2b, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:910-918. [PMID: 35714666 PMCID: PMC9400094 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00251-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Revised: 04/08/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Men with grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer are often considered ineligible for active surveillance; some patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer who are managed with active surveillance will have early disease progression requiring radical therapy. This study aimed to investigate whether MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy can safely reduce treatment burden for patients with localised grade group 2 or 3 intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS In this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2b study conducted at eight health-care centres in the USA, we recruited men aged 50 years and older with unilateral, MRI-visible, primary, intermediate-risk, previously untreated prostate adenocarcinoma (prostate-specific antigen ≤20 ng/mL, grade group 2 or 3; tumour classification ≤T2) confirmed on combined biopsy (combining MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies). MRI-guided focused ultrasound energy, sequentially titrated to temperatures sufficient for tissue ablation (about 60-70°C), was delivered to the index lesion and a planned margin of 5 mm or more of normal tissue, using real-time magnetic resonance thermometry for intraoperative monitoring. Co-primary outcomes were oncological outcomes (absence of grade group 2 and higher cancer in the treated area at 6-month and 24-month combined biopsy; when 24-month biopsy data were not available and grade group 2 or higher cancer had occurred in the treated area at 6 months, the 6-month biopsy results were included in the final analysis) and safety (adverse events up to 24 months) in all patients enrolled in the study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01657942, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS Between May 4, 2017, and Dec 21, 2018, we assessed 194 patients for eligibility and treated 101 patients with MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Median age was 63 years (IQR 58-67) and median concentration of prostate-specific antigen was 5·7 ng/mL (IQR 4·2-7·5). Most cancers were grade group 2 (79 [78%] of 101). At 24 months, 78 (88% [95% CI 79-94]) of 89 men had no evidence of grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer in the treated area. No grade 4 or grade 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported, and only one grade 3 adverse event (urinary tract infection) was reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION 24-month biopsy outcomes show that MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy is safe and effectively treats grade group 2 or 3 prostate cancer. These results support focal therapy for select patients and its use in comparative trials to determine if a tissue-preserving approach is effective in delaying or eliminating the need for radical whole-gland treatment in the long term. FUNDING Insightec and the National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Clare M Tempany
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ford Holland
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Adam S Kibel
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jeremy C Durack
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Cordis-X, Miami Lakes, FL, USA
| | - Oguz Akin
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Jeffrey Y C Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Bertram Yuh
- Department of Urology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Steven S Raman
- Department of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Allan J Pantuck
- Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Marc H Schiffman
- Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Timothy D McClure
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Geoffrey A Sonn
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Pejman Ghanouni
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Remmers S, Helleman J, Nieboer D, Trock B, Hyndman ME, Moore CM, Gnanapragasam V, Shiong Lee L, Elhage O, Klotz L, Carroll P, Pickles T, Bjartell A, Robert G, Frydenberg M, Sugimoto M, Ehdaie B, Morgan TM, Rubio-Briones J, Semjonow A, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Active Surveillance for Men Younger than 60 Years or with Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative. EUR UROL SUPPL 2022; 41:126-133. [PMID: 35813247 PMCID: PMC9257656 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Opinions differ on whether it is safe to include young men (≤60 yr) or men with intermediate-risk disease. Objective To assess whether reasons for discontinuation, treatment choice after AS, and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP; N1, or ≥GG3, or ≥pT3) differ for men ≤60 yr or those with European Association of Urology (EAU) intermediate-risk disease from those for men >60 yr or those with EAU low-risk disease. Design setting and participants We analyzed data from 5411 men ≤60 yr and 14 959 men >60 yr, 14 064 men with low-risk cancer, and 2441 men with intermediate-risk cancer, originating from the GAP3 database (21 169 patients/27 cohorts worldwide). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Cumulative incidence curves were used to estimate the rates of AS discontinuation and treatment choice. Results and limitations The probability of discontinuation of AS due to disease progression at 5 yr was similar for men aged ≤60 yr (22%) and those >60 yr (25%), as well as those of any age with low-risk disease (24%) versus those with intermediate-risk disease (24%). Men with intermediate-risk disease are more prone to discontinue AS without evidence of progression than men with low-risk disease (at 1/5 yr: 5.9%/14.2% vs 2.0%/8.8%). Adverse pathology at RP was observed in 32% of men ≤60 yr compared with 36% of men >60 yr (p = 0.029), and in 34% with low-risk disease compared with 40% with intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.048). Conclusions Our descriptive analysis of AS practices worldwide showed that the risk of progression during AS is similar across the age and risk groups studied. The proportion of adverse pathology was higher among men >60 yr than among men ≤60 yr. These results suggest that men ≤60 yr and those with EAU intermediate-risk disease should not be excluded from opting for AS as initial management. Patient summary Data from 27 international centers reflecting daily clinical practice suggest that younger men or men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer do not hold greater risk for disease progression during active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastiaan Remmers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Corresponding author. Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel. +31 10 703 2239; Fax: +31 10 703 5315.
| | - Jozien Helleman
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bruce Trock
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Matthew E. Hyndman
- Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Caroline M. Moore
- University College London, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Oussama Elhage
- King's College London, London, UK
- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Laurence Klotz
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Peter Carroll
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Tom Pickles
- University of British Columbia, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Grégoire Robert
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
| | - Mark Frydenberg
- Monash University and Epworth HealthCare, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Todd M. Morgan
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | | | - Chris H. Bangma
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Benfante N, Carroll E, Carruthers J, Donahue TF, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B, Goh AC, Laudone VP, Pietzak EJ, Smith R, Vickers A, Sjoberg DD, Scardino PT, Touijer KA. A randomized trial on pelvic lymph node dissection versus no lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy: Report of a trial in progress. J Clin Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.tps5116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
TPS5116 Background: The therapeutic benefit of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer remains unproven. In this trial we aim to evaluate whether PLND reduces biochemical recurrence rates in clinically localized prostate cancer patients. We are presenting our experience in accrual during our first year of implementing this trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Methods: Patients without evidence of positive or suspicious pelvic lymph nodes on pre-operative imaging, and without prior pelvic radiation for prostate cancer are eligible. Following informed consent prior to radical prostatectomy, patients are enrolled onto the trial and surgeons are randomized using a cluster randomization. Surgeons are randomized to perform a PLND vs. no PLND for a 3-month period. Since our trial began accruing in July 2020, we have enrolled 366 patients (51 high risk, 286 intermediate risk, and 29 low risk) out of 996 eligible patients (37%) through January 2022. We have enrolled 168 patients in the PLND arm and 198 patients in the no PLND arm. Table 1 shows the breakdown of patient consent status in each risk group, by randomization assignment. At this stage in the accrual, we do not see evidence of consenting bias among PLND vs. no PLND randomization and risk group. We conclude that a single-center cluster randomized trial can accrue large numbers of patients in a short period of time, allowing for large scale trials to be completed. Currently, our trial is on track to complete accrual within our 5-year goal. Clinical trial information: NCT01407263. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Erin Carroll
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Alvin C. Goh
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Robert Smith
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Martinez JF, Benfante N, Chen L, Ehdaie B, Mulhall J. Ejaculation profiles in men after irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer. J Sex Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.03.444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
26
|
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examines prostate cancer recommendations among US cancer centers to identify differences from clinical practice guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth S Koh
- Department of Surgery, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Andrew Y J Lee
- Department of Surgery, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Division of Health Outcomes, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jennifer L Marti
- Department of Surgery, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Rasmussen M, Fredsøe J, Tin AL, Vickers AJ, Ulhøi B, Borre M, Eastham J, Ehdaie B, Guillonneau B, Laudone V, Scardino PT, Touijer K, Sørensen KD, Lilja H. Independent validation of a pre-specified four-kallikrein marker model for prediction of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:1004-1009. [PMID: 34903844 PMCID: PMC8980060 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01661-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate markers for prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification could aid decision-making for initial management strategies. The 4Kscore has an undefined role in predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS We included 1476 patients with 4Kscore measured prior to RP at two institutions. The 4Kscore was assessed for prediction of adverse pathology at RP and biochemical recurrence (BCR) relative to a clinical model. We pre-specified that all analyses would be assessed in biopsy Grade Group 1 (GG1) or 2 (GG2) PC patients, separately. RESULTS The 4Kscore increased discrimination for adverse pathology in all patients (delta area under the receiver operative curve (AUC) 0.009, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002, 0.016; clinical model AUC 0.767), driven by GG1 (delta AUC 0.040, 95% CI 0.006, 0.073) rather than GG2 patients (delta AUC 0.005, 95% CI -0.012, 0.021). Adding 4Kscore improved prediction of BCR in all patients (delta C-index 0.014, 95% CI 0.007, 0.021; preop-BCR nomogram C-index 0.738), again with larger changes in GG1 than in GG2. CONCLUSIONS This study validates prior investigations on the use of 4Kscore in men with biopsy-confirmed PC. Men with GG1 PC and a high 4Kscore may benefit from additional testing to guide treatment selection. Further research is warranted regarding the value of the 4Kscore in men with biopsy GG2 PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Rasmussen
- grid.154185.c0000 0004 0512 597XDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark ,grid.7048.b0000 0001 1956 2722Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jacob Fredsøe
- grid.154185.c0000 0004 0512 597XDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark ,grid.7048.b0000 0001 1956 2722Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Amy L. Tin
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Andrew J. Vickers
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Benedicte Ulhøi
- grid.154185.c0000 0004 0512 597XDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Michael Borre
- grid.7048.b0000 0001 1956 2722Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark ,grid.154185.c0000 0004 0512 597XDepartment of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - James Eastham
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Bertrand Guillonneau
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA ,grid.6363.00000 0001 2218 4662Uro-Oncology Department, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
| | - Vincent Laudone
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Peter T. Scardino
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Karim Touijer
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA
| | - Karina D. Sørensen
- grid.154185.c0000 0004 0512 597XDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark ,grid.7048.b0000 0001 1956 2722Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Hans Lilja
- grid.51462.340000 0001 2171 9952Departments of Laboratory Medicine, Surgery, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY USA ,grid.4514.40000 0001 0930 2361Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Martinez JF, Benfante N, Chen L, Ehdaie B, Mulhall JP. Ejaculation Profiles in Men after Irreversible Electroporation for Prostate Cancer. J Sex Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.01.395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
29
|
Clements MB, Gmelich CC, Vertosick EA, Hu JC, Sandhu JS, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Laudone VP, Touijer KA, Coleman JA, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B. Have urinary function outcomes after radical prostatectomy improved over the past decade? Cancer 2022; 128:1066-1073. [PMID: 34724196 PMCID: PMC8837675 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Revised: 08/29/2021] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Changes in surgical technique and postoperative care that target improvements in functional outcomes are widespread in the literature. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one such procedure that has seen multiple advances over the past decade. The objective of this study was to leverage RP as an index case to determine whether practice changes over time produced observable improvements in patient-reported outcomes. METHODS This study analyzed patients undergoing RP by experienced surgeons at a tertiary care center with prospectively maintained patient-reported outcome data from 2008 to 2019. Four patient-reported urinary function outcomes at 6 and 12 months after RP were defined with a validated instrument: good urinary function (domain score ≥ 17), no incontinence (0 pads per day), social continence (≤1 pad per day), and severe incontinence (≥3 pads per day). Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated changes in outcomes based on the surgical date. RESULTS Among 3945 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, excellent urinary outcomes were reported throughout the decade but without consistent observable improvements over time. Specifically, there were no improvements in good urinary function at 12 months (P = .087) based on the surgical date, and there were countervailing effects on no incontinence (worsening; P = .005) versus severe incontinence (improving; P = .003). Neither approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic), nor nerve sparing, nor membranous urethral length mediated changes in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In a decade with multiple advances in surgical and postoperative care, there was evidence of improvements in severe incontinence, but no measurable improvements across 3 other urinary outcomes. Although worsening disease factors could contribute to the stable observed outcomes, a more systematic approach to evaluating techniques and implementing patient selection and postoperative care advances is needed. LAY SUMMARY Although there have been advances in radical prostatectomy over the past decade, consistent observable improvements in postoperative incontinence were not reported by patients. To improve urinary function outcomes beyond the current high standard, the approach to studying innovations in surgical technique needs to be changed, and further development of other aspects of prostatectomy care is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew B. Clements
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Caroline C. Gmelich
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Emily A. Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jim C. Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Jaspreet S. Sandhu
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Peter T. Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - James A. Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Vincent P. Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Karim A. Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jonathan A. Coleman
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Andrew J. Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Corresponding author: Behfar Ehdaie, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, T: 646-422-4406, F: 212-988-0759,
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Jiang Y, Meyers TJ, Emeka AA, Cooley LF, Cooper PR, Lancki N, Helenowski I, Kachuri L, Lin DW, Stanford JL, Newcomb LF, Kolb S, Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Komisarenko M, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B, Benfante N, Logothetis CJ, Gregg JR, Perez CA, Garza S, Kim J, Marks LS, Delfin M, Barsa D, Vesprini D, Klotz LH, Loblaw A, Mamedov A, Goldenberg SL, Higano CS, Spillane M, Wu E, Carter HB, Pavlovich CP, Mamawala M, Landis T, Carroll PR, Chan JM, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Morgan TM, Siddiqui J, Martin R, Klein EA, Brittain K, Gotwald P, Barocas DA, Dallmer JR, Gordetsky JB, Steele P, Kundu SD, Stockdale J, Roobol MJ, Venderbos LD, Sanda MG, Arnold R, Patil D, Evans CP, Dall’Era MA, Vij A, Costello AJ, Chow K, Corcoran NM, Rais-Bahrami S, Phares C, Scherr DS, Flynn T, Karnes RJ, Koch M, Dhondt CR, Nelson JB, McBride D, Cookson MS, Stratton KL, Farriester S, Hemken E, Stadler WM, Pera T, Banionyte D, Bianco FJ, Lopez IH, Loeb S, Taneja SS, Byrne N, Amling CL, Martinez A, Boileau L, Gaylis FD, Petkewicz J, Kirwen N, Helfand BT, Xu J, Scholtens DM, Catalona WJ, Witte JS. Genetic Factors Associated with Prostate Cancer Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment. HGG Adv 2022; 3:100070. [PMID: 34993496 PMCID: PMC8725988 DOI: 10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion (MAST3, p = 6.9×10-7 and GAB2, p = 2.0×10-6). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS-versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Jiang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Travis J. Meyers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Adaeze A. Emeka
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Lauren Folgosa Cooley
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Phillip R. Cooper
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Nicola Lancki
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Irene Helenowski
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Linda Kachuri
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Daniel W. Lin
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Janet L. Stanford
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Epidemiology Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Lisa F. Newcomb
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Suzanne Kolb
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Epidemiology Program, Public Health Sciences, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Neil E. Fleshner
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Maria Komisarenko
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - James A. Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher J. Logothetis
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Justin R. Gregg
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cherie A. Perez
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sergio Garza
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jeri Kim
- Departments of Genitourinary Medical Oncology and Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Leonard S. Marks
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Merdie Delfin
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Danielle Barsa
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Danny Vesprini
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Laurence H. Klotz
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health and Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S. Larry Goldenberg
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Celestia S. Higano
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Maria Spillane
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Eugenia Wu
- Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - H. Ballentine Carter
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Christian P. Pavlovich
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mufaddal Mamawala
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Tricia Landis
- Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Peter R. Carroll
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - June M. Chan
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R. Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Janet E. Cowan
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Todd M. Morgan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Javed Siddiqui
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Rabia Martin
- Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Eric A. Klein
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Karen Brittain
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Paige Gotwald
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Daniel A. Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jeremiah R. Dallmer
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Jennifer B. Gordetsky
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Pam Steele
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Shilajit D. Kundu
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Jazmine Stockdale
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lionne D.F. Venderbos
- Department of Urology, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Martin G. Sanda
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Rebecca Arnold
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Dattatraya Patil
- Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Christopher P. Evans
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Marc A. Dall’Era
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Anjali Vij
- Department of Urologic Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Anthony J. Costello
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ken Chow
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Niall M. Corcoran
- Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Soroush Rais-Bahrami
- Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
- Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Courtney Phares
- Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Douglas S. Scherr
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Thomas Flynn
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Michael Koch
- Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Courtney Rose Dhondt
- Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Joel B. Nelson
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Dawn McBride
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Michael S. Cookson
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Kelly L. Stratton
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Stephen Farriester
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - Erin Hemken
- Department of Urology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | | | - Tuula Pera
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Stacy Loeb
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samir S. Taneja
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nataliya Byrne
- Departments of Urology and Population Health, New York University Langone Health and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Ann Martinez
- Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Luc Boileau
- Department of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Franklin D. Gaylis
- Genesis Healthcare Partners, Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - Nicholas Kirwen
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Brian T. Helfand
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Jianfeng Xu
- Division of Urology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Denise M. Scholtens
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - William J. Catalona
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - John S. Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Departments of Epidemiology and Population Health, Biomedical Data Science, and Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Gorovets D, Tin A, Vickers A, Zelefsky M, Ehdaie B, Imber B. Patient-Reported Financial Toxicity Following Definitive Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.887] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
32
|
Tzeng M, Vertosick E, Basourakos SP, Eastham JA, Ehdaie B, Scardino PT, Vickers AJ, Hu JC. Addition of Prostate Volume and Prostate-specific Antigen Density to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Prostate Cancer Nomograms. EUR UROL SUPPL 2021; 30:13-15. [PMID: 34337542 PMCID: PMC8317781 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density is an established prognostic marker for prostate cancer. We investigated whether the inclusion of PSA density or prostate volume in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomograms improves the prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Among the 11 725 men included, 2140 developed BCR. Neither PSA density nor prostate volume was associated with BCR when added to either the pre-RP or post-RP model (all p values ≥0.10) and changes in the C index were very small (largest change, 0.002). The results were robust to exclusion of outlying prostate volumes and restriction to patients treated after 2005. There is no justification for adding prostate volume or PSA density to BCR nomograms. Patient summary Addition of prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen density to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prediction schemes did not improve the prediction of recurrence of prostate cancer after removal of the prostate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Tzeng
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emily Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Spyridon P. Basourakos
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A. Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T. Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J. Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jim C. Hu
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- Corresponding author. Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Crump RT, Remmers S, Van Hemelrijck M, Helleman J, Nieboer D, Roobol MJ, Venderbos LDF, Trock B, Ehdaie B, Carroll P, Filson C, Logothetis C, Morgan T, Klotz L, Pickles T, Hyndman E, Moore C, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, Dasgupta P, Bangma C, Roobol M, Villers A, Robert G, Semjonow A, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Perry A, Hugosson J, Rubio-Briones J, Bjartell A, Hefermehl L, Shiong LL, Frydenberg M, Sugimoto M, Chung BH, van der Kwast T, Hulsen T, de Jonge C, van Hooft P, Kattan M, Xinge J, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Fahey M, Steyerberg E, Nieboer D, Zhang L, Steyerberg E, Nieboer D, Beckmann K, Denton B, Hayen A, Boutros P, Guo W, Benfante N, Cowan J, Patil D, Park L, Ferrante S, Mamedov A, LaPointe V, Crump T, Stavrinides V, Kimberly-Duffell J, Santaolalla A, Nieboer D, Olivier J, France B, Rancati T, Ahlgren H, Mascarós J, Löfgren A, Lehmann K, Lin CH, Cusick T, Hirama H, Lee KS, Jenster G, Auvinen A, Bjartell A, Haider M, van Bochove K, Buzza M, Kouspou M, Paich K, Bangma C, Roobol M, Helleman J. Using the Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort to measure the effect of active surveillance on patient-reported urinary and sexual function-a retrospective study in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:2719-2727. [PMID: 34295757 PMCID: PMC8261406 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is intended to overcome potential side-effects of definitive treatment. Frequent prostate biopsies during AS may, however, impact erectile (EF) and urinary function (UF). The objective of this study was to test the influence of prostate biopsies on patient-reported EF and UF using multicenter data from the largest to-date AS-database. METHODS In this retrospective study, data analyses were performed using the Movember GAP3 database (v3.2), containing data from 21,169 AS participants from 27 AS-cohorts worldwide. Participants were included in the study if they had at least one follow-up prostate biopsy and completed at least one patient reported outcome measure (PROM) related to EF [Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM)/five item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5)] or UF [International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)] during follow-up. The longitudinal effect of the number of biopsies on either SHIM/IIEF-5 or IPSS were analyzed using linear mixed models to adjust for clustering at patient-level. Analyses were stratified by center; covariates included age and Gleason Grade group at diagnosis, and time on AS. RESULTS A total of 696 participants completed the SHIM/IIEF-5 3,175 times, with a median follow-up of 36 months [interquartile range (IQR) 20-55 months]. A total of 845 participants completed the IPSS 4,061 times, with a median follow-up of 35 months (IQR 19-56 months). The intraclass correlation (ICC) was 0.74 for the SHIM/IIEF-5 and 0.68 for the IPSS, indicating substantial differences between participants' PROMs. Limited heterogeneity between cohorts in the estimated effect of the number of biopsies on either PROM were observed. A significant association was observed between the number of biopsies and the SHIM/IIEF-5 score, but not for the IPSS score. Every biopsy was associated with a decrease in the SHIM/IIEF-5 score of an average 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) points. CONCLUSIONS Repeated prostate biopsy as part of an AS protocol for men with low-risk PCa does not have a significant association with self-reported UF but does impact self-reported sexual function. Further research is, however, needed to understand whether the effect on sexual function implies a negative clinical impact on their quality of life and is meaningful from a patient's perspective. In the meantime, clinicians and patients should anticipate a potential decline in erectile function and hence consider incorporating the risk of this harm into their discussion about opting for AS and also when deciding on the stringency of follow-up biopsy schedules with long-term AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sebastiaan Remmers
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mieke Van Hemelrijck
- King’s College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Translational Oncology & Urology Research (TOUR), London, UK
| | - Jozien Helleman
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Shill DK, Roobol MJ, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:2809-2819. [PMID: 34295763 PMCID: PMC8261451 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1–1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0–1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5–10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Coleman J, Sjoberg DD, Demac Q, ODea C, McGill M, Tracey A, Nogueira L, Vickers A, Estes C, Fine S, Akin O, Mulhall J, Sandhu J, Carver BS, Laudone VP, Ehdaie B, Scherz AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Phase 2b trial results of padeliporfin (WST11 or Tookad) vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy for partial gland ablation in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e17006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e17006 Background: Padeliporfin (WST11) vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) has shown significant clinical benefit as a localized partial gland ablation (PGA) therapy when compared to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, by curbing progression and the need for radical treatment, leading to its regulatory approval in Europe. This phase 2b trial prospectively investigated WST11-VTP for intermediate-risk cancers. Methods: Men with unilateral Grade Group 2 (GG2) cancers (Gleason 3+4), evaluated with MRI and ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, underwent up to two WST11-VTP PGA sessions. Eligibility criteria included <cT2b, PSA < 10, and fusion biopsy for PIRADS 3+ lesions on pretreatment MRI. Contralateral very low–risk disease was observed. The primary endpoint was prevalence of any Gleason Grade 4 or 5 (≥GG2) cancer, determined by MRI and systematic, 14-core TRUS biopsy of the entire gland (+/- fusion) at 3 and 12 months after treatment. Treatment safety and patient-reported quality of life for sexual and urinary function were assessed with validated questionnaires (IIEF-15 and IPSS, respectively). The study was powered using β = 0.2 to reject the null hypothesis (r≤70%), using a one-sided exact binomial test with 5% alpha risk. To be valid, 44 evaluable patients were required for the 12-month primary endpoint assessment. Results: Of the 50 men treated, 46 were evaluable for the 12-month primary endpoint. Before 12 months, 1 man proceeded to prostatectomy (treatment failure), 2 men refused 12-month biopsy, and 1 man died of COVID-19. At 3 months, 12/49 (24%) men underwent per protocol second WST11-VTP PGA session for GG2 tumor: 9 for residual cancer and 4 for newly identified contralateral GG2 tumors (1 bilateral). The 12-month biopsy was performed in 45 men; 38 (83%) had no Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer, including 11/12 (92%) patients who underwent 2 PGA sessions. By 3 months, median decline in erectile function score (IIEF-5) from baseline was -1.0 (IQR -7,0). Median improvement in urinary function score (IPSS) was -1.0 (IQR -1,5), with pad-free continence observed in all patients. Median change in IIEF score by 12-months was -1.0 (IQR -5,0). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 6 (12%) patients. All procedure-related prostate/pelvic pain resolved by 3 weeks. Conclusions: The positive results from this trial show that WST11-VTP is effective for PGA of intermediate-risk prostate cancer, with minimal toxicity or impact on urinary and sexual function, consistent with the phase 3 trial results in low-risk disease. Based on these data, this therapy bears consideration for approval as a conservative therapeutic option for selected cases of intermediate-risk disease. Clinical trial information: NCT03315754.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Quinlan Demac
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Catriona ODea
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Andrew Tracey
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Connie Estes
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Samson Fine
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Oguz Akin
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - John Mulhall
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Imber BS, Tin AL, Vickers A, Eastham JA, Zelefsky MJ, Ehdaie B, Gorovets D. Patient-reported financial toxicity following management of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e17053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
e17053 Background: Cancer patients’ potential for severe financial toxicity (FT) is well-established, however there is limited data on the magnitude of this challenge associated with treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). The extent to which men consider potential financial implications prior to selection of a treatment strategy remains poorly understood. Methods: Between 5/2020-10/2020, 1233 insured PC patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center completed a one-time FT survey which included the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) instrument, impressions of PC costs and financial coping strategies. Inclusion criteria was localized disease and treatment with either radical prostatectomy (RP) or definitive radiotherapy (RT) in the previous 4-26 months (mo) or at least 6mo of active surveillance (AS) prior to survey. To assess possible temporal differences in FT, responses were grouped into 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after treatment start, and we plotted COST against time, using generalized additive models to allow for non-linearity. Results: Overall, 988 men were eligible for analysis: 347 (35%) underwent RP, 384 (39%) underwent RT, and 257 (26%) were on AS. The median age at survey completion was 67 years (quartiles 62, 72). Men were predominantly white (89%), English-speakers (99%) and married (84%). The median (quartiles) COST score for all patients was 33 (26, 38) with possible range of 0-44 with lower scores indicating greater FT; median values were identical with similar quartiles (+/- 1 point) when stratified by treatment type. There were no significant changes in median COST between men surveyed at the four time points for any treatment subgroup. In total, 66 men (7.1%) reported spending > 20% of annual income on treatment and 10% felt that PC has created at least somewhat of a financial hardship for their family. Top drivers of burdensome cost included medical bills (37%) and transportation costs (21%). Most (83%) reported giving little or no consideration to possible costs prior to making a PC treatment decision, yet the majority (77%) felt that out of pocket costs should be communicated to a patient prior to decision making. Most believed patients should definitely (46%) or possibly (33%) have the opportunity to discuss financial concerns with the radiation oncologist or urologist. Conclusions: Our study is the first reported use of the COST instrument to assess subjective financial distress in localized PC patients. Our results demonstrate that the overall degree of FT in this cohort of insured patients treated at a specialized cancer center is low. While potential financial burden does not strongly influence treatment decision making in this cohort, most want this information and an opportunity to discuss financial concerns with their oncologist. Next steps include identification of predictors for high FT risk and extension of our survey to hospital systems with differing demographic profiles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amy L. Tin
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Truong H, Breen K, Kemel Y, Lenis AT, Reisz P, Benfante N, Ehdaie B, Touijer KA, Laudone VP, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Joseph V, Birsoy O, Mandelker D, Stadler ZK, Offit K, Morris MJ, Abida W, Robson ME, Carlo MI. Characterization of findings on prostate cancer tumor sequencing that should prompt consideration for germline testing. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.5022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5022 Background: Tumor sequencing is increasingly used for therapeutic selection in men with advanced prostate cancer (PC). If tumor-only sequencing is performed without matched germline, identified mutations could be of somatic or germline origin. Germline mutations could confer additional risk for other cancers to the patient and at-risk family members. The objective of this study is to determine the overall and gene-specific probability of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline mutations based on tumor-only sequencing. Methods: We investigated mutations found in a cohort of men with PC who underwent targeted next generation sequencing of PC tumor and matched peripheral blood using the MSK-IMPACT assay between 01/2015 and 01/2020. A germline probability for each gene was determined by dividing the number of germline mutations by the total number of somatic and germline mutations. Cancer susceptibility genes commonly sequenced on tumor-based tests for PC were assessed, including ATM, BRCA1/ 2, BRIP1, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2 (henceforth referred to as PC genes). Results: A total of 1883 men with PC were included, with median age of diagnosis of 62.0 ± 8.8 years. 84% had high risk PC, 52% had metastasis, 38% had family history of PC. A total of 364 (19%) men had at least one mutation (either somatic or germline) in PC genes. Overall, 189 (10%) men had at least one germline mutation that would not have been reported as germline without matched normal. The average germline probability of PC genes was 40% (range: 0% in MLH1 to 83% in CHEK2). The number of total mutations, germline mutations, and germline probability of genes found in > 0.5% of the study cohort are summarized in Table. All these genes are moderate/high penetrance autosomal dominant genes with established guidelines for cascade testing, enhanced cancer screening, or potential risk-reducing surgery. Conclusions: In this study, an average of 40% of mutations found in cancer susceptibility genes on PC tumor sequencing were germline mutations. Men undergoing tumor-only sequencing should be counseled on the possibility of uncovering a germline mutation. In addition to BRCA1/ 2, mutations in certain genes, such as CHEK2 and PALB2, have a high probability of being germline and should prompt referral for genetic counseling and germline testing.[Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hong Truong
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Yelena Kemel
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Peter Reisz
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center - Fellowship (GME Office), New York, NY
| | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | - Vijai Joseph
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Ozge Birsoy
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Kenneth Offit
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Wassim Abida
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Touijer KA, Sjoberg DD, Benfante N, Laudone VP, Ehdaie B, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Vickers A. Limited versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:532-539. [PMID: 33865797 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2020] [Revised: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the most reliable procedure for lymph node staging. However, the therapeutic benefit remains unproven; although most radical prostatectomies at academic centers are accompanied by PLND, there is no consensus regarding the optimal anatomical extent of PLND. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether extended PLND results in a lower biochemical recurrence rate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a single-center randomized trial. Patients, enrolled between October 2011 and March 2017, were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and PLND. Patients were assigned to limited or extended PLND by cluster randomization. Specifically, surgeons were randomized to perform limited or extended PLND for 3-mo periods. INTERVENTION Randomization to limited (external iliac nodes) or extended (external iliac, obturator fossa and hypogastric nodes) PLND. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was the rate of biochemical recurrence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 1440 patients included in the final analysis, 700 were randomized to limited PLND and 740 to extended PLND. The median number of nodes retrieved was 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-17) for limited PLND and 14 (IQR 10-20) extended PLND; the corresponding rate of positive nodes was 12% and 14% (difference -1.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.4% to 1.5%; p = 0.3). With median follow-up of 3.1 yr, there was no significant difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence between the groups (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.15; p = 0.5). Rates for grade 2 and 3 complications were similar at 7.3% for limited versus 6.4% for extended PLND; there were no grade 4 or 5 complications. CONCLUSIONS Extended PLND did not improve freedom from biochemical recurrence over limited PLND for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. However, there were smaller than expected differences in nodal count and the rate of positive nodes between the two templates. A randomized trial comparing PLND to no node dissection is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY In this clinical trial we did not find a difference in the rate of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer between limited and extended dissection of lymph nodes in the pelvis. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01407263.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karim A Touijer
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vincent P Laudone
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Van Hemelrijck M, Ji X, Helleman J, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma C, Frydenberg M, Rannikko A, Lee LS, Gnanapragasam V, Kattan MW, Trock B, Ehdaie B, Carroll P, Filson C, Kim J, Logothetis C, Morgan T, Klotz L, Pickles T, Hyndman E, Moore C, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, Dasgupta P, Bangma C, Roobol M, Villers A, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Perry A, Hugosson J, Rubio-Briones J, Bjartell A, Hefermehl L, Shiong LL, Frydenberg M, Kakehi Y, Chung MSBH, van der Kwast T, Obbink H, van der Linden W, Hulsen T, de Jonge C, Kattan M, Xinge J, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Fahey M, Steyerberg E, Nieboer D, Zhang L, Guo W, Benfante N, Cowan J, Patil D, Tolosa E, Kim TK, Mamedov A, LaPointe V, Crump T, Stavrinides V, Kimberly-Duffell J, Santaolalla A, Nieboer D, Olivier J, Rancati T, Ahlgren H, Mascarós J, Löfgren A, Lehmann K, Lin CH, Hirama H, Lee KS, Jenster G, Auvinen A, Bjartell A, Haider M, van Bochove K, Carter B, Gledhill S, Buzza M, Kouspou M, Bangma C, Roobol M, Bruinsma S, Helleman J. A first step towards a global nomogram to predict disease progression for men on active surveillance. Transl Androl Urol 2021; 10:1102-1109. [PMID: 33850745 PMCID: PMC8039580 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Signs of disease progression (28%) and conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression (13%) are the main reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) in men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict disease progression in these patients. METHODS As a first step in the development of a nomogram, using data from Movembers' GAP3 Consortium (n=14,380), we assessed heterogeneity between centres in terms of risk of disease progression. We started with assessment of baseline hazards for disease progression based on grouping of centres according to follow-up protocols [high: yearly; intermediate: ~2 yearly; and low: at year 1, 4 & 7 (i.e., PRIAS)]. We conducted cause-specific random effect Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate risk of disease progression by centre in each group. RESULTS Disease progression rates varied substantially between centres [median hazard ratio (MHR): 2.5]. After adjustment for various clinical factors (age, year of diagnosis, Gleason grade group, number of positive cores and PSA), substantial heterogeneity in disease progression remained between centres. CONCLUSIONS When combining worldwide data on AS, we noted unexplained differences of disease progression rate even after adjustment for various clinical factors. This suggests that when developing a global nomogram, local adjustments for differences in risk of disease progression and competing outcomes such as conversion to active treatment need to be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mieke Van Hemelrijck
- Translational Oncology & Urology Research (TOUR), School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Xinge Ji
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jozien Helleman
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique J. Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Chris Bangma
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Antti Rannikko
- Department of Urology, Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Lui Shiong Lee
- Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital and Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Vincent Gnanapragasam
- Academic Urology Group, Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Michael W. Kattan
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Zelefsky MJ, Goldman DA, Hopkins M, Pinitpatcharalert A, McBride S, Gorovets D, Ehdaie B, Fine SW, Reuter VE, Tyagi N, Happersett L, Teyateeti A, Zhang Z, Kollmeier MA. Predictors for post-treatment biopsy outcomes after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2021; 159:33-38. [PMID: 33587971 PMCID: PMC10187562 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.02.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2020] [Revised: 02/01/2021] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate predictors associated with post-treatment biopsy outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS 257 patients treated with prostate SBRT to dose levels of 32.5 Gy to >40 Gy in 5-6 fractions underwent a post-treatment biopsy performed approximately two years after treatment to evaluate local control status. 73 had% intermediate-risk disease (n = 187) and the remaining 17% (n = 43) and 10% (n = 27) had low-risk and high-risk disease, respectively. RESULTS The incidence of positive, negative, and treatment-effect post-treatment biopsies were 15.6%, 57.6%, and 26.8%, respectively. The incidence of a positive biopsy according to dose was 37.5% (n = 9/24), 21.4% (n = 6/28), 19.4% (n = 6/31), and 10.9% (n = 19/174) for 32.5 Gy, 35 Gy, 37.5 Gy, and >40 Gy, respectively. In a multivariable model, patients treated with SBRT doses of <40 Gy and those with unfavorable-intermediate-risk or high-risk disease had higher likelihood of a positive post-treatment biopsy. A positive post-SBRT biopsy was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of subsequent PSA relapse at five years (Positive biopsy: 57%, 95% CI: 29-77% compared to negative biopsy: 7%, 95% CI: 3-14%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Based on two-year post-SBRT biopsies, excellent tumor control was achieved when dose levels of 40 Gy or higher were used. Standard SBRT dose levels of 35-37.5 Gy were associated with a higher likelihood of a positive post-treatment biopsy. Two-year positive post-treatment biopsies pre-dated the development of PSA failure in the majority of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J Zelefsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
| | - Debra A Goldman
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Margaret Hopkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | | | - Sean McBride
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Daniel Gorovets
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Samson W Fine
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Victor E Reuter
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Neelam Tyagi
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Laura Happersett
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - Achiraya Teyateeti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
| | - Marisa A Kollmeier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Chesnut GT, Tin AL, Sivaraman A, Takeda T, Lee T, Fainberg J, Benfante N, Sjoberg DD, Vargas HA, Fine SW, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Coleman JA, Touijer KA, Zelefsky MJ, Ehdaie B. Defining the index lesion for potential salvage partial or hemi-gland ablation after radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2021; 39:495.e17-495.e24. [PMID: 33583697 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Salvage partial gland ablation (sPGA) has been proposed to treat some localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer. The role of prostate biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics to identify patients eligible for sPGA is unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the ability of MRI and prostate biopsy characteristics to identify an index lesion suitable for sPGA and validate this selection using detailed tumor maps created from whole-mount slides from salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Men who underwent sRP for recurrent prostate cancer following primary radiotherapy with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy between 2000 and 2014 at a single high-volume cancer center were eligible. Those with tumor maps, MRI and biopsy data were included in analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary outcome was the ability of clinicopathologic and imaging criteria to identify patients who may be eligible for sPGA based on detailed tumor map from whole-mount sRP slides. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 216 men who underwent sRP following whole gland radiotherapy, tumor maps, MRI, and biopsy data were available for 77. Of these, 15 (19%) were determined to be eligible for sPGA based on biopsy-proven unilateral disease in contiguous sextant segments, a dominant lesion on MRI concordant with biopsy location or no focal region of interest, and no imaging evidence of extraprostatic disease. Review of tumor maps identified 6 additional men who would have met criteria for sPGA, resulting in sensitivity of 71% (95% C.I. 48%-89%) and specificity of 100% (lower bound of 95% C.I. 94%). None of the 15 men who met the criteria for sPGA on clinical data were identified incorrectly on tumor maps to require full gland surgery (upper bound of 95% C.I. 22%). Median tumor volume of the index lesion was 0.4 cc and recurrent cancer was noted in the apex, mid-gland, and base in 81%, 100%, and 29% of men. CONCLUSIONS In men with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, biopsy findings and MRI can be used to select index lesions potentially amenable for sPGA and can guide patient evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials of sPGA following radiation failure. Larger, prospective studies are required to evaluate both the role of MRI and clinical criteria in guiding focal salvage therapy and the effectiveness of this modality for radiorecurrent prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory T Chesnut
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
| | - Amy L Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Arjun Sivaraman
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Toshikazu Takeda
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Taehyoung Lee
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jonathan Fainberg
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Samson W Fine
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Peter T Scardino
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - James A Eastham
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Jonathan A Coleman
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Karim A Touijer
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Michael J Zelefsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Carlsson S, Ehdaie B, Vickers A. What is a good medical choice? Cancer 2021; 127:1933-1934. [PMID: 33544415 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Jibara G, Sjoberg DD, Stearns GL, Stabholz Y, Fathollahi A, Leddy LS, Benfante N, Ehdaie B, Coleman JA, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS. Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate in the Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance. Urology 2021; 156:225-230. [PMID: 33539897 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2020] [Revised: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 01/21/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of photoselective vaporization of the prostate in alleviating refractory lower urinary tract symptoms in prostate cancer patients who are managed with active surveillance and to explore the association of this procedure with prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and cancer progression rates. METHODS Between 2008-2018, active surveillance patients who had refractory symptoms and needed surgery were studied. Perioperative functional variables were collected and analyzed. Disease progression was defined as an upgrade or upstage on surveillance biopsies or multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Mean postop scores were estimated using locally-weighted methods. The risk of progression was reported using Kaplan-Meier's method. RESULTS Seventy-one patients were included in the study. The median age was 68 years and the median surveillance time before surgery was 4 years. At 12 months, there were substantial improvements in the mean International Prostate Symptom Score (18-5.9), maximum flow rate (6.8-14 mL/s), postvoid residual (240-73mL), PSA (8.1-5.2 ng/mL), and prostate volume (85-57mL). At 30-days, only 2 patients with grade-III complications. Late consequences included tissue regrowth in 4 and urethral stricture (requiring a single dilation) in 3 patients. PSA levels decreased by 36% at 12 months postoperatively. With a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 7 men progressed and received radical treatment. At 3 years, the probability of remaining on surveillance was 93% (95% CI 87%- 100%). CONCLUSION Photoselective vaporization of the prostate offers substantial relief of symptoms in active surveillance patients with refractory symptoms, without adverse effects on disease progression rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ghalib Jibara
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | | | - Yariv Stabholz
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Ali Fathollahi
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Laura S Leddy
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Nicole Benfante
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Jonathan A Coleman
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - James A Eastham
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| | - Jaspreet S Sandhu
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Vickers AJ, Vertosick EA, Carlsson SV, Ehdaie B, Kim SYH. Patient accrual and understanding of informed consent in a two-stage consent design. Clin Trials 2021; 18:377-382. [PMID: 33530713 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520988500] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We previously introduced the concept of "two-stage" (or "just-in-time") informed consent for randomized trials with usual care control. We argued that conducting consent in two stages-splitting information about research procedures from information about the experimental intervention-would reduce the decisional anxiety, confusion, and information overload commonly associated with informed consent. We implemented two-stage consent in a low-stakes randomized trial of a mindfulness meditation intervention for procedural distress in patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Here, we report accrual rates and patient understanding of the consent process. METHODS Patients approached for consent for the biopsy trial were asked to complete the standard "Quality of Informed Consent" questionnaire to assess their knowledge and understanding of the trial. RESULTS Accrual was excellent with 108 of 110 (98%) patients approached for consent signing first-stage consent. All 51 patients randomized to the experimental arm and who later presented for biopsy signed second-stage consent and received the mindfulness intervention. Quality of Informed Consent data were available for 48 patients assigned to the mindfulness treatment arm and 44 controls. The mean Quality of Informed Consent score was similar in the meditation and control arms with and overall mean of 75 (95% confidence interval = 74-76) for the knowledge section and 86 (95% confidence interval = 81-90) for understanding, comparable to the normative scores of 80 and 88. On further analysis and patient interview, two of the Quality of Informed Consent questions were found to be misleading in the context of a two-stage consent study for a mindfulness intervention. Excluding these questions increased knowledge scores to 88 (95% confidence interval = 87-90). CONCLUSION We found promising data that two-stage consent facilitated accrual without compromising patient understanding of randomized trials or compliance with allocated treatment. Further research is needed incorporating randomized comparison of two-stage consent to standard consent approaches, measuring patient anxiety and distress as an outcome, using suitable modifications to the Quality of Informed Consent questionnaire and trials with higher stakes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emily A Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Scott Y H Kim
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hu JC, Ehdaie B, Sandhu J, Sjoberg DD, Carlsson SV, Tzeng M, Vickers AJ. Asian-American Race and Urinary Continence After Radical Prostatectomy. EUR UROL SUPPL 2020; 22:51-53. [PMID: 34337477 PMCID: PMC8317909 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jim C Hu
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.,New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jaspreet Sandhu
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel D Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Michael Tzeng
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Touijer K, Sjoberg D, Benfante N, Picola Brau N, Rivero Belenchón I, Mercader Barrull C, Laudone V, Ehdaie B, Mulhall J, Eastham J, Scardino P, Vickers A. Comparison of erectile function recovery between limited and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: Results from a large, clinically-integrated, randomized trial. EUR UROL SUPPL 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s2666-1683(20)34037-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
|
47
|
Chesnut GT, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B. Reply to Benjamin S. Simpson, Lina M. Carmona Echeverria, Joseph M. Norris, Hashim U. Ahmed, Caroline M. Moore, and Hayley C. Whitaker's Letter to the Editor re: Gregory T. Chesnut, Emily A. Vertosick, Nicole Benfante, et al. Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol 2020;77:501-7. Eur Urol 2020; 78:e108-e109. [PMID: 32522388 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory T Chesnut
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Chesnut GT, Vertosick EA, Ehdaie B. Reply to Jianhui Du, Yueguang Liu, and Weigang Yan's Letter to the Editor re: Gregory T. Chesnut, Emily A. Vertosick, Nicole Benfante, et al. Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.009. Eur Urol 2020; 78:e65-e66. [PMID: 32386781 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2020] [Accepted: 04/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gregory T Chesnut
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Emily A Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Recabal P, Lee T, Vertosick E, Manasia M, Eastham J, Touijer K, Seo SK, Spaliviero M, Ehdaie B. Quality improvement initiative to reduce variability and improve stewardship of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate needle biopsy. World J Urol 2020; 38:965-970. [PMID: 31190154 PMCID: PMC7583671 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02845-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2019] [Accepted: 06/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the impact of implementing the recommendations included in the 2014 American Urological Association (AUA) white paper on complications of transrectal prostate needle biopsy (PNB). METHODS In the outpatient setting of a single tertiary-care institution, prophylactic antibiotic use and rate of infectious complications were compared before and after implementation by nursing of a standardized algorithm to select antibiotic prophylaxis (derived from the recommendations of the AUA white paper). The 584 patients in cohort A (January 2011-January 2012) received antimicrobial prophylaxis at the discretion of the treating physician; 654 patients in cohort B (January 2014-January 2015) received standardized risk-adapted antibiotic prophylaxis. Data on antibiotics administered and infectious complications were analyzed. RESULTS Fluoroquinolone was the most common prophylactic regimen in both cohorts. In cohort A, 73% of men received a single-drug regimen, although 19 different regimens were utilized with duration of 72 h. In cohort B, 97% received 1 of 4 standardized single-drug antibiotic regimens for duration of 24 h. Infectious complications occurred in 19 men (3.3%) in cohort A, and in 18 men (2.8%) in cohort B (difference - 0.5%; one-sided 95% CI 1.1%). No clinically relevant increase in infectious complication rates was found after implementing this quality improvement initiative. CONCLUSIONS Use of a standardized risk-adapted approach to select antibiotic prophylaxis for PNB by nursing staff reduced the duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis and number of antibiotic regimens used, without increasing the rate of infectious complications. Our findings validate the current AUA recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Taehyoung Lee
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | | | | | - James Eastham
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Karim Touijer
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Susan K Seo
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Abstract
This cohort study examines the relative and disease-specific survival rates for patients with 10 early-stage cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea R Marcadis
- Department of Surgery, Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jennifer L Marti
- Weill Cornell Breast Center, Divisions of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - A Ari Hakimi
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Louise Davies
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Luc G T Morris
- Department of Surgery, Head and Neck Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|