Search

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.Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets.There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 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 a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 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 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide.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 TP 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.

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. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:150 issue:5 pages:837-846 ispartof: location:United States status: published

The public reporting of patient outcomes is crucial for quality improvement and informing patient choice. However, outcome reporting in radiotherapy, despite being a major component of cancer control, is extremely sparse globally. Public reporting has many challenges, including difficulties in defining meaningful measures of treatment quality, limitations in data infrastructure, and fragmented health insurance schemes. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA), done in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), shows that it is feasible to develop outcome indicators for radiotherapy treatment, including patient-reported outcomes. The NPCA provides a transparent mechanism for comparing the performance of all NHS providers, with results accessible to patients, providers, and policy makers. Using the NPCA as a case study, we discuss the development of a radiotherapy-outcomes reporting programme, its impact and future potential, and the challenges and opportunities to develop this approach across other tumour types and in different health systems.

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.

Background and purpose Little is known about the functional outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) combined with a high-dose rate brachytherapy boost (EBRT-BB) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes of EBRT to those of EBRT-BB. Methods and materials Patients diagnosed with intermediate-risk, high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer (April 2014 to September 2016), who received EBRT in the English National Health Service within 18 months of diagnosis and responded to a national patient questionnaire, were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Adjusted linear regression was used to estimate differences in functional EPIC-26 domains and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L) between treatment groups. Non-inferiority of EBRT-BB was determined if the lower 95% confidence limit did not exceed the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results Of the 13,259 included men, 12,503 (94.3%) received EBRT and 756 (5.7%) received EBRT-BB. EBRT-BB was non-inferior compared to EBRT for the urinary incontinence, sexual, bowel and hormonal EPIC-26 domains. EBRT-BB resulted in significantly worse urinary irritation/obstruction scores than EBRT (−6.1; 95% CI: −8.8 to −3.4) but uncertainty remains as to whether this difference is clinically important (corresponding MCID of 5). Conclusions There is no evidence to suggest that EBRT-BB results in any clinically important detriment in functional outcomes or HRQoL compared to men receiving EBRT only. Whilst statistically significantly worse urinary irritation/obstruction outcomes were reported in the EBRT-BB cohort, the threshold for a clinically significant difference was not exceeded and further research is required for confirmation.

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.

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.

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 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.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.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.

Background\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Interpretation\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Funding\ud \ud Cancer Research UK.

To assess the complications of transrectal (TR) compared to transperineal prostate (TP) biopsies.Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 in England were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Administrative hospital data were then used to categorize the type of prostate biopsy and subsequent complications requiring hospital admission. Administrative hospital data were used to identify patients staying overnight immediately after biopsy and those readmitted separately for hospital admissions because of sepsis, urinary retention or haematuria. Procedure-related mortality and total length of hospital stay within 30 days were also recorded. Generalized linear models were used to calculate adjusted risk differences (aRDs).A total of 73 630 patients undergoing prostate biopsy were identified. Those undergoing TP biopsy (n = 13 723) were more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (12.3% vs 2.4%; aRD 9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-12.3), were less likely to be readmitted because of sepsis (1.0% vs 1.4%; aRD -0.4%, CI -0.6 to -0.2), and were more likely to be readmitted with urinary retention (1.9% vs 1.0%; aRD 1.1%, CI 0.7-1.4) than those undergoing a TR biopsy (n = 59 907). There were no significant differences in the risk of haematuria or mortality.Our results showed that TP biopsy had a lower risk of readmission for sepsis but a higher risk of readmission for urinary retention than TR biopsy. Use of the TP route would prevent one readmission for sepsis in 278 patients at the cost of three additional patients readmitted for urinary retention.

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.

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. 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.

Background Cancer stage can be missing in national cancer registry records. We explored whether missing prostate cancer stage can be imputed using specific clinical assumptions. Methods Prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 were identified in English cancer registry data and linked to administrative hospital and mortality data (n = 139,807). Missing staging items were imputed based on specific assumptions: men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage have no distant metastases (M0); low/intermediate-risk men with missing N- and/or M-stage have no nodal disease (N0) or metastases; and high-risk men with missing M-stage have no metastases. We tested these clinical assumptions by comparing 4-year survival in men with the same recorded and imputed cancer stage. Multi-variable Cox regression was used to test the validity of the clinical assumptions and multiple imputation. Results Survival was similar for men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (89.5% vs 89.6%); for low/intermediate-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (92.0% vs 93.1%); and for low/intermediate-risk men with missing N-stage and corresponding men with N0 (90.9% vs 93.7%). However, survival was different for high-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0. Imputation based on clinical imputation performs as well as statistical multiple imputation. Conclusion Specific clinical assumptions can be used to impute missing information on nodal involvement and distant metastases in some patients with prostate cancer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Objectives\ud 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.\ud \ud Subjects and methods\ud 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.\ud \ud Results\ud 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.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud 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.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is one of the main treatments for prostate cancer. Short-term ADT of between 6 months and 3 years is often used in combination with radiotherapy to treat localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. Permanent or intermittent ADT is used to treat metastatic disease. Hot flushes affect 44-80% of men undergoing ADT for prostate cancer, with around 27% saying they are the most distressing side effect.1 A recent UK survey found 30.7% of men treated with ADT reported moderate or major problems with hot flushes.2 Low testosterone levels are thought to cause dysfunction in thermoregulation in the hypothalamus, resulting in peripheral vasodilatation.3 Symptoms include a feeling of warmth, flushing of the skin, perspiration, chills, anxiety and palpitations. A variety of treatments have been evaluated and there is evidence of efficacy for several of them, however they all have additional side effect profiles. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Association of Urology recommend offering medroxyprogesterone or cyproterone acetate.4-5 NICE has said there is currently a lack of evidence to support the use of complementary therapies. Addressing the side-effects of cancer treatment is one of the top ten Living with and Beyond Cancer research priorities established by the National Cancer Research Institute. However, there is little evidence on the standard of care that UK clinicians offer to men suffering with hot flushes.

Men in whom external beam radiotherapy fails are usually placed on delayed hormone therapy. Some of these men have localized recurrence that might be suitable for further local therapy. We describe patterns of recurrence and suitability for focal ablative therapy in those undergoing transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies.The study included 145 consecutive patients (December 2007 to May 2014) referred with suspicion of recurrence due to rising prostate specific antigen after external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy who underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. Suitability for focal ablative therapy required the cancer to be unifocal or unilateral, or bilateral/multifocal with 1 dominant index lesion and secondary lesions with Gleason score 3+3=6 with no more than 3 mm cancer core involvement.Mean patient age was 70.7 (SD 5.8) years. Median prostate specific antigen at time of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy was 4.5 ng/ml (IQR 2.5-7.7). Overall 75.9% (110) were suitable for a form of focal salvage treatment, 40.7% (59) were suitable for quadrant ablation, 14.5% (21) hemiablation, 14.5% (21) bilateral focal ablation and 6.2% (9) for index lesion ablation.Three-quarters of patients who have localized radiorecurrent prostate cancer may be suitable for focal ablative therapy to the prostate based on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies.

Purpose Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT). Methods and Materials Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5). Conclusions Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life.

Summary Background The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. Methods We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7–10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60–68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0–6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81–1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58–1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3–4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). Interpretation These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. Funding Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Background and purpose In the post-prostatectomy setting the value of Intensity-modulated (IMRT) relative to 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in reducing toxicity remains unclear. We compared genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity after post-prostatectomy IMRT or 3D-CRT. Materials and methods A population-based study of all patients treated with post-prostatectomy 3D-CRT (n = 2422) and IMRT (n = 603) was conducted between January 1 2010 and December 31 2013 in the English National Health Service. We identified severe GI and GU toxicity using a validated coding-framework and compared IMRT and 3D-CRT using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. Results There was no difference in GI toxicity between patients who received IMRT and 3D-CRT (3D-CRT: 5.8 events/100 person-years; IMRT: 5.5 events/100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.63–1.13; p = 0.26). The GU toxicity rate was lower with IMRT but this effect was not statistically significant (3D-CRT: 5.4 events/100 person-years; IMRT: 3.8 events/100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.55–1.03; p = 0.08). Conclusions The use of post-prostatectomy IMRT compared to 3D-CRT is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in rates of severe GU and GI toxicity, although there is some evidence that GU toxicity is lower with IMRT. We would caution against rapid transition to post-prostatectomy IMRT until further evidence is available supporting its superiority.

Purpose To compare, in a national population-based study, severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Methods and Materials Patients treated with IMRT (n=6933) or 3D-CRT (n=16,289) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013 in the English National Health Service were identified using cancer registry data, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episodes Statistics, the administrative database of care episodes in National Health Service hospitals. We developed a coding system that identifies severe toxicity (at least grade 3 according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring system) according to the presence of a procedure and a corresponding diagnostic code in patients' Hospital Episodes Statistics records after radiation therapy. A competing risks regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), comparing the incidence of severe GI and GU complications after IMRT and 3D-CRT, adjusting for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. Results The use of IMRT, as opposed to 3D-CRT, increased from 3.1% in 2010 to 64.7% in 2013. Patients who received IMRT were less likely than those receiving 3D-CRT to experience severe GI toxicity (4.9 vs 6.5 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.72) but had similar levels of GU toxicity (2.3 vs 2.4 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.06). Conclusions Prostate cancer patients who received radical radiation therapy using IMRT were less likely to experience severe GI toxicity, and they had similar GU toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT. These findings in an unselected “real-world” population support the use of IMRT, but further cost-effectiveness studies are urgently required.

Objective\ud Documentations of the experiences of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their partners are sparse. Views of care and treatment received for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are presented here.\ud \ud Methods\ud Structured interviews conducted within 14 days of a systemic therapy for mCRPC starting and 3 months later explored: treatment decisions, information provision, perceived benefits and harms of treatment, and effects of these on patients’ and partners’ lives.\ud \ud Results\ud Thirty-seven patients and 33 partners recruited from UK cancer centres participated. The majority of patients (46%) reported pain was their worst symptom and many wanted to discuss its management (baseline-50%; 3 months-33%). Patients and partners believed treatment would: delay progression (>75%), improve wellbeing (33%), alleviate pain (≈12%) and extend life (15% -patients, 36% -partners). At 3 months most men (42%) said fatigue was the worst treatment-related side effect (SE), 27% experienced unexpected SEs, and 54% needed help with SEs. Most patients received SE information (85% written; 75% verbally); many additionally searched the internet (33%-patients; 55%-partners). Only 54% of patients said nurse support was accessible. \ud \ud Conclusion\ud Pain and other symptom management is not optimal. Increased specialist nurse provision and earlier palliative care links are needed. Dedicated clinics may be justified.

Early and accurate localization of lesions in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer may guide salvage therapy decisions. The present study,Men with a first episode of BCR after curative-intent primary therapy were enrolled at 6 UK sites. Patients underwent

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-naive 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-naive 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.

Aim\ud \ud To explore the practice and attitudes of uro‐oncologists in the UK regarding monitoring testosterone levels and the use of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in their prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).\ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud An expert‐devised online questionnaire was completed by the members of the British Uro‐oncology Group (BUG).\ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Of 160 uro‐oncologists invited, 84 completed the questionnaire. Before initiating ADT in patients with non‐metastatic prostate cancer, only 45% of respondents measured testosterone levels and 61% did not measure testosterone at all during ADT in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. However, in men with metastatic prostate cancer, 71% of the uro‐oncologists measured testosterone before starting ADT and the majority continued testing during treatment. Approximately two‐thirds of respondents did not prescribe TRT for their patients who were in remission following neo(adjuvant) ADT and who had castration levels of testosterone.\ud \ud \ud Discussion\ud \ud Among UK uro‐oncologists, the measurement of testosterone levels before and during ADT was not typically part of routine practice in the management of patients with prostate cancer. However, testosterone levels were checked more frequently for patients with metastatic disease than disease at an earlier stage. Testing could be conducted in parallel with PSA measurement as testosterone levels are linked to biochemical failure. The majority of specialists participating in the survey did not prescribe TRT for their patients in remission following ADT.\ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Uro‐oncologists in the UK do not generally measure testosterone as part of their patient management and they remain cautious about the possible benefits of TRT in men with prostate cancer.

Background Accurate whole-body staging following biochemical relapse in prostate cancer is vital in determining the optimum disease management. Current imaging guidelines recommend various imaging platforms such as computed tomography (CT), Technetium 99 m (99mTc) bone scan and 18F-choline and recently 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) for the evaluation of the extent of disease. Such approach requires multiple hospital attendances and can be time and resource intensive. Recently, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been used in a single visit scanning session for several malignancies, including prostate cancer, with promising results, providing similar accuracy compared to the combined conventional imaging techniques. The LOCATE trial aims to investigate the application of WB-MRI for re-staging of patients with biochemical relapse (BCR) following external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy in patients with prostate cancer. Methods/design The LOCATE trial is a prospective cohort, multi-centre, non-randomised, diagnostic accuracy study comparing WB-MRI and conventional imaging. Eligible patients will undergo WB-MRI in addition to conventional imaging investigations at the time of BCR and will be asked to attend a second WB-MRI exam, 12-months following the initial scan. WB-MRI results will be compared to an enhanced reference standard comprising all the initial, follow-up imaging and non-imaging investigations. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity analysis) of WB-MRI for re-staging of BCR will be investigated against the enhanced reference standard on a per-patient basis. An economic analysis of WB-MRI compared to conventional imaging pathways will be performed to inform the cost-effectiveness of the WB-MRI imaging pathway. Additionally, an exploratory sub-study will be performed on blood samples and exosome-derived human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) dimer measurements will be taken to investigate its significance in this cohort. Discussion The LOCATE trial will compare WB-MRI versus the conventional imaging pathway including its cost-effectiveness, therefore informing the most accurate and efficient imaging pathway. Trial registration LOCATE trial was registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 18th of October 2016 with registration reference number NCT02935816.

PURPOSE There is a debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation for the treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This study compared the toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with IMRT in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2013 were identified by using data from the Cancer Registry, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics, an administrative database of all hospital admissions. Follow-up was available up to December 31, 2015. Validated indicators were used to identify patients with severe toxicity according to the presence of both a procedure code and diagnostic code in patient Hospital Episode Statistics records. A competing risks regression analysis, with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) by comparing GI and genitourinary (GU) complications for PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT. RESULTS Three-year cumulative incidence in the PPLN-IMRT (n = 780) and PO-IMRT (n = 3,065) groups was 14% for both groups for GI toxicity, and 9% and 8% for GU toxicity, respectively. Patients receiving PPLN-IMRT and PO-IMRT had similar levels of severe GI (adjusted sHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.24; P = .97) and GU (adjusted sHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.46; P = .50) toxicity rates. CONCLUSION Including PLNs in radiation fields for high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer is not associated with increased GI or GU toxicity at 3 years. Additional follow-up is required to answer questions about its impact on late GU toxicity. Results from ongoing trials will provide insight into the anticancer effectiveness of PLN irradiation.

Highlights • Children born deaf show typical left-hemisphere dominance during language production. • No evidence of an association between left-lateralisation and language proficiency. • Exposure to auditory speech via a cochlear implant is not a prerequisite for left hemisphere language dominance., The effect of sensory experience on hemispheric specialisation for language production is not well understood. Children born deaf, including those who have cochlear implants, have drastically different perceptual experiences of language than their hearing peers. Using functional transcranial Doppler sonography (fTCD), we measured lateralisation during language production in a heterogeneous group of 19 deaf children and in 19 hearing children, matched on language ability. In children born deaf, we observed significant left lateralisation during language production (British Sign Language, spoken English, or a combination of languages). There was no difference in the strength of lateralisation between deaf and hearing groups. Comparable proportions of children were categorised as left-, right-, or not significantly-lateralised in each group. Moreover, an exploratory subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in lateralisation between deaf children with cochlear implants and those without. These data suggest that the processes underpinning language production remain robustly left lateralised regardless of sensory language experience.

Aims Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may identify radio-recurrent intra-prostatic cancer accurately. We aimed to compare visually directed MRI-targeted biopsies (MRI-TB) to an accurate reference standard – transperineal prostate mapping (TPM) biopsies with 5 mm sampling – in the detection of clinically significant cancer in men with biochemical failure after radiotherapy. Materials and methods A retrospective registry analysis between 2006 and 2014 identified 77 men who had undergone mpMRI followed by MRI-TB and TPM. Clinical significance was set at two definitions of disease. Definition 1 was Gleason ≥ 4+3 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥ 6 mm. Definition 2 was Gleason ≥ 3+4 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥ 4 mm. Results Of the 77 patients included, the mean age was 70 years (range 61–82; standard deviation 5.03). The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was 14 ng/ml (interquartile range 7.83–32.50). The most frequent EBRT dose given was 74 Gy over 37 fractions. Eight patients had iodine-seed implant brachytherapy or high dose rate brachytherapy. Neoadjuvant/adjuvant hormonal therapy use was reported in 38. The time from EBRT to biochemical recurrence was a median of 60 months (interquartile range 36.75–85.00). The median PSA at the time of mpMRI was 4.68 ng/ml (interquartile range 2.68–7.60). The median time between mpMRI and biopsy was 2.76 months (interquartile range 1.58–4.34). In total, 2392 TPM and 381 MRI-TB cores were taken with 18% and 50% cancer detection, respectively. Detection rates of definition 1 clinically significant cancer were 52/77 (68%) versus 55/77 (71%) for MRI-TB and TPM, respectively. MRI-TB was more efficient requiring 1 core versus 2.8 cores to detect definition 2 cancer. Conclusion MRI-TB seems to have encouraging detection rates for clinically significant cancer with fewer cores compared with TPM, although TPM had higher detection rates for smaller lower grade lesions.

IMPORTANCE: Perirectal spacers are intended to lower the risk of rectal toxic effects associated with prostate radiotherapy. A quantitative synthesis of typical clinical results with specific perirectal spacers is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between perirectal hydrogel spacer placement and clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for articles published through September 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing men who received a hydrogel spacer vs men who did not receive a spacer (controls) prior to prostate radiotherapy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Via random-effects meta-analysis, group comparisons were reported using the weighted mean difference for continuous measures and the risk ratio for binary measures. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Procedural results, the percentage volume of rectum receiving at least 70 Gy radiation (v70), early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) rectal toxic effects, and early and late changes in bowel-related quality of life on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (minimal clinically important difference, 4 points). RESULTS: The review included 7 studies (1 randomized clinical trial and 6 cohort studies) involving 1011 men (486 who received a hydrogel spacer and 525 controls), with a median duration of patient follow-up of 26 months (range, 3-63 months). The success rate of hydrogel spacer placement was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-98.8% [5 studies]), and the weighted mean perirectal separation distance was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 10.1-12.3 mm [5 studies]). Procedural complications were mild and transient, occurring in 0% to 10% of patients within the studies. The hydrogel spacer group received 66% less v70 rectal irradiation compared with controls (3.5% vs 10.4%; mean difference, −6.5%; 95% CI, –10.5% to –2.5%; P = .001 [6 studies]). The risk of grade 2 or higher rectal toxic effects was comparable between groups in early follow-up (4.5% in hydrogel spacer group vs 4.1% in control group; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38 [6 studies]) but was 77% lower in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (1.5% vs 5.7%; risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99; P = .05 [4 studies]). Changes in bowel-related quality of life were comparable between groups in early follow-up (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, –3.1 to 3.4; P = .92 [2 studies]) but were greater in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (mean difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.8-8.0; P

Aims\ud Delaying progression, ameliorating symptoms and maintaining quality of life (QoL) are primary aims of treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Real-world rather than clinical trial data about symptoms and side-effects are sparse. In EXTREQOL, patients' QoL, pain and information needs were recorded during treatment.\ud \ud Material and methods\ud Men with mCRPC from 20 UK cancer centres starting various systemic mCRPC treatments completed QoL, pain and information needs questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 months.\ud \ud Results\ud In total, 132 patients were recruited. Overall QoL declined significantly by 6 months (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] mean = –3.89, 95% confidence interval –6.7 to –1.05, P = 0.007; Trial Outcome Index [TOI] analysis mean = –3.10, 95% confidence interval –5.34 to –0.83, P = 0.007). Those who came off novel therapy and remained on luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy alone had worse scores than patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy (Prostate Concerns Subscale mean difference = –4.45, 95% confidence interval –7.06 to –1.83, P = 0.001; TOI mean difference = –5.62, 95% confidence interval –10.97 to –0.26, P = 0.040). At 3 and 6 months, men who reported pain at baseline improved (43%, 40%), but for others pain levels remained the same (45%, 42%) or worsened (13%, 18%). Information regarding supportive care was lacking throughout the period of time on the study.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud Most mCRPC treated patients experience reduced QoL and inadequate pain control. More help with pain management and better information provision regarding supportive care is warranted.

In many countries, specialist cancer services are centralised to improve outcomes. We explored how centralisation affects the radical treatment of high‐risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in the English NHS. 79,085 patients diagnosed with high‐risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in England (April 2014 to March 2016) were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Poisson models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) for undergoing radical treatment by whether men were diagnosed at a regional co‐ordinating centre (‘hub’), for having surgery by the presence of surgical services on‐site, and for receiving high dose‐rate brachytherapy (HDR‐BT) in addition to external beam radiotherapy by its regional availability. Men were equally likely to receive radical treatment, irrespective of whether they were diagnosed in a hub (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91–1.08). Men were more likely to have surgery if they were diagnosed at a hospital with surgical services on site (RR 1.24, 1.10–1.40), and more likely to receive additional HDR‐BT if they were diagnosed at a hospital with direct regional access to this service (RR 6.16, 2.94–12.92). Centralisation of specialist cancer services does not affect whether men receive radical treatment, but it does affect treatment modality. Centralisation may have a negative impact on access to specific treatment modalities., What's new? More than one‐quarter of men with high‐risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in England do not receive radical treatment with radiotherapy or surgery, potentially owing to differences in treatment access. Here, prostate cancer service centralisation in England was investigated for potential impacts on treatment access. Among English patients in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database, centralisation had no impact on decisions to use radical treatment. It did, however, affect treatment option availability, with potential consequences for patient outcome. Patients were more likely to undergo surgery or high dose‐rate brachytherapy when diagnosed at hospitals with direct links to these services.

Aims There is limited evidence about how patients respond to hospital choice policies, the factors that inform and influence patient choices or how relevant these policies are to cancer patients. This study sought to evaluate hospital choice policies from the perspective of men who received treatment for prostate cancer in the English National Health Service. Materials and methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 25 men across England. Fourteen men had chosen to receive treatment at a cancer centre other than their nearest. Interviews were recorded and analysed concurrently with data collection. Results Men highlight that the geographical configuration of specialist services, the perceived urgency of the condition and the protocolisation of treatment pathways all limit their choice of a specialist treatment centre. Diseases such as cancer appear not to be well suited to the patient choice model, given the lack of hospital-level outcome data. Men instead use proxy measures of quality, leaving them vulnerable to influence by marketing and media reports. Men wishing to consider other treatment centres need to independently collect and appraise complex treatment-related information, which creates socioeconomic inequities in access to treatments. A positive impact of the choice agenda is that it enables patients to ‘exit care' not meeting their expectations. Discussion Policy makers have failed to consider the organisational, disease-specific and socio-cognitive factors that influence a patient's ability to choose their cancer treatment provider. Valid comparative hospital-level performance information is required to guide patients' choices, otherwise patients will continue to depend on informal sources, which will not necessarily improve their health care outcomes.

Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been rapidly adopted without robust evidence comparing its functional outcomes against laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) approaches. This study compared patient-reported functional outcomes following RARP, LRP or ORP. Methods: All men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England during April – October 2014 who underwent radical prostatectomy were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire 18 months after diagnosis. Group differences in patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function (EPIC-26 domain scores) and generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL; EQ-5D-5L scores), with adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, were estimated using linear regression. Results: In all, 2219 men (77.0%) responded; 1310 (59.0%) had RARP, 487 (21.9%) LRP and 422 (19.0%) ORP. RARP was associated with slightly higher adjusted mean EPIC-26 sexual function scores compared with LRP (3·5 point difference; 95% CI: 1.1–5.9, P=0.004) or ORP (4.0 point difference; 95% CI: 1.5–6.5, P=0.002), which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10–12 points). There were no significant differences in other EPIC-26 domain scores or HRQoL. Conclusions: It is unlikely that the rapid adoption of RARP in the English NHS has produced substantial improvements in functional outcomes for patients.

Introduction Patient choice policies have been introduced across publicly funded health systems to give patients more control over their care, and to encourage quality improvement amongst providers. To date we have no empirical evidence that patients requiring radiation treatment are prepared to travel to alternative more distant centres or the factors that influence this. Materials and Methods We present the results of a national cohort study using administrative hospital data for all 44,363 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent radical radiotherapy in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2014. Using geographic information systems we investigated the extent to which men choose to travel beyond (“bypass”) their nearest radiotherapy centre and conditional logistic regression to estimate the effect of hospital and patient characteristics on this mobility. Results 20.7% (n= 9,161) of men bypassed their nearest radiotherapy centre. Travel time had a very strong impact on where patients moved to for their treatment, but its effect was smaller for men who were younger, more affluent, and from rural areas (p for interaction always

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of

Aim To develop a management strategy (rehabilitation programme) for erectile dysfunction (ED) after radiotherapy (RT) or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer that is suitable for use in a UK NHS healthcare context. Methods PubMed literature searches of ED management in this patient group together with a survey of 28 experts in the management of treatment-induced ED from across the UK were conducted. Results Data from 19 articles and completed questionnaires were collated. The findings discussed in this article confirm that RT/ADT for prostate cancer can significantly impair erectile function. While many men achieve erections through PDE5-I use, others need combined management incorporating exercise and lifestyle modifications, psychosexual counselling and other erectile aids. This article offers a comprehensive treatment algorithm to manage patients with ED associated with RT/ADT. Conclusion Based on published research literature and survey analysis, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of management strategies employed for ED after RT/ADT. In addition to implementing the algorithm, understanding the rationale for the type and timing of ED management strategies is crucial for clinicians, men and their partners.

Aim To develop a management strategy (rehabilitation programme) for postsurgical erectile dysfunction (ED) among men experiencing ED associated with treatment of prostate, bladder or rectal cancer that is suitable for use in a UK NHS healthcare context. Methods PubMed literature searches of ED management together with a survey of 13 experts in the management of ED from across the UK were conducted. Results Data from 37 articles and completed questionnaires were collated. The results discussed in this study demonstrate improved objective and subjective clinical outcomes for physical parameters, sexual satisfaction, and rates of both spontaneous erections and those associated with ED treatment strategies. Conclusion Based on the literature and survey analysis, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of management strategies employed for postsurgical ED.

Many novel therapies are available for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), some of which convey substantial progression-free survival and overall survival benefits. Delaying disease progression and providing palliation of symptoms are primary therapeutic aims of treating patients with mCRPC; therefore, ensuring that the benefit-to-harm ratios are acceptable to patients, through systematic measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using validated tools, is vital. In this Perspectives, we appraised the published reports from clinical trials testing treatments of mCRPC over the past 5 years and found that PROs were either not being measured routinely, or if used, were often not reported adequately, thus hampering evaluation of the true effects of many of these treatments on patients' quality of life. Improvements are needed because data collected directly from patients, not just physician-collected safety data and adverse events, are crucial to inform clinical decision-making on treatment options.

Aims: \ud \ud There have been three randomised trials investigating docetaxel in combination with androgen deprivation therapy as first-line therapy for hormone-sensitive metastatic and locally advanced/high-risk prostate cancer. The largest of these studies, UK STAMPEDE trial, recently presented in June 2015. The aim of this survey was to evaluate if oncologists' practice has changed as a result of these studies, or if their practice is likely to change in different clinical settings in the future.\ud \ud Materials and methods: \ud \ud The British Uro-oncology Group issued a semi-structured online questionnaire to its membership of 160 specialist urological oncologists practising in the UK. Links to the abstracts of GETUG-AFU-15, E3805 CHAARTED and STAMPEDE were attached with the survey for respondents to review before completing the survey.\ud \ud Results: \ud \ud In total, 111 participants completed the survey; 87% stated that STAMPEDE will influence their clinical practice in the future. Almost all (96%) would offer docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy to men presenting with high volume metastatic prostate cancer. Fewer oncologists would offer this treatment to men with low volume metastatic prostate cancer, locally advanced or relapsed disease. Various patient- and disease-related factors were considered in decision making, as well as resource implications.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud \ud This survey reports oncologists' attitudes towards a major change in practice in the standard of care for men with newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in the UK. The survey highlighted the complexities surrounding the clinical implementation of the data from these studies, including changes in referral pathways, with the early involvement of oncologists in such patients' care, increases in workloads for oncologists and chemotherapy units and the need for national approval for re-imbursement of these treatments.

PURPOSE: Comparing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists as androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This article stems from a round-table meeting in December 2014 to compare the properties of GnRH agonists and antagonists in the published literature in order to identify the patient groups most likely to benefit from GnRH antagonist therapy. A broad PubMed and congress abstract search was carried out in preparation for the meeting to ensure that the latest data and opinion were available for the discussions. RESULTS: In randomised, controlled trials, GnRH antagonist therapy provides more rapid suppression of luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone than GnRH agonist treatment. Compared with the GnRH agonist, there is evidence of improved disease control by a GnRH antagonist, with longer interval to prostate-specific antigen progression and greater reduction of serum alkaline phosphatase. In a post hoc analysis of six randomised trials, the risk of cardiac events within 1 year of initiating therapy was significantly lower among men receiving GnRH antagonist than agonist. Pre-clinical laboratory data suggest a number of mechanisms whereby GnRH antagonist therapy may benefit men with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most plausible hypothesis being that, unlike GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists do not activate T lymphocytes, which act to increase atherosclerotic plaque rupture. CONCLUSION: When making treatment decisions, clinicians should consider comorbidities, particularly CVD, in addition to effects on PC. GnRH antagonists may be appropriate in patients with significant CV risk, existing osteopenia, lower urinary tract symptoms and significant metastatic disease.

The antioxidant lycopene may be beneficial for patients with heart failure (HF). Processed tomato products are a major source of lycopene, although they are also high in sodium. Increased sodium intake may counter the positive antioxidant effect of lycopene.This was a prospective study of 212 patients with HF. Dietary intake of lycopene and sodium was obtained from weighted 4-day food diaries. Patients were grouped by the median split of lycopene of 2471 µg/day and stratified by daily sodium levels above and below 3 g/day. Patients were followed for 1 year to collect survival and hospitalization data. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare cardiac event-free survival between lycopene groups within each stratum of sodium intake.Higher lycopene intake was associated with longer cardiac event-free survival compared with lower lycopene intake (p = 0.003). The worst cardiac event-free survival was observed in the low lycopene intake group regardless of sodium intake (3 g/day HR = 3.01; p = 0.027 and ≤ 3 g/day HR= 3.34; p = 0.023).These findings suggest that increased lycopene intake has the potential to improve cardiac event-free survival in patients with HF independent of sodium intake.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has traditionally formed the mainstay of treatment for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PCa); however, it is now also having an increasingly important role in earlier stages of disease. Indeed, in patients with locally advanced or high-risk localised disease, the addition of neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy is now considered the standard of care for those men treated with radical radiotherapy. Although luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists have been used for many years as ADT, they may be associated with clinical flare and testosterone breakthrough. Newer hormonal agents continue to be developed, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists, which reduce testosterone and prostate-specific antigen levels more rapidly than LHRH agonists, without testosterone flare. This review examines ADT use in combination with radiotherapy to improve outcomes in localised or locally advanced disease, and examines some of the latest developments in hormonal therapy for PCa.

Udgivelsesdato: 2010-Oct OBJECTIVES: To report the final analysis of a Phase II trial, which investigated the safety and efficacy of the specific endothelin A receptor antagonist zibotentan (AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases who were pain free or mildly symptomatic for pain were randomized to receive once-daily oral tablets of zibotentan 10 mg, 15 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the time to progression and secondary endpoints included overall survival, change in the number of bone metastases, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 312 patients were randomized (placebo, n= 107; zibotentan 10 mg, n= 107; zibotentan 15 mg, n= 98). The median duration of study treatment and median follow-up time were 4 and 22 months, respectively. At the final analysis, there were no statistical differences of the primary outcome of time to progression between treatment groups, although an improvement in overall survival was observed in the zibotentan groups compared to placebo. Consistent with the previous analyses for overall survival, hazard ratios (HRs) of less than one were sustained for both zibotentan 15 mg (HR, 0.76; 80% CI, 0.61-0.94; P= 0.103) and 10 mg (HR, 0.83; 80% CI, 0.67-1.02; P= 0.254). The most commonly reported adverse events considered to be related to zibotentan treatment were peripheral oedema, headache and nasal congestion. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in the present study support endothelin A receptor antagonism as an approach for treating patients with CRPC. To confirm the survival signal observed in the present study, zibotentan is being investigated further in the ENdoTHelin A USE (ENTHUSE) Phase III clinical trial programme.

This article draws on international evidence to propose a solution to a key problem affecting UK paediatricians and child protection. Disciplinary actions brought by the General Medical Council against doctors for their testimony in, and or reporting of, cases of suspected child abuse, have caused damaging consequences for the profession and, worse, for child protection. Because of these cases and mounting numbers of complaints, paediatricians are less likely to report suspected child abuse, and are less willing to accept leading child protection roles. This problem demands a solution. Informed by a comparative analysis, this article suggests that enacting a legislative immunity for paediatricians from legal and administrative proceedings where a report of suspected child abuse is made in good faith, is required to restore paediatricians’ willingness to report suspected child abuse and engage in child protection work.