1
|
Parker CC, Petersen PM, Cook AD, Clarke NW, Catton C, Cross WR, Kynaston H, Parulekar WR, Persad RA, Saad F, Bower L, Durkan GC, Logue J, Maniatis C, Noor D, Payne H, Anderson J, Bahl AK, Bashir F, Bottomley DM, Brasso K, Capaldi L, Cooke PW, Chung C, Donohue J, Eddy B, Heath CM, Henderson A, Henry A, Jaganathan R, Jakobsen H, James ND, Joseph J, Lees K, Lester J, Lindberg H, Makar A, Morris SL, Oommen N, Ostler P, Owen L, Patel P, Pope A, Popert R, Raman R, Ramani V, Røder A, Sayers I, Simms M, Srinivasan V, Sundaram S, Tarver KL, Tran A, Wells P, Wilson J, Zarkar AM, Parmar MKM, Sydes MR. Timing of Radiotherapy (RT) After Radical Prostatectomy (RP): Long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial [NCT00541047]. Ann Oncol 2024:S0923-7534(24)00105-4. [PMID: 38583574 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.03.010] [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: 10/20/2023] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure. METHODS RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, pre-op PSA≥10ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ("Adjuvant-RT") or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ("Salvage-RT") defined as PSA≥0.1ng/ml or 3 consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5Gy/20 fractions or 66Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant metastasis, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10yr with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were bPFS, freedom-from-non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; HR<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. FINDINGS Between Oct-2007 and Dec-2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with median age 65yr. 93% (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6m after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10yr FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 (95%CI 0·43-1·07, p=0·095). Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95%CI 0.667-1.440, p=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence one year after randomisation (p=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after ten years (p=0.017). INTERPRETATION Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C C Parker
- Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - P M Petersen
- Dept of Oncology, Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - A D Cook
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - N W Clarke
- Dept of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK; The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - C Catton
- Dept of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - W R Cross
- Dept of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - H Kynaston
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - W R Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - R A Persad
- Dept of Urology, Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK
| | - F Saad
- Dept of Urology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
| | - L Bower
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - G C Durkan
- Dept of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - J Logue
- Dept of Oncology, The Christie Hospital NHS FT, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, UK
| | - C Maniatis
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - D Noor
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - H Payne
- The Prostate Centre, London, UK
| | - J Anderson
- St James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, UK
| | - A K Bahl
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol & Weston NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - F Bashir
- Queen's Centre for Oncology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Cottingham, UK
| | | | - K Brasso
- Dept of Urology, Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Dept of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - L Capaldi
- Worcester Oncology Centre, Worcestershire Acute NHS Hospitals Trust, Worcester, UK
| | - P W Cooke
- Dept of Urology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - C Chung
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - J Donohue
- Dept of Urology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK
| | - B Eddy
- East Kent University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Kent, UK
| | - C M Heath
- Dept of Clinical Oncology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - A Henderson
- Dept of Urology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK
| | - A Henry
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - R Jaganathan
- Dept of Urology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - H Jakobsen
- Dept of Urology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - N D James
- Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - J Joseph
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals, UK; York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, UK
| | - K Lees
- Dept of Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK
| | - J Lester
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK
| | - H Lindberg
- Dept of Oncology, Herlev University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - A Makar
- Dept of Urology, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust, Worcester, UK
| | - S L Morris
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - N Oommen
- Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK
| | - P Ostler
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - L Owen
- Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK; Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds, UK
| | - P Patel
- Dept of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - A Pope
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - R Popert
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - R Raman
- Kent Oncology Centre, Kent & Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury, UK
| | - V Ramani
- Dept of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| | - A Røder
- Dept of Urology, Copenhagen Prostate Cancer Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - I Sayers
- Deanesly Centre, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - M Simms
- Dept of Urology, Hull University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | - V Srinivasan
- Glan Clwyd Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Rhyl, UK
| | - S Sundaram
- Dept of Urology, Mid Yorkshire Teaching Hospital, Pontefract, UK
| | - K L Tarver
- Dept of Oncology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK
| | - A Tran
- Dept of Oncology, The Christie Hospital NHS FT, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, UK
| | - P Wells
- St Bartholomews Hospital, London UK
| | - J Wilson
- Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK
| | - A M Zarkar
- Dept of Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - M K M Parmar
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - M R Sydes
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Nathan A, Aggarwal A, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Clarke NW. Reply to: Letter to the editor regarding the article 'Prostate cancer outcomes following whole-gland and focal high-intensity focused ultrasound'. BJU Int 2024. [PMID: 38515403 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
- Flatiron, London, UK
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nathan
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
- University College London, London, UK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
- Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dodkins J, Nossiter J, Cook A, Payne H, Clarke N, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. Does Research from Clinical Trials in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatment Translate into Access to Treatments for Patients in the "Real World"? A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:14-24. [PMID: 37380578 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.002] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2023] [Revised: 04/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/30/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Since 2015 there have been major advances in the management of primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) following the publication of key clinical trials that demonstrated significant clinical benefits with docetaxel chemotherapy or novel hormone therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Despite these advances, there is evidence to show that these treatments are not being utilised for mHSPC in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE To determine the utilisation of docetaxel and NHT in mHSPC in routine practice and the determinants of variation in their use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically for studies on utilisation of treatments for primary mHSPC that were based on regional or national data sets and published after January 2005. Study results were summarised using a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Thirteen papers were included in the analysis, six full-text articles and seven abstracts, on studies that included a total of 166 876 patients. The utilisation rate of treatment intensification with either docetaxel or NHT (enzalutamide, apalutamide, or abiraterone) in addition to ADT ranged from 9.3% to 38.1% across the studies. Younger, White patients with fewer comorbidities and living in more urban settings were more likely to be prescribed treatment intensification. Patients treated in private academic institutions by oncologists were more likely to receive docetaxel or NHT. Socioeconomic status did not impact receipt of systemic therapy. NHT utilisation rates appear to have increased over time. CONCLUSIONS These results highlight the need to change the approach to the treatment of primary mHSPC in the real world by harnessing the practice-changing results from recent trials in this setting to optimise upfront systemic therapy for this patient population. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the use of treatments for primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer that showed a benefit in key clinical trials. We found that these treatments are underused, particularly among certain patient groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna Dodkins
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Adrian Cook
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Noel Clarke
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Light A, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial. Eur Urol 2024; 85:35-46. [PMID: 37778954 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.001] [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: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.
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
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, 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; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, 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; Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Nathan A, Aggarwal A, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Clarke NW. Prostate cancer outcomes following whole-gland and focal high-intensity focused ultrasound. BJU Int 2023; 132:568-574. [PMID: 37422679 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To report the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) following high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). PATIENTS AND METHODS This observational cohort study used linked National Cancer Registry data, radiotherapy data, administrative hospital data and mortality records of 1381 men treated with HIFU for clinically localised prostate cancer in England. The primary outcome, FFS, was defined as freedom from local salvage treatment and cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were freedom from repeat HIFU, prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was used to determine whether baseline characteristics, including age, treatment year, T stage and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group were associated with FFS. RESULTS The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 37 (20-62) months. The median (IQR) age was 65 (59-70) years and 81% had an ISUP Grade Group of 1-2. The FFS was 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.4%-97.4%) at 1 year, 86.0% (95% CI 83.7%-87.9%) at 3 years and 77.5% (95% CI 74.4%-80.3%) at 5 years. The 5-year FFS for ISUP Grade Groups 1-5 was 82.9%, 76.6%, 72.2%, 52.3% and 30.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). Freedom from repeat HIFU was 79.1% (95% CI 75.7%-82.1%), CSS was 98.8% (95% CI 97.7%-99.4%) and OS was 95.9% (95% CI 94.2%-97.1%) at 5 years. CONCLUSION Four in five men were free from local salvage treatment at 5 years but treatment failure varied significantly according to ISUP Grade Group. Patients should be appropriately informed with respect to salvage radical treatment following HIFU.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
- Flatiron, London, UK
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nathan
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of UK, London, UK
- University College London, London, UK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Departments of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Petersen PM, Cook AD, Sydes MR, Clarke N, Cross W, Kynaston H, Logue J, Neville P, Payne H, Parmar MKB, Parulekar W, Persad R, Saad F, Stirling A, Parker CC, Catton C. Salvage Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of Toxicity by Dose-Fractionation in the RADICALS-RT Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:624-629. [PMID: 37150260 PMCID: PMC7615125 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 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: 02/07/2023] [Revised: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 04/29/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Emerging data indicate comparable disease control and toxicity of normal postoperative fractionation and moderate hypofractionation radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer. In RADICALS-RT, patients were planned for treatment with either 66 Gy in 33 fractions (f) over 6.5 weeks or 52.5 Gy in 20f over 4 weeks. This non-randomized, exploratory analysis explored the toxicity of these 2 schedules in patients who had adjuvant RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Information on RT dose was collected in all patients. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score was recorded every 4 months for 2 years, every 6 months until 5 years, then annually until 15 years. Patient-reported data were collected at baseline and at 1, 5, and 10 years using standard measures, including the Vaizey fecal incontinence score (bowel) and the International Continence Society Male Short-Form questionnaire (urinary incontinence). The highest event grade was recorded within the first 2 years and beyond 2 years and compared between treatment groups using the χ² test. RESULTS Of 634 patients, 217 (34%) were planned for 52.5 Gy/20f and 417 (66%) for 66 Gy/33f. In the first 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported more frequently among the 66 Gy/33f group (52.5 Gy/20f: 20% vs 66 Gy/33f: 30%; P = .04). After 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported in 16% in the 66-Gy group and 9% in the 52.5-Gy group (P = .08). Other toxic effects were similar in the 2 groups, and very few patients had any grade 3 to 4 toxic effects. Patients reported slightly higher urinary and fecal incontinence scores at 1 year than at baseline, but no clinically meaningful differences were reported between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. Patient-reported health was similar at baseline and at 1 year and similar between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. CONCLUSIONS Severe toxic effects were rare after prostate bed radiation therapy with either 52.5 Gy/20f or 66 Gy/33f. Only modest differences were recorded in toxic effects or in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Meidahl Petersen
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Adrian D Cook
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew R Sydes
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Noel Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - William Cross
- Department of Urology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | | | - John Logue
- Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Neville
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- University College London, The Prostate Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mahesh K B Parmar
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Wendy Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rajendra Persad
- Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Fred Saad
- Urologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alan Stirling
- Castle Hill Hospital, Castle Road, Cottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Christopher C Parker
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS, Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Charles Catton
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Light A, Peters M, Reddy D, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:520-530. [PMID: 37385981 PMCID: PMC10615865 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16102] [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: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.
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
| | - Max Peters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Deepika Reddy
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
- Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G. Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V. Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College 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
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, 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
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mellor S, Tierney TM, Seymour RA, Timms RC, O'Neill GC, Alexander N, Spedden ME, Payne H, Barnes GR. Real-time, model-based magnetic field correction for moving, wearable MEG. Neuroimage 2023; 278:120252. [PMID: 37437702 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120252] [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: 01/04/2023] [Revised: 06/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2023] [Indexed: 07/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Most neuroimaging techniques require the participant to remain still for reliable recordings to be made. Optically pumped magnetometer (OPM) based magnetoencephalography (OP-MEG) however, is a neuroimaging technique which can be used to measure neural signals during large participant movement (approximately 1 m) within a magnetically shielded room (MSR) (Boto et al., 2018; Seymour et al., 2021). Nevertheless, environmental magnetic fields vary both spatially and temporally and OPMs can only operate within a limited magnetic field range, which constrains participant movement. Here we implement real-time updates to electromagnetic coils mounted on-board of the OPMs, to cancel out the changing background magnetic fields. The coil currents were chosen based on a continually updating harmonic model of the background magnetic field, effectively implementing homogeneous field correction (HFC) in real-time (Tierney et al., 2021). During a stationary, empty room recording, we show an improvement in very low frequency noise of 24 dB. In an auditory paradigm, during participant movement of up to 2 m within a magnetically shielded room, introduction of the real-time correction more than doubled the proportion of trials in which no sensor saturated recorded outside of a 50 cm radius from the optimally-shielded centre of the room. The main advantage of such model-based (rather than direct) feedback is that it could allow one to correct field components along unmeasured OPM axes, potentially mitigating sensor gain and calibration issues (Borna et al., 2022).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Mellor
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK.
| | - Tim M Tierney
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Robert A Seymour
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Ryan C Timms
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - George C O'Neill
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Nicholas Alexander
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Meaghan E Spedden
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| | - Gareth R Barnes
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Tremblay S, Alhogbani M, Weickhardt A, Davis ID, Scott AM, Hicks RJ, Metser U, Chua S, Davda R, Punwani S, Payne H, Tunariu N, Ho B, Young S, Singbo MNU, Bauman G, Emmett L, Pouliot F. Influence of molecular imaging on patient selection for treatment intensification prior to salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a post hoc analysis of the PROPS trial. Cancer Imaging 2023; 23:57. [PMID: 37291656 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00570-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] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2023] [Accepted: 05/15/2023] [Indexed: 06/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of molecular imaging (MI) on patient management after biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy has been described in many studies. However, it is not known if MI-induced management changes are appropriate. This study aimed to determine if androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) management plan is improved by MI in patients who are candidates for salvage radiation therapy. METHODS Data were analyzed from the multicenter prospective PROPS trial evaluating PSMA/Choline PET in patients being considered for salvage radiotherapy (sRT) with BCR after prostatectomy. We compared the pre- and post-MI ADT management plans for each patient and cancer outcomes as predicted by the MSKCC nomogram. A higher percentage of predicted BCR associated with ADT treatment intensification after MI was considered as an improvement in a patient's management. RESULTS Seventy-three patients with a median PSA of 0.38 ng/mL were included. In bivariate analysis, a positive finding on MI (local or metastatic) was associated with decision to use ADT with an odds ratio of 3.67 (95% CI, 1.25 to 10.71; p = 0.02). No factor included in the nomogram was associated with decision to use ADT. Also, MI improved selection of patients to receive ADT based on predicted BCR after sRT : the predicted nomogram 5-year biochemical-free survivals were 52.5% and 43.3%, (mean difference, 9.2%; 95% CI 0.8 to 17.6; p = 0.03) for sRT alone and ADT±sRT subgroups, while there was no statistically significant difference between subgroups before MI. CONCLUSIONS PSMA and/or Choline PET/CT before sRT can potentially improve patient ADT management by directing clinicians towards more appropriate intensification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Andrew Weickhardt
- Austin Health and University of Melbourne, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ian D Davis
- Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew M Scott
- Austin Health and University of Melbourne, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Ur Metser
- University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sue Chua
- Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Bao Ho
- St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | | | - Glenn Bauman
- London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sujenthiran A, Parry MG, Dodkins J, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Nathan A, Cathcart P, Clarke NW, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 40:100622. [PMID: 37152844 PMCID: PMC10159812 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100622] [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] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Flatiron Health, UK
| | - Matthew G. Parry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Joanna Dodkins
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
- Corresponding authors at: Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England, UK.
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
| | - Arjun Nathan
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Noel W. Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | | | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, UK
- Department of Radiotherapy, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, UK
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, KCL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Grierson J, Miah H, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Clemente J, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU. Corrigendum to "Magnetic Resonance Imaging and targeted biopsies compared to transperineal mapping biopsies prior to salvage focal therapy/ablation in localised and metastatic recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Primary Outcomes from the FORECAST Trial" [Eur Urol 2022;81(6):598-605]. Eur Urol 2023; 83:e117-e118. [PMID: 36681537 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.004] [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] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital, Maidstone, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; High Dimensional Neurology, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Haroon Miah
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK; Urology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joey Clemente
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sweeney CJ, Martin AJ, Stockler MR, Begbie S, Cheung L, Chi KN, Chowdhury S, Frydenberg M, Horvath LG, Joshua AM, Lawrence NJ, Marx G, McCaffrey J, McDermott R, McJannett M, North SA, Parnis F, Parulekar W, Pook DW, Reaume MN, Sandhu SK, Tan A, Tan TH, Thomson A, Vera-Badillo F, Williams SG, Winter D, Yip S, Zhang AY, Zielinski RR, Davis ID, Abdi E, Allan S, Bastick P, Begbie S, Blum R, Briscoe K, Brungs D, Bydder S, Chittajallu BR, Cronk M, Cuff K, Davis ID, Dowling A, Frydenberg M, George M, Horvath L, Hovey E, Joshua A, Karanth N, Kichenadasse G, Krieger L, Marx G, Mathlum M, Nott L, Otty Z, Parnis F, Pook D, Sandhu S, Sewak S, Stevanovic A, Stockler M, Suder A, Tan H, Torres J, Troon S, Underhill C, Weickhardt A, Zielinski R, Abbas T, Anan G, Booth C, Campbell H, Chi K, Chin J, Chouinard E, Donnelly B, Drachenberg D, Faghih A, Finelli A, Hotte S, Noonan K, North S, Rassouli M, Reaume N, Rendon R, Saad F, Sadikov E, Vigneault E, Zalewski P, McCaffrey J, McDermott R, Morris P, O'Connor M, Donnellan P, O'Donnell D, Edwards J, Fong P, Tan A, Chowdhury S, Crabb S, Khan O, Khoo V, Macdonald G, Payne H, Robinson A, Shamash J, Staffurth J, Thomas C, Thomson A, Sweeney CJ. Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:323-334. [PMID: 36990608 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00063-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Revised: 02/05/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING Astellas Pharma.
Collapse
|
13
|
Fankhauser CD, Parry MG, Ali A, Cowling TE, Nossiter J, Sujenthiran A, Berry B, Morris M, Aggarwal A, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Clarke NW. A low prostate specific antigen predicts a worse outcome in high but not in low/intermediate-grade prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2023; 181:70-78. [PMID: 36641896 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.12.017] [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: 09/09/2022] [Revised: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer (PCa) grade was traditionally thought to be linear but recent reports suggest this is not true in high-grade cancers. We aimed to compare the association between PSA and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in clinically localised low/intermediate and high-grade PCa. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective cohort study using the National Prostate Cancer Audit database in England of men treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), EBRT and brachytherapy boost (EBRT + BT), radical prostatectomy or no radical local treatment between 2014 and 2018. Multivariable competing-risk regression was used to examine the association between PSA, Gleason, and PCSM. Multivariable restricted cubic spline regression was used to explore the non-linear associations of PSA and PCSM. RESULTS 102,089 men were included, of whom 71,138 had low/intermediate-grade and 22,425 had high-grade PCa. In high-grade, 4-year PCSM was higher with PSA ≤5 than PSA 5.1-10 for men treated with EBRT (hazard ratio 1.96 (95% confidence interval 1.15-3.34) or no radical local treatment (hazard ratio 1.99 (95% confidence interval 1.33-2.98). Restricted cubic spline regression showed that PSA and PCSM have a non-linear association in high-grade but a linear association in low/intermediate-grade PCa. CONCLUSION The low-PSA/high-grade combination in M0 PCa treated with EBRT has a higher PCSM than those with high-grade and intermediate PSA levels. In high-grade disease, the PSA association was non-linear; by contrast, low/intermediate-grade had a linear relationship. This confirms a more aggressive biology in low PSA secreting high-grade PCa and a worse outcome following treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian D Fankhauser
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
| | - Matthew G Parry
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Adnan Ali
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas E Cowling
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Julie Nossiter
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Arun Sujenthiran
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Brendan Berry
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Melanie Morris
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom; Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
| | - Heather Payne
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology University College London Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, GU Cancer/FASTMAN Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; National Prostate Cancer Audit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK; Department of Urology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Light A, Kanthabalan A, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley R, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Punwani S, Ahmed H, Shah T. Tumor characteristics of multiparametric MRI-detected and -undetected lesions in patients with suspected radiorecurrent prostate cancer: An analysis from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial. Eur Urol 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(23)01283-6] [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: 02/12/2023]
|
15
|
Nathan A, Morris M, Parry MG, Berry B, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Payne H, Van Der Meulen J, Clarke NW, Green JSA. Interventions for obstructive uropathy in advanced prostate cancer: a population-based study. BJU Int 2022; 130:688-695. [PMID: 35485254 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15766] [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: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop and validate a coding framework to identify interventions for upper tract obstructive uropathy (UTOU) in men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) using administrative hospital data to assess clinical outcomes. There are no population-based studies on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients newly diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and March 2019 were identified in the English cancer registry. A coding framework based on procedure (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures fourth edition) and diagnostic (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition) codes was developed and validated. Subsequent clinical outcomes were determined using Hospital Episodes Statistics to determine the utility of the intervention. RESULTS A total of 77 010 patients newly diagnosed with locally advanced, and 30 083 patients with metastatic PCa were identified. Of these, 1951 (1.8%) patients underwent an intervention for UTOU according to our coding framework: 830 (42.5%) had locally advanced disease and 1121 (57.5%) had metastatic disease. In all, 844 (43.3%) had a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), 473 (24.2%) had a PCN with antegrade stent, and 634 (32.5%) had a retrograde stent. The mean follow-up was 43.2 months. The cumulative incidence of the use of these interventions at 1, 3, and 5 years was 2.5%, 3.6% and 4.2% in men with metastases compared to 0.5%, 0.9% and 1.4% in men with locally advanced disease. CONCLUSION A new coding framework, developed to identify procedures for UTOU was applied in the largest study to date of UTOU in men with primary locally advanced and metastatic PCa. Results demonstrated that 2% of men with locally advanced PCa and 4% of men with metastatic PCa require an intervention to resolve UTOU within 5 years of their PCa diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arjun Nathan
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Matthew G Parry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Flatiron Health, UK
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Jan Van Der Meulen
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Parker AJ, Woodhead ZV, Carey DP, Groen MA, Gutierrez-Sigut E, Hodgson J, Hudson J, Karlsson EM, MacSweeney M, Payne H, Simpson N, Thompson PA, Watkins KE, Egan C, Grant JH, Harte S, Hudson BT, Sablik M, Badcock NA, Bishop DV. Inconsistent language lateralisation – Testing the dissociable language laterality hypothesis using behaviour and lateralised cerebral blood flow. Cortex 2022; 154:105-134. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2022.05.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
17
|
Parker C, Clarke N, Cook A, Catton C, Cross W, Kynaston H, Logue J, Petersen P, Neville P, Persad R, Payne H, Saad F, Stirling A, Parulekar W, Parmar M, Sydes M. LBA9 Duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with post-operative radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer: First results of the RADICALS-HD trial (ISRCTN40814031). Ann Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.08.064] [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: 11/01/2022] Open
|
18
|
Parker CC, Clarke NW, Catton C, Kynaston H, Cook A, Cross W, Davidson C, Goldstein C, Logue J, Maniatis C, Petersen PM, Neville P, Payne H, Persad R, Pugh C, Stirling A, Saad F, Parulekar WR, Parmar MKB, Sydes MR. RADICALS-HD: Reflections before the Results are Known. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:593-597. [PMID: 35810050 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Revised: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 06/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- C C Parker
- The Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
| | - N W Clarke
- Genito-Urinary Cancer Research Group, Department of Surgery, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK; Department of Urology, Salford Royal Hospitals, Manchester, UK
| | - C Catton
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - H Kynaston
- Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - A Cook
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - W Cross
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - C Davidson
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - C Goldstein
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - J Logue
- Oncology, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - C Maniatis
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - P M Petersen
- Department of Oncology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - P Neville
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - H Payne
- Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - R Persad
- Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol Hospitals, Bristol, UK
| | - C Pugh
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - A Stirling
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - F Saad
- University of Montreal Hospital Center (CHUM), Montréal, Canada
| | - W R Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - M K B Parmar
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| | - M R Sydes
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Wang Y, Galante JR, Haroon A, Wan S, Afaq A, Payne H, Bomanji J, Adeleke S, Kasivisvanathan V. The future of PSMA PET and WB MRI as next-generation imaging tools in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2022; 19:475-493. [PMID: 35789204 DOI: 10.1038/s41585-022-00618-w] [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] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Radiolabelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based PET-CT has been shown in numerous studies to be superior to conventional imaging in the detection of nodal or distant metastatic lesions. 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT is now recommended by many guidelines for the detection of biochemically relapsed disease after radical local therapy. PSMA radioligands can also function as radiotheranostics, and Lu-PSMA has been shown to be a potential new line of treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whole-body (WB) MRI has been shown to have a high diagnostic performance in the detection and monitoring of metastatic bone disease. Prospective, randomized, multicentre studies comparing 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT and WB MRI for pelvic nodal and metastatic disease detection are yet to be performed. Challenges for interpretation of PSMA include tracer trapping in non-target tissues and also urinary excretion of tracers, which confounds image interpretation at the vesicoureteral junction. Additionally, studies have shown how long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) affects PSMA expression and could, therefore, reduce tracer uptake and visibility of PSMA+ lesions. Furthermore, ADT of short duration might increase PSMA expression, leading to the PSMA flare phenomenon, which makes the accurate monitoring of treatment response to ADT with PSMA PET challenging. Scan duration, detection of incidentalomas and presence of metallic implants are some of the major challenges with WB MRI. Emerging data support the wider adoption of PSMA PET and WB MRI for diagnosis, staging, disease burden evaluation and response monitoring, although their relative roles in the standard-of-care management of patients are yet to be fully defined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yishen Wang
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. .,Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, UK.
| | - Joao R Galante
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Simon Wan
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Asim Afaq
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Moat SJ, Hillier S, de Souza S, Perry M, Cottrell S, Lench A, Payne H, Jolles S. Maternal SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveillance using newborn dried blood spot (DBS) screening specimens highlights extent of low vaccine uptake in pregnant women. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2022; 18:2089498. [PMID: 35731129 PMCID: PMC9620996 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2089498] [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] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in pregnant women is believed to be low and lags behind the general population contributing to increased hospital admissions, and poor maternal and fetal outcomes. However, there is a paucity of information on the SARS-CoV-2 serostatus of pregnant women to help inform policy planning and assess impact of interventions to improve vaccine uptake in this at-risk group. We analyzed 8,683 residual, anonymized newborn screening dried bloodspot (DBS) specimens during a 15-month period (October 2020 to December 2021) in Wales (UK) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG-antibodies. We compared newborn DBS antibody-positive rates to the percentage number of pregnant women vaccinated and the percentage number of antibody-positive adults. In December 2021, 47.8% of women in Wales had received two doses of the vaccine by their delivery date; however, only 41.1% of DBS specimens had high antibody concentrations. Results indicate that a proportion of pregnant women remain at higher-risk of COVID complications, particularly given the reduction in antibody neutralization of Omicron versus the Delta variant. Our study demonstrates the utility of newborn screening DBS specimens to monitor SARS-CoV-2 serostatus in pregnant women representing maternal vaccination and natural infection in almost real-time, defining the immunity gap and impact of any interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stuart J Moat
- Department of Medical Biochemistry, Immunology & Toxicology, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK.,School of Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | | | | | - Malorie Perry
- Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme and Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - Simon Cottrell
- Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme and Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - Alex Lench
- Vaccine Preventable Disease Programme and Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Health and Social Services Group, Population Healthcare Division, Welsh Government, Cardiff, UK
| | - Stephen Jolles
- Immunodeficiency Centre for Wales, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Dodkins J, Morris M, Nossiter J, van der Meulen J, Payne H, Clarke N, Aggarwal A. Practicalities, challenges and solutions to delivering a national organisational survey of cancer service and processes: Lessons from the National Prostate Cancer Audit. J Cancer Policy 2022; 33:100344. [PMID: 35724956 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100344] [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: 04/04/2022] [Revised: 04/27/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Organisational surveys are a critical process to assess the configuration and availability of services within health care systems. Cancer service organizational surveys enable understanding of variation in structure, processes and outcomes of cancer care according to the availability of facilities and their geographical organisation. This is critical for evaluating the delivery of cancer care services across a specified region. Furthermore, the organisational survey provides essential information about patient support services which can be used to inform patients where particular allied health services are available. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) is an audit of all prostate cancer services in England and Wales. The NPCA encompasses all prostate cancer diagnostics, treatments (including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy) and allied services. The NPCA conducted an organisational survey in 2021 via an online questionnaire sent to the prostate cancer clinical leads within each of the 138 NHS providers and we had a response rate of 93 %. There are many challenges to conducting an organisational survey and gaining a high completion rate is still difficult. The challenges that the NPCA faced included accuracy, completion, duplicates and discrepancies in responses. From this experience, we have developed some suggestions for the practical delivery and development of future organisational surveys. It was thanks to the use of many of these strategies, and the engagement of clinicians with the NPCA, that we were able to achieve such a high response rate. Despite these challenges, the importance of organisational surveys of cancer services is demonstrated by the better understanding of structure, processes and outcomes of cancer care according to the accessibility of facilities and their geographical organisation. This is essential for evaluating and improving the delivery of cancer care services across a region.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna Dodkins
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom.
| | - Melanie Morris
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Noel Clarke
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom; King's College London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Grierson J, Miah H, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Clemente J, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra A, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore CM, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsies Compared to Transperineal Mapping Biopsies Before Focal Ablation in Localised and Metastatic Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy. Eur Urol 2022; 81:598-605. [PMID: 35370021 PMCID: PMC9156577 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [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: 11/19/2021] [Revised: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy and the role of salvage focal ablation in treating recurrent disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45-92%), 94% (95% CI 86-98%), and 65% (95% CI 38-86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88-98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7-35%), 80% (95% CI 73-87%), and 46% (95% CI 19-75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18-36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54-75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01883128.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Hospital, Maidstone, UK; School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; High Dimensional Neurology, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
| | - Norman R Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jack Grierson
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Haroon Miah
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK; Urology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joey Clemente
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London and University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kings Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline M Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Dearnaley D, Hinder V, Hijab A, Horan G, Srihari N, Rich P, Houston G, Henry A, Gibbs S, Venkitaraman R, Cruickshank C, Hassan S, Mason M, Pedley I, Payne H, Brock S, Wade R, Robinson A, Din O, Lees K, Murray J, Parker C, Griffin C, Sohaib A, Hall E. OC-0105 PROMPTS RCT of screening MRI for spinal cord compression in prostate cancer (ISRCTN74112318). Radiother Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(22)02481-1] [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]
|
24
|
Dearnaley D, Hinder V, Hijab A, Horan G, Srihari N, Rich P, Houston JG, Henry AM, Gibbs S, Venkitaraman R, Cruickshank C, Hassan S, Miners A, Mason M, Pedley I, Payne H, Brock S, Wade R, Robinson A, Din O, Lees K, Graham J, Worlding J, Murray J, Parker C, Griffin C, Sohaib A, Hall E. Observation versus screening spinal MRI and pre-emptive treatment for spinal cord compression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastases in the UK (PROMPTS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23:501-513. [PMID: 35279270 PMCID: PMC8960282 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00092-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis. METHODS We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete. FINDINGS Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8-10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1-7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference -2·4% [95% CI -4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening. INTERPRETATION Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Dearnaley
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Victoria Hinder
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Adham Hijab
- Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Clinical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Narayanan Srihari
- Clinical Oncology, The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK
| | - Philip Rich
- Radiology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - J Graeme Houston
- Imaging Science and Technology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Ann M Henry
- Clinical Oncology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Stephanie Gibbs
- Clinical Oncology, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Ram Venkitaraman
- Clinical Oncology, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Ipswich, UK
| | - Clare Cruickshank
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Shama Hassan
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Alec Miners
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Ian Pedley
- Clinical Oncology, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Susannah Brock
- Clinical Oncology, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK
| | - Robert Wade
- Clinical Oncology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Angus Robinson
- Clinical Oncology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Omar Din
- Clinical Oncology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Kathryn Lees
- Clinical Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK
| | - John Graham
- Clinical Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK
| | - Jane Worlding
- Oncology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
| | - Julia Murray
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Parker
- Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Griffin
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Aslam Sohaib
- Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Hall
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Payne H, Bomanji J, Bottomley D, Scarsbrook AF, Teoh EJ. Impact of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT on salvage radiotherapy plans for men with recurrence of prostate cancer postradical prostatectomy. Nucl Med Commun 2022; 43:201-211. [PMID: 34669678 PMCID: PMC8754096 DOI: 10.1097/mnm.0000000000001501] [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] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2021] [Accepted: 10/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Imaging options to localize biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) are limited, especially at low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The FALCON study evaluated the impact of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT on management plans for patients with BCR. Here, we evaluate salvage radiotherapy decisions in patients post-RP. METHODS We conducted a subgroup analysis of post-RP patients enrolled in FALCON who had a prescan plan for salvage radiotherapy (± androgen-deprivation therapy). Patients' treatment plans post-18F-fluciclovine PET/CT were compared with their prescan plans. Fisher exact test was used to determine the impact of PSA and Gleason sum on positivity and anatomical patterns of uptake. RESULTS Sixty-five (63%) FALCON patients had undergone RP. Of these, 62 (median PSA, 0.32 ng/mL) had a prescan plan for salvage radiotherapy. Twenty-one (34%) had 18F-fluciclovine-avid lesions. Disease was confined to the prostate bed in 11 patients (52%) and to the pelvis in a further 5 (24%), while 5 (24%) had extrapelvic findings. Trends towards more disseminated disease with increasing PSA or Gleason sum were observed but did not reach statistical significance. Postscan, 25 (40%) patients had a management change; 17 (68%) were changed to the treatment modality (8 to systemic therapy, 8 to active surveillance, 1 other) and 8 (32%) were radiotherapy field modifications. CONCLUSIONS Incorporating 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT into treatment planning may help identify patients suitable for salvage radiotherapy, help augment planned radiotherapy to better target lesions and support the clinician to optimise patient management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | | | | | - Eugene J. Teoh
- Departments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK (at the time of study conduct)
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Nossiter J, Morris M, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Cathcart P, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A, Payne H, Clarke NW. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2022; 130:262-270. [PMID: 35080142 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [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: 08/05/2021] [Revised: 01/04/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service. METHODS Diagnostic and treatment activity between March 23rd (start of first national lockdown in England) and December 31st 2020 was compared with same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified in national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets. RESULTS There was a 30.8% reduction (22,419 versus 32,409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at more advanced stage (21.2% versus 17.4%, stage IV) and slightly older (57.9% versus 55.9% ≥ 70 years, p<0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed through using transperineal routes (64.0% versus 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3,896 versus 5,331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9,719 versus 11,309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 versus 1,519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide. CONCLUSION We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of Covid-19 exposure including increased use of transperineal biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the Covid-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England
| | - Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England
| | | | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's and St Thomas
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.,Department of Radiotherapy, NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's and St Thomas.,Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population, and Global Health, King's College London
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Parry MG, Nossiter J, Morris M, Sujenthiran A, Skolarus TA, Berry B, Nathan A, Cathcart P, Aggarwal A, van der Meulen J, Trinh QD, Payne H, Clarke NW. Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-021-00482-6. [PMID: 35001083 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00482-6] [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: 10/05/2021] [Revised: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 11/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment. METHODS We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term. RESULTS We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. .,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,Flatiron, London, UK
| | - Ted A Skolarus
- Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nathan
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.,University College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Quoc-Dien Trinh
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.,Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Department of Urology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Payne H, White R, Day E, Osborn-Jenkins L, Roberts L. Advice-giving skills in pre-registration physiotherapy training. Physiotherapy 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2021.10.169] [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: 10/19/2022]
|
29
|
Parry MG, Skolarus TA, Nossiter J, Sujenthiran A, Morris M, Cowling TE, Berry B, Aggarwal A, Payne H, Cathcart P, Clarke NW, van der Meulen J. Urinary incontinence and use of incontinence surgery after radical prostatectomy: a national study using patient-reported outcomes. BJU Int 2021; 130:84-91. [PMID: 34846770 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15663] [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] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate whether patient-reported urinary incontinence and bother scores after radical prostatectomy result in subsequent intervention with incontinence surgery. METHODS Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and January 2016 were identified. Administrative data were used to identify men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy and those who subsequently underwent a urinary incontinence procedure. The National Prostate Cancer Audit database was used to identify men who had also completed a post-treatment survey. These surveys included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index (EPIC-26). The frequency of subsequent incontinence procedures, within 6 months of the survey, was explored according to EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores. The relationship between "good" (≥75) or "bad" (≤25) EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores and perceptions of urinary bother was also explored (responses ranging from 'no problem' to 'big problem' with respect to their urinary function). RESULTS We identified 11,290 men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy. The 3-year cumulative incidence of incontinence surgery was 2.5%. After exclusions, we identified 5,165 men who had also completed a post-treatment survey after a median time of 19 months (response rate 74%). 481 men (9.3%) reported a "bad" urinary incontinence score and 207 men (4.0%) also reported that they had a big problem with their urinary function. 47 men went on to have incontinence surgery within 6 months of survey completion (0.9%), of whom 93.6% had a "bad" urinary incontinence score. Of the 71 men with the worst urinary incontinence score (zero), only 11 men (15.5%) subsequently had incontinence surgery. CONCLUSION In England, there is a significant number of men living with severe, bothersome urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy, and an unmet clinical need for incontinence surgery. The systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could be used to identify men who may benefit from incontinence surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, USA.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, USA
| | - Ted A Skolarus
- Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, USA
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, USA.,Flatiron, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, USA.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, USA
| | | | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, LHSTM, USA.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, USA
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Radiotherapy, NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's & St Thomas, UK.,Department of Cancer Epidemiology, KCL, Population & Global Health, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's & St Thomas, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, The Christie &, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Nathan A, Ng A, Mitra A, Sooriakumaran P, Davda R, Patel S, Fricker M, Kelly J, Shaw G, Rajan P, Sridhar A, Nathan S, Payne H. Comparative Effectiveness Analyses of Salvage Prostatectomy and Salvage Radiotherapy Outcomes Following Focal or Whole-Gland Ablative Therapy (High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Cryotherapy or Electroporation) for Localised Prostate Cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 34:e69-e78. [PMID: 34740477 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [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: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 09/27/2021] [Accepted: 10/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Ablative therapy, such as focal therapy, cryotherapy or electroporation, aims to treat clinically significant prostate cancer with reduced treatment-related toxicity. Up to a third of patients may require further local salvage treatment after ablative therapy failure. Limited descriptive, but no comparative, evidence exists between different salvage treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare oncological and functional outcomes after salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SRARP) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were collected prospectively and retrospectively on 100 consecutive SRARP cases and 100 consecutive SRT cases after ablative therapy failure in a high-volume tertiary centre. RESULTS High-risk patients were over-represented in the SRARP group (66.0%) compared with the SRT group (48.0%) (P = 0.013). The median (interquartile range) follow-up after SRARP was 16.5 (10.0-30.0) months and 37.0 (18.5-64.0) months after SRT. SRT appeared to confer greater biochemical recurrence-free survival at 1, 2 and 3 years compared with SRARP in high-risk patients (year 3: 86.3% versus 66.0%), but biochemical recurrence-free survival was similar for intermediate-risk patients (year 3: 90.0% versus 75.6%). There was no statistical difference in pad-free continence at 12 and 24 months between SRARP (77.2 and 84.7%) and SRT (75.0 and 74.0%) (P = 0.724, 0.114). Erectile function was more likely to be preserved in men who underwent SRT. After SRT, cumulative bowel and urinary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grade I were 25.0 and 45.0%, grade II were 11.0 and 11.0% and grade III or IV complications were 4.0 and 5.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION We report the first comparative analyses of salvage prostatectomy and radiotherapy following ablative therapy. Men with high-risk disease appear to have superior oncological outcomes after SRT; however, treatment allocation does not appear to influence oncological outcomes for men with intermediate-risk disease. Treatment allocation was associated with a different spectrum of toxicity profile. Our data may inform shared decision-making when considering salvage treatment following focal or whole-gland ablative therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Nathan
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK; The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
| | - A Ng
- University College London, London, UK
| | - A Mitra
- University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - P Sooriakumaran
- University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - R Davda
- University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - S Patel
- University College London, London, UK
| | | | - J Kelly
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - G Shaw
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - P Rajan
- University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - A Sridhar
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - S Nathan
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - H Payne
- University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Payne H, Robinson A, Rappe B, Hilman S, De Giorgi U, Joniau S, Bordonaro R, Mallick S, Dourthe LM, Flores MM, Gumà J, Baron B, Duran A, Pranzo A, Serikoff A, Mott D, Herdman M, Pavesi M, De Santis M. A European, prospective, observational study of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: PREMISE. Int J Cancer 2021; 150:837-846. [PMID: 34648657 PMCID: PMC9298797 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [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: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
In randomized clinical trials, the androgen‐receptor inhibitor enzalutamide has demonstrated efficacy and safety in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study captured efficacy, safety and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients in a real‐world European setting. PREMISE (NCT0249574) was a European, long‐term, prospective, observational study in mCRPC patients prescribed enzalutamide as part of standard clinical practice. Patients were categorized based on prior docetaxel and/or abiraterone use. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), defined as time from enzalutamide initiation to permanent treatment discontinuation for any reason. Secondary endpoints included prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) response, time to PSA progression, time to disease progression and safety. PROs included EuroQol 5‐Dimension, 5‐Level questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Prostate and Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form. Overall, 1732 men were enrolled. Median TTF with enzalutamide was 12.9 months in the chemotherapy‐ and abiraterone‐naïve cohort (Cohort 1) and 8.4 months in the postchemotherapy and abiraterone‐naïve cohort (Cohort 2). Clinical outcomes based on secondary endpoints also varied between cohorts. Cohorts 1 and 2 showed small improvements in health‐related quality of life and pain status. The proportions of patients reporting treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 51.0% and 62.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; enzalutamide‐related TEAEs were similar in both cohorts. The most frequent TEAE across cohorts was fatigue. These data from unselected mCRPC patients in European, real‐world, clinical‐practice settings confirmed the benefits of enzalutamide previously shown in clinical trial outcomes, with safety results consistent with enzalutamide's known safety profile.
What's new?
In clinical trials, the androgen‐receptor inhibitor enzalutamide has demonstrated efficacy and safety in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, results in the real world may differ from those in controlled studies. This large, prospective study thus assessed unselected mCRPC patients with different prior treatment histories, who were then treated with enzalutamide. The results confirm and validate the benefits of enzalutamide in real‐world, clinical‐practice settings that were previously seen in clinical‐trial outcomes. These include improved health‐related quality of life (HRQoL).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - Angus Robinson
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK
| | | | - Serena Hilman
- Department of Oncology, Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare, UK
| | - Ugo De Giorgi
- Department of Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy
| | - Steven Joniau
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Moisés Mira Flores
- Department of Radiotherapy Oncology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Lleida, Spain
| | - Josep Gumà
- Oncology Institute of Southern Catalonia, Sant Joan University Hospital, IISPV, URV, Reus, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Marco Pavesi
- Office of Health Economics, London, UK.,Data Center, European Foundation for the Study of Chronic Liver Failure, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.,Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Parry MG, Boyle JM, Nossiter J, Morris M, Sujenthiran A, Berry B, Cathcart P, Aggarwal A, van der Meulen J, Payne H, Clarke NW. Determinants of variation in radical local treatment for men with high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer in England. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021:10.1038/s41391-021-00439-9. [PMID: 34493837 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00439-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Revised: 07/27/2021] [Accepted: 08/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many factors are implicated in the potential 'under-treatment' of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation. METHODS The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS 53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P < 0.001) for patients aged ≥80 years (ICC: 0.235) compared to patients aged 75-79 years (ICC: 0.070), 70-74 years (ICC: 0.041), and <70 years (ICC: 0.048). Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation did not influence the between-hospital variation. CONCLUSIONS Radical local treatment of high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer depended strongly on age and comorbidity, but also on socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, with the between-hospital variation being highest in older patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. .,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
| | - Jemma M Boyle
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population, and Global Health, King's College London, London, UK.,Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Bishop DVM, Grabitz CR, Harte SC, Watkins KE, Sasaki M, Gutierrez-Sigut E, MacSweeney M, Woodhead ZVJ, Payne H. Cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages in bilinguals assessed using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Wellcome Open Res 2021; 1:15. [PMID: 34405116 PMCID: PMC8361806 DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.9869.2] [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] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Lateralised language processing is a well-established finding in monolinguals. In bilinguals, studies using fMRI have typically found substantial regional overlap between the two languages, though results may be influenced by factors such as proficiency, age of acquisition and exposure to the second language. Few studies have focused specifically on individual differences in brain lateralisation, and those that have suggested reduced lateralisation may characterise representation of the second language (L2) in some bilingual individuals. Methods: In Study 1, we used functional transcranial Doppler sonography (FTCD) to measure cerebral lateralisation in both languages in high proficiency bilinguals who varied in age of acquisition (AoA) of L2. They had German (N = 14) or French (N = 10) as their first language (L1) and English as their second language. FTCD was used to measure task-dependent blood flow velocity changes in the left and right middle cerebral arteries during phonological word generation cued by single letters. Language history measures and handedness were assessed through self-report. Study 2 followed a similar format with 25 Japanese (L1) /English (L2) bilinguals, with proficiency in their second language ranging from basic to advanced, using phonological and semantic word generation tasks with overt speech production. Results: In Study 1, participants were significantly left lateralised for both L1 and L2, with a high correlation (r = .70) in the size of laterality indices for L1 and L2. In Study 2, again there was good agreement between LIs for the two languages (r = .77 for both word generation tasks). There was no evidence in either study of an effect of age of acquisition, though the sample sizes were too small to detect any but large effects. Conclusion: In proficient bilinguals, there is strong concordance for cerebral lateralisation of first and second language as assessed by a verbal fluency task.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Clara R Grabitz
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sophie C Harte
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
| | - Kate E Watkins
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Miho Sasaki
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK.,Faculty of Business and Commerce, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Eva Gutierrez-Sigut
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK.,Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
| | - Mairéad MacSweeney
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK.,Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK
| | - Zoe V J Woodhead
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK.,Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Stancliffe M, Davda R, Payne H, Mitra A, McGovern U, Pendse D. PO-1387 Diffusion MRI as an early response marker in management of high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)07838-5] [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] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
35
|
Bahl A, Challapalli A, Jain S, Payne H. Rectal spacers in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A survey of UK uro-oncologists. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e14338. [PMID: 33966327 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14338] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. METHODS An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG). RESULTS Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers. CONCLUSIONS The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amit Bahl
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol & Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Amarnath Challapalli
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol & Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Suneil Jain
- Queen's University Belfast and Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Oncology Department, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Cathcart P, Clarke N, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. PD-0768 Treatment-related toxicity of prostate bed versus whole pelvis post-prostatectomy radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)07047-x] [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: 10/20/2022]
|
37
|
Bishop DVM, Grabitz CR, Harte SC, Watkins KE, Sasaki M, Gutierrez-Sigut E, MacSweeney M, Woodhead ZVJ, Payne H. Cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages in bilinguals assessed using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Wellcome Open Res 2021; 1:15. [PMID: 34405116 PMCID: PMC8361806 DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.9869.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Lateralised language processing is a well-established finding in monolinguals. In bilinguals, studies using fMRI have typically found substantial regional overlap between the two languages, though results may be influenced by factors such as proficiency, age of acquisition and exposure to the second language. Few studies have focused specifically on individual differences in brain lateralisation, and those that have suggested reduced lateralisation may characterise representation of the second language (L2) in some bilingual individuals. Methods: In Study 1, we used functional transcranial Doppler sonography (FTCD) to measure cerebral lateralisation in both languages in high proficiency bilinguals who varied in age of acquisition (AoA) of L2. They had German (N = 14) or French (N = 10) as their first language (L1) and English as their second language. FTCD was used to measure task-dependent blood flow velocity changes in the left and right middle cerebral arteries during phonological word generation cued by single letters. Language history measures and handedness were assessed through self-report. Study 2 followed a similar format with 25 Japanese (L1) /English (L2) bilinguals, with proficiency in their second language ranging from basic to advanced, using phonological and semantic word generation tasks with overt speech production. Results: In Study 1, participants were significantly left lateralised for both L1 and L2, with a high correlation (r = .70) in the size of laterality indices for L1 and L2. In Study 2, again there was good agreement between LIs for the two languages (r = .77 for both word generation tasks). There was no evidence in either study of an effect of age of acquisition, though the sample sizes were too small to detect any but large effects. Conclusion: In proficient bilinguals, there is strong concordance for cerebral lateralisation of first and second language as assessed by a verbal fluency task.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Clara R. Grabitz
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sophie C. Harte
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
| | - Kate E. Watkins
- Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Miho Sasaki
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
- Faculty of Business and Commerce, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Eva Gutierrez-Sigut
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
- Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
| | - Mairéad MacSweeney
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
- Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK
| | | | - Heather Payne
- Deafness, Cognition, Language Research Centre, UCL, London, UK
- Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Parry M, Boyle J, Nossiter J, Morris M, Sujenthiran A, Berry B, Cathcart P, Aggawal A, Van Der Meulen J, Payne H, Clarke N. Determinants of variation in radical local treatment for men with high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer in England. Eur Urol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(21)01571-2] [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: 11/30/2022]
|
39
|
Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Morris M, Berry B, Cathcart P, Clarke N, Payne H, Van Der Meulen J, Aggawal A. Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study. Eur Urol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(21)01556-6] [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: 10/20/2022]
|
40
|
Shah T, Kanthabalan A, Pavlou M, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams N, Haroon A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley R, Virdi J, Arya M, Mitra A, Payne H, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed H. MRI and targeted biopsies compared to transperineal mapping biopsies for targeted ablation in recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: Primary outcomes of the FORECAST trial. Eur Urol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(21)01566-9] [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: 11/30/2022]
|
41
|
Armstrong N, Bahl A, Pinkawa M, Ryder S, Ahmadu C, Ross J, Bhattacharyya S, Woodward E, Battaglia S, Binns J, Payne H. SpaceOAR Hydrogel Spacer for Reducing Radiation Toxicity During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review. Urology 2021; 156:e74-e85. [PMID: 34029607 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer. METHODS A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative. RESULTS 19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P = .01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P < .001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT). CONCLUSION The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nigel Armstrong
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, Escrick, YO, United Kingdom.
| | - Amit Bahl
- University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Pinkawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MediClin Robert Janker Klinik, Bonn, Germany
| | - Steve Ryder
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, Escrick, YO, United Kingdom
| | | | - Janine Ross
- Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, Escrick, YO, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Jean Binns
- Boston Scientific Corporation, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Aggarwal A, Nossiter J, Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Zietman A, Clarke N, Payne H, van der Meulen J. Public reporting of outcomes in radiation oncology: the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:e207-e215. [DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30558-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2020] [Revised: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 09/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|
43
|
Kinnaird W, Kirby MG, Mitra A, Davda R, Jenkins V, Payne H. The management of sexual dysfunction resulting from radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy to treat prostate cancer: A comparison of uro-oncology practice according to disease stage. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e13873. [PMID: 33260255 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13873] [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] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 11/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To establish current uro-oncology practice in the management of sexual dysfunction (SD) following radiotherapy (RT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat prostate cancer. To identify differences in approach to the management of SD according to disease stage. SUBJECTS AND METHODS A 14-question mixed methods survey was designed to assess the current UK practice. Closed- and open-ended questions were used to quantify results while allowing participants to expand on answers. The survey was distributed to members of the British Uro-Oncology Group at the 2019 annual meeting. RESULTS Surveys were completed by 63 uro-oncologists attending the annual meeting of the British Uro-Oncology Group (response rate 66%). The major issue highlighted was a difference in approach to managing SD according to disease stage. More than half of the participants (56%) said 'advanced stage of disease' was a barrier to discussing SD. Clinicians were less likely to discuss SD, take baseline assessments, refer to a specialist clinic or offer rehabilitation when dealing with patients with advanced disease. Only a minority said that the management of SD was primarily their responsibility (11%). Nearly all clinicians (92%) had access to SD clinics; however, the majority of clinicians did not routinely refer patients. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that men with advanced prostate cancer need better support in managing SD. Patients receiving long-term ADT are less likely to be offered any kind of help or intervention. Specific guidance on managing SD in this cohort may result in improvements in sexual function, emotional well-being, quality of life, mental health and confidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Kinnaird
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Anita Mitra
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Reena Davda
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Valerie Jenkins
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Bahl A, Crabb S, Ford D, Jones R, Malik Z, Mazhar D, O'Sullivan J, Payne H. Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A survey of UK Uro-oncologists. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e13874. [PMID: 33258206 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13874] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2020] [Revised: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group. RESULTS All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease. CONCLUSION All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amit Bahl
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Crabb
- University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Dan Ford
- University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Rob Jones
- University of Glasgow and Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Zaf Malik
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Danish Mazhar
- Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Joe O'Sullivan
- Queen's University Belfast and The Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Payne
- University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Aning JJ, Parry MG, van der Meulen J, Fowler S, Payne H, McGrath JS, Challacombe B, Clarke NW. How reliable are surgeon-reported data? A comparison of the British Association of Urological Surgeons radical prostatectomy audit with the National Prostate Cancer Audit Hospital Episode Statistics-linked database. BJU Int 2021; 128:482-489. [PMID: 33752249 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15399] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [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: 07/02/2020] [Revised: 03/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of surgeon-reported radical prostatectomy outcome data across a national health system by comparison with a national dataset gathered independently from clinicians directly involved in patient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data submitted by surgeons to the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit for all men undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2016 were assessed by cross linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Specific data items collected in both databases were selected for comparison analysis. Data completeness and agreement were assessed by percentages and Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS Data from 4707 men in the BAUS and NPCA databases were matched for comparison. Compared with the NPCA, dataset completeness was higher in the BAUS dataset for type of nerve-sparing procedure (92% vs 42%) and postoperative margin status (89% vs 48%) but lower for readmission (87% vs 100%) and Charlson score (80% vs 100%). For all other variables assessed completeness was comparable. Agreement and data reliability were high for most variables. However, despite good agreement, the inter-cohort reliability was poor for readmission, M stage and Charlson score (κ < 0.30). CONCLUSIONS For the first time in urology we show that surgeon-reported data from the BAUS radical prostatectomy audit can reliably be used to benchmark peri-operative radical prostatectomy outcomes. For comorbidity data, to assist with risk analysis, and longer-term outcomes, NPCA routinely collected data provide a more comprehensive source.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan J Aning
- Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
| | - Matthew G Parry
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.,Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | | | - Sarah Fowler
- British Association of Urological Surgeons, London, UK
| | | | - John S McGrath
- Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - Ben Challacombe
- Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Afaq A, Payne H, Davda R, Hines J, Cook GJ, Meagher M, Priftakis D, Warbey VS, Kelkar A, Orczyk C, Mitra A, Needleman S, Ferris M, Mullen G, Bomanji J. A Phase II, Open-label study to assess safety and management change using 68Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT in patients with high risk primary prostate cancer or biochemical recurrence after radical treatment: The PRONOUNCED study. J Nucl Med 2021; 62:jnumed.120.257527. [PMID: 33741648 PMCID: PMC8612191 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.257527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [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: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 03/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the safety and clinical impact of a novel, kit-based formulation of 68Ga-THP PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) when used to guide the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited in to one of: Group A: high-risk untreated prostate cancer; Gleason score >4+3, or PSA >20 ng/mL or clinical stage >T2c. Group B: biochemical recurrence (BCR) and eligible for salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy with two consecutive rises in prostate specific antigen (PSA) with a three month interval in between reads and final PSA >0.1 ng/mL or a PSA level >0.5 ng/mL. Group C: BCR with radical curative radiotherapy or brachytherapy at least three months prior to enrolment, and an increase in PSA level >2.0 ng/mL above the nadir level after radiotherapy or brachytherapy. Patients underwent evaluation with PET/CT 60 minutes following intravenous administration of 160±30 MBq of 68Ga-THP PSMA. Safety was assessed by means including vital signs, cardiovascular profile, serum haematology, biochemistry, urinalysis, PSA, and Adverse Events (AEs). A change in management was reported when the predefined clinical management of the patient altered as a result of 68Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT findings. Results: Forty-nine patients were evaluated with PET/CT; 20 in Group A, 21 in Group B and 8 in Group C. No patients experienced serious AEs discontinued the study due to AEs, or died during the study. Two patients had Treatment Emergent AEs attributed to 68Ga-THP-PSMA (pruritus in one patient and intravenous catheter site rash in another). Management change secondary to PET/CT occurred in 42.9% of all patients; 30% in Group A, 42.9% in Group B and 75% in Group C. Conclusion: 68Ga-THP PSMA was safe to use with no serious AE and no AE resulting in withdrawal from the study. 68Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT changed the management of patients in 42.9% of the study population, comparable to studies using other PSMA tracers. These data form the basis of a planned Phase III study of 68Ga-THP PSMA in patients with prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Asim Afaq
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
| | - Heather Payne
- Radiotherapy Department, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Reena Davda
- Radiotherapy Department, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - John Hines
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Gary J.R. Cook
- Cancer Imaging Department, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marie Meagher
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Dimitrios Priftakis
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Victoria S. Warbey
- Cancer Imaging Department, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anand Kelkar
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, Barking, Havering, and Redbridge Hospitals, Essex, United Kingdom
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anita Mitra
- Radiotherapy Department, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Needleman
- Department of Oncology, Royal Free Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and
| | | | - Greg Mullen
- Theragnostics Ltd., Bracknell, United Kingdom
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Parry MG, Nossiter J, Sujenthiran A, Cowling TE, Patel RN, Morris M, Berry B, Cathcart P, Clarke NW, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A. Impact of High-Dose-Rate and Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost on Toxicity, Functional and Cancer Outcomes in Patients Receiving External Beam Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:1219-1229. [PMID: 33279595 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2020] [Revised: 10/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy boost reduces cancer recurrence in patients with prostate cancer compared with EBRT monotherapy. However, randomized controlled trials or large-scale observational studies have not compared brachytherapy boost types directly. METHODS AND MATERIALS This observational cohort study used linked national cancer registry data, radiation therapy data, administrative hospital data, and mortality records of 54,642 patients with intermediate-risk, high-risk, and locally advanced prostate cancer in England. The records of 11,676 patients were also linked to results from a national patient survey collected at least 18 months after diagnosis. Competing risk regression analyses were used to compare gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, skeletal-related events (SRE), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) at 5 years with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics. Linear regression was used to compare Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores (scale, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better function). RESULTS Five-year GI toxicity was significantly increased after low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-BB) (32.3%) compared with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BB) (16.7%) or EBRT monotherapy (18.7%). Five-year GU toxicity was significantly increased after both LDR-BB (15.8%) and HDR-BB (16.6%), compared with EBRT monotherapy (10.4%). These toxicity patterns were matched by the mean patient-reported bowel function scores (LDR-BB, 77.3; HDR-BB, 85.8; EBRT monotherapy, 84.4) and the mean patient-reported urinary obstruction/irritation function scores (LDR-BB, 72.2; HDR-BB, 78.9; EBRT monotherapy, 83.8). Five-year incidences of SREs and PCSM were significantly lower after HDR-BB (2.4% and 2.7%, respectively) compared with EBRT monotherapy (2.8% and 3.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Compared with EBRT monotherapy, LDR-BB has worse GI and GU toxicity and HDR-BB has worse GU toxicity. HDR-BB has a lower incidence of SREs and PCSM than EBRT monotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew G Parry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK; The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
| | - Julie Nossiter
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK; The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Arunan Sujenthiran
- The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Thomas E Cowling
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK
| | - Rajan N Patel
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Melanie Morris
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK; The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Brendan Berry
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK; The National Prostate Cancer Audit, Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
| | - Paul Cathcart
- Department of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Noel W Clarke
- Department of Urology, The Christie and Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trusts, Manchester, UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
| | | | - Ajay Aggarwal
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, LSHTM, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Payne H, Bahl A, O'Sullivan JM. Use of bisphosphonates and other bone supportive agents in the management of prostate cancer-A UK perspective. Int J Clin Pract 2020; 74:e13611. [PMID: 32654366 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13611] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2019] [Accepted: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the UK regarding their use of bone supportive agents in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG). RESULTS Of 160 uro-oncologists invited, 81 completed the questionnaire. Approximately 70% of respondents never use a bone supportive agent in patients with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, use was more frequent in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, from first-line treatment onwards. The majority of uro-oncologists do not use a bone supportive agent to prevent skeletal-related events in men with non-metastatic disease unless the individual patient is at an increased risk of osteoporosis. In men with more advanced disease, respondents would use an oral or intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate in 41% and 61% of patients, respectively. Zoledronic acid is the first-choice bone supportive treatment in 77% of cases, with the lack of clinical data cited as a barrier to use for other IV bisphosphonates. Local guidelines also have a significant influence on the use of bone supportive agents, especially with respect to denosumab. Bone mineral density measurement is conducted in approximately 40% of men with ADT exposure of 2 years or longer, or those with metastatic prostate cancer. CONCLUSION Uro-oncologists in the UK generally do not use bone supportive agents for men with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer or those with non-metastatic disease. However, increasing the duration of ADT and the presence of castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer increases use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amit Bahl
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK
| | - Joe M O'Sullivan
- Queen's University Belfast and The Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Parry M, Cowling T, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Berry B, Cathcart P, Clarke N, Payne H, Aggarwal A, Van der Meulen J. PO-1178: Identifying skeletal-related events for prostate cancer in routinely collected hospital data. Radiother Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)01196-8] [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]
|
50
|
Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cathcart P, Clarke N, Payne H, Aggarwal A. PD-0060: Treatment-related toxicity of hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)00086-4] [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: 11/24/2022]
|