Search

Background: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM., Methods: NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life., Discussion: NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world., Trial Registration: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990)., Patients and Methods: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms., Results: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm., Conclusion: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years., Design: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up., Setting: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK., Participants: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring ( n  = 545), radical prostatectomy ( n  = 553) or radical radiotherapy ( n  = 545) and 997 chose a treatment., Interventions: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy., Trial Primary Outcome Measure: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants., Secondary Outcome Measures: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes., Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific ( p  = 0.48) and 169 all-cause ( p  = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n  = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n  = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n  = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p  = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring ( n  = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy ( n  = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy ( n  = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p  < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy)., Limitations: A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed., Conclusions: At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Malcolm Mason reports personal fees from Sanofi (Paris, France), Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany) and Janssen Pharmaceutica (Beerse, Belgium) outside the submitted work. Derek Rosario reports grants from Bayer and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint-Prex, Switzerland) outside the submitted work. Jane Blazeby was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2009–2013), HTA NIHR Obesity (2010–2012), Commissioning Board for HTA Surgery Themed Call Board and the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Standing Advisory Committee (2015–2019). Jenny Donovan was a member of the following during the project: HTA Commissioning Board (2006–12), Rapid Trials and Add-on Studies Board (2012), NIHR Senior Investigator panel (2009–12) and NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research board (Deputy Chairperson) (2010–11). Freddie C Hamdy was a member of the following during the project: HTA Commissioning Board (2007–12) and HTA Surgery Themed Call Board (2012–13). J Athene Lane was a member of the following during the project: CTUs funded by NIHR (2017 to present). Chris Metcalfe was a member of the following during the project: CTUs funded by NIHR (2010 to present). Tim Peters was a member of the following during the project: HTA Medicines for Children Themed Call (2005–6) and NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee (2008–14). John Staffurth reports support for travel to conferences and attendance on an advisory board from Bayer. Emma L Turner reports grants from Cancer Research UK (London, UK) during the conduct of the study.

Objective: Dietary factors and physical activity may alter prostate cancer progression. We explored the feasibility of lifestyle interventions following radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer., Design: Patients were recruited into a presurgical observational cohort; following radical prostatectomy, they were offered randomisation into a 2×3 factorial randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Setting: A single National Health Service trust in the South West of England, UK., Participants: Those with localised prostate cancer and listed for radical prostatectomy were invited to participate., Randomisation: Random allocation was performed by the Bristol Randomised Trial Collaboration via an online system., Interventions: Men were randomised into both a modified nutrition group (either increased vegetable and fruit, and reduced dairy milk; or lycopene supplementation; or control) and a physical activity group (brisk walking or control) for 6 months., Blinding: Only the trial statistician was blind to allocations., Primary Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were measures of feasibility: randomisation rates and intervention adherence at 6 months. Collected at trial baseline, three and six months, with daily adherence reported throughout. Our intended adherence rate was 75% or above, the threshold for acceptable adherence was 90%., Results: 108 men entered the presurgical cohort, and 81 were randomised into the postsurgical RCT (randomisation rate: 93.1%) and 75 completed the trial. Of 25 men in the nutrition intervention, 10 (40.0%; 95% CI 23.4% to 59.3%) adhered to the fruit and vegetable recommendations and 18 (72.0%; 95% CI 52.4% to 85.7%) to reduced dairy intake. Adherence to lycopene (n=28), was 78.6% (95% CI 60.5% to 89.8%), while 21/39 adhered to the walking intervention (53.8%; 95% CI 38.6% to 68.4%). Most men were followed up at 6 months (75/81; 92.6%). Three 'possibly related' adverse events were indigestion, abdominal bloating and knee pain., Conclusions: Interventions were deemed feasible, with high randomisation rates and generally good adherence. A definitive RCT is proposed., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 99048944., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain., Methods: We compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo randomization to active monitoring (545 men), surgery (553), or radiotherapy (545). The primary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all-cause deaths., Results: There were 17 prostate-cancer-specific deaths overall: 8 in the active-monitoring group (1.5 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 3.0), 5 in the surgery group (0.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2), and 4 in the radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.0); the difference among the groups was not significant (P=0.48 for the overall comparison). In addition, no significant difference was seen among the groups in the number of deaths from any cause (169 deaths overall; P=0.87 for the comparison among the three groups). Metastases developed in more men in the active-monitoring group (33 men; 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 4.5 to 8.8) than in the surgery group (13 men; 2.4 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2) or the radiotherapy group (16 men; 3.0 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.9) (P=0.004 for the overall comparison). Higher rates of disease progression were seen in the active-monitoring group (112 men; 22.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 19.0 to 27.5) than in the surgery group (46 men; 8.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 11.9) or the radiotherapy group (46 men; 9.0 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 12.0) (P<0.001 for the overall comparison)., Conclusions: At a median of 10 years, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned, with no significant difference among treatments. Surgery and radiotherapy were associated with lower incidences of disease progression and metastases than was active monitoring. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Aims: To assess the lymph node content of anterior prostatic fat (APF) sent routinely at robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and the incidence of positive nodes in the extended pelvic lymph node dissection., Methods: Between September 2008 and April 2012, APF excised from 282 patients who underwent RALP was sent for pathological analysis. This tissue was completely embedded and lymph nodes counted., Results: In total, 49/282 (17%) patients had lymph nodes in the APF, median lymph node yield in this tissue was 1 (range 1–5). In four patients, the lymph nodes contained metastatic deposits. These patients did not have positive nodes elsewhere in the extended lymph node dissection., Conclusions: APF contains lymph nodes in 1 in 6 patients and infrequently these may be malignant. APF should always be removed at radical prostatectomy. APF should be routinely sent for pathological analysis.

Purpose: Since radical prostatectomy is performed to cure prostate cancer, identification of markers enabling preoperative prediction of relapse after radical prostatectomy is essential to counsel and select patients for adjuvant therapy. Aberrant p53, bcl-2, CD44 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry has been associated with aggressiveness in prostate cancer. We assessed these biomarkers in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens as predictors of biochemical relapse., Materials and Methods: A total of 76 patients with untreated clinically localized prostatic adenocarcinoma underwent radical prostatectomy. Preoperative (prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score) and postoperative (pathological stage and margin status) variables, biopsy and radical prostatectomy biomarker immunohistochemistry were correlated with relapse. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses identified significant predictors., Results: Of the 76 patients 23 (30%) had relapse (mean followup 38 months). Aberrant p53, bcl-2, CD44 and E-cadherin expression was observed in 64, 12, 85 and 12% of biopsies and 57, 20, 64 and 49% of radical prostatectomy specimens, respectively. Biopsy Gleason 7 to 10 and biopsy p53, respectively, gave the highest positive and negative predictive values for relapse. Relapse occurred in 13% of patients with normal biopsy p53 and in half with aberrant p53. Multivariate analysis revealed Gleason score and p53 to be independent preoperative predictors (p = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). Estimated risk of relapse was 3.5 times higher in patients with Gleason scores 7 to 10 and 24% higher in those with aberrant p53. Significant postoperative predictors were bcl-2, p53, Gleason score and margin status (p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.04 and 0.01, respectively)., Conclusions: Aberrant biopsy p53 is associated with a significantly worse outcome after radical prostatectomy than normal p53, highlighting a potential clinical role for p53. Postoperative p53 and bcl-2 were significant predictors of outcome after radical prostatectomy.