Search

This JAMA Patient Page describes the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of priapism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The incidence of localized prostate cancer has decreased with shifts in prostate cancer screening. While recent population based studies demonstrated a stable incidence of locoregional prostate cancer, they categorized organ confined, extraprostatic and lymph node positive disease together. However, to our knowledge the contemporary incidence of prostate cancer with pelvic lymph node metastases remains unknown. Materials and Methods We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) data from 2004 to 2014 to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We analyzed trends in the age standardized prostate cancer incidence by stage. The impact of disease extent on mortality was assessed by adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis. Results During the study period the annual incidence of nonmetastatic prostate cancer decreased from 5,119.1 to 2,931.9 per million men (IR 0.57, 95% CI 0.56–0.58, p <0.01) while the incidence of pelvic lymph node metastases increased from 54.1 to 79.5 per million men (IR 1.47, 95% CI 1.33–1.62, p <0.01). The incidence of distant metastases in men 75 years old or older reached a nadir in 2011 compared to 2004 (IR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.90, p <0.01) and it increased in 2012 compared to 2011 (IR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02–1.24, p <0.05). The risk of cancer specific mortality significantly increased in men diagnosed with pelvic lymph node metastases (HR 4.5, 95% CI 4.2–4.9, p <0.01) and distant metastases (HR 21.9, 95% CI 21.2–22.7, p <0.01) compared to men with nonmetastatic disease. Conclusions The incidence of pelvic lymph node metastases is increasing coincident with a decline in the detection of localized disease. Whether this portends an increase in the burden of advanced disease or simply reflects decreased lead time remains unclear. However, this should be monitored closely as the increase in N1 disease reflects an increase in incurable prostate cancer at diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Guidelines from the NCCN ® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) advocate digital rectal examination screening only in men with elevated prostate specific antigen. We investigated the effect of prostate specific antigen on the association of digital rectal examination and clinically significant prostate cancer in a large American cohort. Materials and Methods We evaluated the records of the 35,350 men who underwent digital rectal examination in the screening arm of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening trial for the development of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or greater). Followup was 343,273 person-years. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer among men with vs without suspicious digital rectal examination. We performed competing risks regression to evaluate the interaction between time varying suspicious digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. Results A total of 1,713 clinically significant prostate cancers were detected with a 10-year cumulative incidence of 5.9% (95% CI 5.6–6.2). Higher risk was seen for suspicious vs nonsuspicious digital rectal examination. Increases in absolute risk were small and clinically irrelevant for normal (less than 2 ng/ml) prostate specific antigen (1.5% vs 0.7% risk of clinically significant prostate cancer at 10 years), clinically relevant for elevated (3 ng/ml or greater) prostate specific antigen (23.0% vs 13.7%) and modestly clinically relevant for equivocal (2 to 3 ng/ml) prostate specific antigen (6.5% vs 3.5%). Conclusions Digital rectal examination demonstrated prognostic usefulness when prostate specific antigen was greater than 3 ng/ml, limited usefulness for less than 2 ng/ml and marginal usefulness for 2 to 3 ng/ml. These findings support the restriction of digital rectal examination to men with higher prostate specific antigen as a reflex test to improve specificity. It should not be used as a primary screening modality to improve sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes guidelines on identifying and addressing infertility in men from the American Urological Association and American Society for Reproductive Medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To our knowledge the optimal treatment of patients following a negative prostate biopsy is unknown. Consequently, resources are increasingly being directed toward risk stratification in this cohort. However, the risk of prostate cancer mortality in this group before the introduction of supplemental biomarkers and imaging techniques is unclear. Materials and Methods The PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer) Screening Trial provides survival data prior to the implementation of new diagnostic interventions. We divided men with an initial positive screen and a subsequent prostate biopsy into cohorts based on positive or negative results. Prostate cancer specific mortality was then compared to that in the trial control arm to estimate the prognostic significance of biopsy results relative to the general population. Results A total of 36,525 and 36,560 patients comprised the screening and control arms, respectively. Of 4,064 subjects with a positive first screen 1,233 underwent a linked biopsy, of which 473 were positive and 760 were negative. At a median followup of 12.9 years, 1.1% of men in the negative biopsy cohort had died of prostate cancer. The difference in mortality rates between the negative biopsy and control arms was 0.734 deaths per 1,000 person-years. The proportional subhazard ratios of prostate cancer specific mortality for negative biopsy and positive biopsy relative to the control arm were 2.93 (95% CI 1.44–5.99) and 18.77 (95% CI 12.62–27.93), respectively. Conclusions After a negative prostate biopsy, men face a relatively low risk of death from prostate cancer when followed with traditional markers and biopsy techniques. This suggests limited potential for new diagnostic interventions to improve survival in this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Prostate cancer screening by digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen testing has been routine clinical practice in the United States for the last 25 years. Recent studies have shown a national decline in prostate specific antigen testing following the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) recommendation against routine prostate specific antigen screening. However, to our knowledge the effect of this recommendation on digital rectal examination utilization remains unknown. Materials and Methods We used NAMCS (National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey) to characterize trends in the rate of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen testing by primary care physicians in men older than 40 years presenting for preventive care. From 2005 to 2012 NAMCS contained 3,368 such visits (unweighted) for the study of digital rectal examination trends and 4,035 unweighted visits from 2002 to 2012 for the study of prostate specific antigen trends. Results Following the USPSTF recommendation the proportion of visits where digital rectal examination was performed decreased from 16.0% (95% CI 13.1–19.5) to 5.8% (95% CI 4.0–8.3, p <0.001). Similarly, the proportion of visits where prostate specific antigen testing was performed decreased from 27.3% (95% CI 24.5–30.3) to 16.7% (95% CI 12.9–21.2, p <0.001). This represents a relative 64% decrease in digital rectal examination and a 39% decrease in prostate specific antigen testing. Among men 55 to 69 years old the number of visits where digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen testing were performed decreased 65% and 39%, respectively (p <0.001). Conclusions Utilization of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen has declined significantly following the release of the USPSTF recommendation against prostate specific antigen screening. This suggests that prostate cancer screening is rapidly disappearing from primary care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer has potential advantages over traditional radiotherapies. Herein, the authors compared national trends in use, complications, and costs of SBRT with those of traditional radiotherapies.Methods: The authors identified men who underwent SBRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), brachytherapy, and proton beam therapy as primary treatment of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2011 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Temporal trend of therapy use was assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Two-year outcomes were compared using the chi-square test. Median treatment costs were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test.Results: A total of 542 men received SBRT, 9647 received brachytherapy, 23,408 received IMRT, and 800 men were treated with proton beam therapy. There was a significant increase in the use of SBRT and proton beam therapy (P<.001), whereas brachytherapy use decreased (P<.001). A higher percentage of patients treated with SBRT and brachytherapy had low-grade cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6 vs ≥ 7) compared with individuals treated with IMRT and proton beam therapy (54.0% and 64.2% vs 35.2% and 49.6%, respectively; P<.001). SBRT compared with brachytherapy and IMRT was associated with equivalent gastrointestinal toxicity but more erectile dysfunction at 2-year follow-up (P<.001). SBRT was associated with more urinary incontinence compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy but less compared with brachytherapy (P<.001, respectively). The median cost of SBRT was $27,145 compared with $17,183 for brachytherapy, $37,090 for IMRT, and $54,706 for proton beam therapy (P<.001).Conclusions: The use of SBRT and proton beam therapy for localized prostate cancer has increased over time. Despite men of lower disease stage undergoing SBRT, SBRT was found to be associated with greater toxicity but lower health care costs compared with IMRT and proton beam therapy. Cancer 2016;122:2496-504. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial randomized men to usual care or annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for 6 yr and digital rectal examination for 4 yr. This trial found no difference between the intervention and usual care arms of the study in the primary end point of prostate cancer (PCa)–specific mortality. The PLCO trial results have had a major impact on health policy and the rate of PSA screening in the United States. We analyzed the 13-yr screening and outcomes data from the 151 participants who died of PCa in the screening arm of the trial to better understand how randomization to screening failed to prevent PCa death in these men. We found that of these men, 81 (53.6%) either were never screened as part of the trial or had an initial positive screen. Only 17 (11.3%) of those who died reached year 6 of the trial with a PSA <4.0 ng/ml. The men who died in the screening arm were also older at study entry than the average PLCO participant (66 vs 62 yr; p < 0.001). Our analysis should inform the interpretation of the PLCO trial and provide insight into future trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]