Search

Purpose: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score is standard of care for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis. The PRIMARY score (prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-positron emission tomography [PET]/CT) also has high diagnostic accuracy for csPCa. This study aimed to develop an easily calculated combined (P) score for csPCa detection (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) incorporating separately read PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores, with external validation., Materials and Methods: Two datasets of men with suspected PCa, no prior biopsy, recent MRI and 68 Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT, and subsequent transperineal biopsy were evaluated. These included the development sample (n = 291, 56% csPCa) a prospective trial and the validation sample (n = 227, 67% csPCa) a multicenter retrospective database. Primary outcome was detection of csPCa (ISUP ≥2), with ISUP ≥ 3 cancer detection a secondary outcome. Score performance was evaluated by area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and decision curve analysis., Results: The 5-point combined (P) score was developed in a prospective dataset. In the validation dataset, csPCa was identified in 0%, 20%, 52%, 96%, and 100% for P score 1 to 5. The area under the curve was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96), higher than PI-RADS 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93, P = .039) and PRIMARY score alone 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89, P < .001). Splitting scores at 1/2 (negative) vs 3/4/5 (positive), P score sensitivity was 94% (95% CI: 89-97) compared to PI-RADS 89% (95% CI: 83-93) and PRIMARY score 86% (95% CI: 79-91). For ISUP ≥ 3, P score sensitivity was 99% (95% CI: 95-100) vs 94% (95% CI: 88-98) and 92% (95% CI: 85-97) for PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores respectively. A maximum standardized uptake value > 12 (P score 5) was ISUP ≥ 2 in all cases with 93% ISUP ≥ 3., Conclusions: The P score is easily calculated and improves accuracy for csPCa over both PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores. It should be considered when PSMA-PET is undertaken for diagnosis.

Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) for oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa), including stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), has shown promise but is still considered investigational. This is the 5-year analysis of the TRANSFORM trial, the largest prospective cohort of men with oligometastatic PCa treated with SBRT-based MDT. The primary endpoint was 5-year treatment escalation-free survival (TE-FS), defined as freedom from any new cancer therapy other than further SBRT. In total, 199 men received SBRT; 76.4% were hormone-naïve at baseline. The rate of 5-year TE-FS was 21.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.7%-28.7%) overall and 25.4% (95% CI: 18.1%-33.9%) in the hormone-naïve subgroup. The subgroups with International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Groups 4-5 disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.05-2.01, p = .026), a higher baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.09, p < .001) and those who received prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.40-3.26, p < .001), were at greater risk of treatment escalation. Outcomes for participants with four or five initial lesions were comparable to those with one to three lesions. At last follow-up, 18.9% (95% CI: 13.2%-25.7%) of participants were free from treatment escalation (median follow-up of 67.9 months) and two participants had an undetectable PSA level. No treatment-related grade three or higher adverse events were reported. The findings of this study demonstrate that SBRT-based MDT is an effective option for delaying systemic treatment escalation in the context of oligometastatic PCa. Future randomised trials comparing SBRT-based MDT to standard-of-care ADT-based approaches are required to evaluate the impact of delaying ADT on survival., (© 2024 UICC.)

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has an established role for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). The PRIMARY trial demonstrated that [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was associated with a significant improvement in sensitivity and negative predictive value for sPCa detection., Objective: To demonstrate that addition of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand PET/CT will enable some men to avoid transperineal prostate biopsy without missing sPCa, and will facilitate biopsy targeting of PSMA-avid sites., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicentre, two-arm, phase 3, randomised controlled trial will recruit 660 participants scheduled to undergo biopsy. Eligible participants will have clinical suspicion of sPCa with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 2 and red flags, or a PI-RADS score of 3 on mpMRI (PI-RADS v2). Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks stratified by centre. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05154162., Intervention: In the experimental arm, participants will undergo pelvic PSMA PET/CT. Local and central reviewers will interpret scans independently using the PRIMARY score. Participants with a positive result will undergo targeted transperineal prostate biopsies, whereas those with a negative result will undergo prostate-specific antigen monitoring alone. In the control arm, all participants undergo template transperineal prostate biopsies. Participants will be followed for subsequent clinical care for up to 2 yr after randomisation., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: sPCa is defined as Gleason score 3 + 4 (≥10%) = 7 disease (grade group 2) or higher on transperineal prostate biopsy. Avoidance of transperineal prostate biopsy will be measured at 6 mo from randomisation. The primary endpoints will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis., Conclusions: Patient enrolment began in March 2022, with recruitment expected to take 36 mo., Patient Summary: For patients with suspected prostate cancer who have nonsuspicious or unclear MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan findings, a different type of scan (called PSMA PET/CT; prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography) may identify men who could avoid an invasive prostate biopsy. This type of scan could also help urologists in better targeting of samples from suspicious lesions during prostate biopsies., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343-2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2-12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option.

The PRIMARY score is a 5-category scale developed to identify clinically significant intraprostate malignancy (csPCa) on 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT ( 68 Ga-PSMA PET) using a combination of anatomic site, pattern, and intensity. Developed within the PRIMARY trial, the score requires evaluation in external datasets. This study aimed to assess the reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of the PRIMARY score in a cohort of patients who underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68 Ga-PSMA PET before prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods: In total, data from 242 men who had undergone 68 Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI before transperineal prostate biopsy were available for this ethics-approved retrospective study. 68 Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI data were centrally collated in a cloud-based deidentified image database. Six experienced prostate-focused nuclear medicine specialists were trained (1 h) in applying the PRIMARY score with 30 sample images. Six radiologists experienced in prostate mpMRI read images as per the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2.1. All images were read (with masking of clinical information) at least twice, with discordant findings sent to a masked third (or fourth) reader as necessary. Cohen κ was determined for both imaging scales as 5 categories and then collapsed to binary (negative and positive) categories (score 1 or 2 vs. 3, 4, or 5). Diagnostic performance parameters were calculated, with an International Society of Urological Pathology grade group of at least 2 (csPCa) on biopsy defined as the gold standard. Combined-imaging-positive results were defined as any PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 or as a PI-RADS score of 1-3 with a PRIMARY score of 3-5. Results: In total, 227 patients with histopathology, 68 Ga-PSMA PET, and mpMRI imaging before prostate biopsy were included; 33% had no csPCa, and 67% had csPCa. Overall interrater reliability was higher for the PRIMARY scale (κ = 0.70) than for PI-RADS (κ = 0.58) when assessed as a binary category (benign vs. malignant). This was similar for all 5 categories (κ = 0.65 vs. 0.48). Diagnostic performance to detect csPCa was comparable between PSMA PET and mpMRI (sensitivity, 86% vs. 89%; specificity, 76% vs. 74%; positive predictive value, 88% vs. 88%; negative predictive value, 72% vs. 76%). Using combined imaging, sensitivity was 94%, specificity was 68%, positive predictive value was 86%, and negative predictive value was 85%. Conclusion: The PRIMARY score applied by first-user nuclear medicine specialists showed substantial interrater reproducibility, exceeding that of PI-RADS applied by mpMRI-experienced radiologists. Diagnostic performance was similar between the 2 modalities. The PRIMARY score should be considered when interpreting intraprostatic PSMA PET images., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: Treatment decisions for men diagnosed with prostate cancer depend on a range of clinical and patient characteristics such as disease stage, age, general health, risk of side effects and access. Associations between treatment patterns and area-level factors such as remoteness and socioeconomic disadvantage have been observed in many countries., Objective: To model spatial differences in interventional treatment rates for prostate cancer at high spatial resolution to inform policy and decision-making., Methods: Hospital separations data for interventional treatments for prostate cancer (radical prostatectomy, low dose rate and high dose rate brachytherapy) for men aged 40 years and over were modelled using spatial models, generalised linear mixed models, maximised excess events tests and k-means statistical clustering., Results: Geographic differences in population rates of interventional treatments were found (p<0.001). Separation rates for radical prostatectomy were lower in remote areas (12.2 per 10 000 person-years compared with 15.0-15.9 in regional and major city areas). Rates for all treatments decreased with increasing socioeconomic disadvantage (radical prostatectomy 19.1 /10 000 person-years in the most advantaged areas compared with 12.9 in the most disadvantaged areas). Three groups of similar areas were identified: those with higher rates of radical prostatectomy, those with higher rates of low dose brachytherapy, and those with low interventional treatment rates but higher rates of excess deaths. The most disadvantaged areas and remote areas tended to be in the latter group., Conclusions: The geographic differences in treatment rates may partly reflect differences in patients' physical and financial access to treatments. Treatment rates also depend on diagnosis rates and thus reflect variation in investigation rates for prostate cancer and presentation of disease. Spatial variation in interventional treatments may aid identification of areas of under-treatment or over-treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Cameron et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Gallium-68 ( 68 Ga)-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in guiding salvage therapy for patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) post-radical prostatectomy., Patients and Methods: Patients were evaluated with paired mpMRI and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans for BCR (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL). Patient, tumour, PSA and imaging characteristics were analysed with descriptive statistics., Results: A total of 117 patients underwent paired scans to investigate BCR, of whom 53.0% (62/117) had detectable lesions on initial scans and 47.0% (55/117) did not. Of those without detectable lesions, 8/55 patients proceeded to immediate salvage radiotherapy (sRT) and 47/55 were observed. Of patients with negative imaging who were initially observed, 46.8% (22/47) did not reach threshold for repeat imaging, while 53.2% were rescanned due to rising PSA levels. Of these rescanned patients, 31.9% (15/47) were spared sRT due to proven distant disease, or due to absence of disease on repeat imaging. Of the original 117 patients, 53 (45.3%) were spared early sRT due to absence of disease on imaging or presence of distant disease, while those undergoing delayed sRT still maintained good PSA responses. Of note, patients with high-risk features who underwent sRT despite negative imaging demonstrated satisfactory PSA responses to sRT. Study limitations include the observational design and absence of cause-specific or overall survival data., Conclusion: Our findings support the use of mpMRI and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in guiding timing and necessity of salvage therapy tailored to detected lesions, with potential to reduce unnecessary sRT-related morbidity. Larger or randomized trials are warranted to validate this., (© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: To describe changes in the use of prostate biopsy techniques among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Australia and New Zealand and examine factors associated with these changes., Methods: We extracted data between 2015 and 2019 from 7 jurisdictions of the Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Distribution and time trend of transrectal (TR) vs. transperineal (TP) biopsy type, differences in the proportion of biopsy type by geographic jurisdiction, diagnosing institute characteristics (public vs. private, metropolitan vs. regional, case volume) and patient characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES), and location of residence were analyzed., Results: We analyzed data from 37,638 patients. The overall proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed by TP increased from 26% to 57% between 2015 and 2019. Patients living in a major city, a more socioeconomically advantaged area or who were diagnosed in a metropolitan or private hospital were more likely to have TP than TR. While all subgroups were observed to increase their use of TP over the study period, uptake grew faster for men from low SES areas and those diagnosed at a regional or low-volume hospital but slower for men living in outer regional/remote areas or treated at a public hospital., Conclusions: In this binational registry, prostate cancer is now more commonly diagnosed by TP than the TR approach. While the gap between uptakes of TP has diminished for patients with low vs. high SES, disparity has widened for patients from outer regional areas vs major cities and public vs. private hospitals., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The concordance rates of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) prostate biopsies with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen have been assessed poorly in men diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx)., Objective: To evaluate International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) concordance rates between the final pathology at RP and MRI-TBx or MRI-TBx + random biopsy (RB) according to the biopsy approach., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multi-institutional database included patients diagnosed with TP or TR treated with RP., Intervention: TP-TBx or TR-TBx of the prostate., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The ISUP grade at biopsy was compared with the final pathology. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) was performed to assess the association between the biopsy approach (TP-TBx vs TR-TBx) and ISUP upgrading, downgrading, concordance, and clinically relevant increase (CRI)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 752 (59%) versus 530 (41%) patients underwent TR versus TP. At the MVA, TP-TBx was an independent predictor of upgrading (odds ratio [OR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.9, p < 0.01) and improved concordance relative to the final pathology (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.5, p < 0.01) after adjusting for age, cT stage, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, number of targeted cores, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume. Moreover, TP-TBx was associated with a lower risk of CRI than TR-TBx (OR 0.7, p < 0.01). This held true when considering patients who underwent MRI-TBx + RB (OR 0.6, p < 0.01). The inclusion of men who had RP represents a potential selection bias., Conclusions: The adoption of TP-TBx compared with TR-TBx may reduce the risk of upgrading and improve the concordance of biopsy grade with the final pathology. The TP approach decreases the odds of CRI with improved patient selection for the correct active treatment., Patient Summary: In this report, we evaluated whether transperineal (TP) targeted biopsy (TBx) may improve the concordance of clinically significant prostate cancer with the final pathology in comparison with transrectal (TR) TBx in a large worldwide population. We found that TP-TBx might increase concordance compared with TR-TBx. Adding random biopsies to target one increases accuracy; however, concordance with the final pathology is overall suboptimal even with the TP approach., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess changes in diagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) grade, biopsy and treatment approach over a decade (2011-2020) at a population level within a clinical quality cancer registry., Patients and Methods: Patients diagnosed by prostate biopsy between 2011 and 2020 were retrieved from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, a prospective, state-wide clinical quality registry in Australia. Distributions of each grade group (GG) proportion over time were modelled with restricted cubic splines, separately by biopsy technique, age group and subsequent treatment method., Results: From 2011 to 2020, 24 308 men were diagnosed with PCa in the registry. The proportion of GG 1 disease declined from 36-23%, with commensurate rises in GG 2 (31-36%), GG 3 (14-17%) and GG 5 (9.3-14%) disease. This pattern was similar for men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography or transperineal biopsy. Patients aged <55 years had the largest absolute reduction in GG 1 PCa, from 56-35%, compared to patients aged 55-64 (41-31%), 65-74 (31-21%), and ≥75 years (12-10%). The proportion of prostatectomies performed for patients with GG 1 disease fell from 28% to 7.1% and, for primary radiation therapy, the proportion fell from 22% to 3.5%., Conclusion: From 2011 to 2020, there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of GG 1 PCa diagnosed, particularly in younger men. The percentage of interventional management performed in GG 1 disease has fallen to very low levels. These results reflect the implementation of major changes to diagnostic and treatment guidelines and inform the future allocation of treatment methods., (© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support., Objective: To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members., Results and Limitations: There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons., Conclusions: The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer., Patient Summary: A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel., Methods: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99 m Tc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42., Findings: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment., Interpretation: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients., Funding: Astellas Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CJS received institutional research grants from Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma (Pfizer), Dendreon, and Janssen and personal consulting fees from Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, CellCentric, Point Biopharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech (Roche), Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Hengrui Europe Biosciences, and AstraZeneca. MRS received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray. KNC received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, Roche, and Janssen; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, and Roche; institutional consulting fees from Janssen; and honoraria from Janssen and AstraZeneca. SC had stock or ownership interests in Clovis Oncology; received honoraria from Novartis and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, and Novartis; and received payment for speakers’ bureaus from Janssen-Cilag and Sanofi (Aventis). MF had a leadership or fiduciary role as a board director for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. LGH received institutional research grants, honoraria, and Support for meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma. NJL was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Thoracic Oncology Group of Australia; had a leadership or fiduciary role as a deputy director for Cancer Trials New Zealand; and was a member of the executive committee for New Zealand Society for Oncology. JM had a leadership or fiduciary role as a treasurer for the Irish Society of Medical Oncology; and was a chairman for National Annual Conferences. RM had stock or ownership interests in Bayer; received honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for MSD Oncology; received research funding from Janssen, Bayer, and Astellas Pharma; provided expert testimony for Pfizer; and received support for meetings or travel from Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Ipsen. SAN received honoraria from Janssen, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Advanced Accelerator Application. FP received honoraria from Bayer and AstraZeneca. DWP received institutional research funding from Medivation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Symvivo, and Amgen; personal consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Cipla, Astellas Pharma, and MSD (Pfizer); institutional consulting fees from Pfizer and MSD; honoraria from Bayer and MSD (Pfizer); and support for meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Amgen, MSD (Pfizer), and Janssen. MNR was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer, Ipsen, EMD, Serono, MSD, and Bayer. SKS received research grants from Novartis/AAA, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myer Squibb, MSD, and Janssen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board as the chair for the data safety monitoring committee at Novartis. AlvT had a leadership or fiduciary role as the head of department for the Te Whatu Ora hospital. THT received honoraria from AstraZeneca. AlvT received honoraria from Novartis and Gilead; support for meetings or travel from MSD, Lilly, Astellas Pharma, and Ipsen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, Novartis, and MSD. FV-B received institutional research grants from Janssen, MSD, and Seagen and consulting fees from Janssen, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. AYZ received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray; personal consulting fees from MSD; honoraria from MSD, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Astellas Pharma, and Bayer. RRZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. IDD is the director and chair of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP); and a member or chair of advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD (Pfizer), MSD, Pio Therapeutics, Roche, and Xennials Therapeutics (all honoraria are paid directly to ANZUP). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management., Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement., Results and Limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis., Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common and widely used treatment for localized prostate cancer. Sequela following RP may include urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, outcomes which are recorded within a bi-national Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The objective was to report population-wide urinary incontinence and sexual function outcomes recorded at 12 months following RP; and to quantify and explore factors associated with variation in outcome., Materials and Methods: The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry of Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) was used for this study. Participants were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2020. Domain summary scores for urinary incontinence and sexual function from the EPIC-26 instrument were the main outcomes, taken at 12 months following surgery (6-18 months). "Major" urinary and sexual function bother were also assessed. Variation in outcomes was investigated using linear and logistic multivariable regression models adjusted for covariates: age, socioeconomic status, PSA at diagnosis, surgical technique, surgical specimen grade group, margin status, and clinician surgical volume., Results and Conclusions: The analytic cohort included 13,083 men with the mean urinary incontinence domain score being 76/100 (SD = 25) with 9.2% reporting major bother. For sexual function, the mean score was 29/100 (SD = 26) with 46% reporting major bother. Of the examined variables, age at surgery and surgical volume category were most predictive of function, with disparities exceeding minimally important differences, though large variation was observed between urologists within volume categories. There is considerable variation in 12-month postprostatectomy functional outcomes. Variation is explained by both patient and clinician factors, though some confounders are unmeasured in this cohort., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Positive surgical margin (PSM) on radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence and use of salvage therapies. Given these adverse consequences, exploration of time trends and predictors of PSM will improve the patient outcomes following surgery for prostate cancer., Methods: Pathological data from RP patients treated from 2011 to 2020 was extracted from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. This is a clinical quality registry that regularly benchmarks and reports back to individual clinicians the PSM percentage for their patients. Trends in PSM over time were visualized with separate running mean plots for both pT2 and pT3/4 disease. Predictors of PSM were explored with multivariable regression with date of surgery, surgical method, and hospital type, public or private, entered as covariates., Results: In total, 12,394 patients formed the sample with PSM recorded in 25% (n = 3,141) of patients, 12% (777/6,640) in pT2 disease and 41% (2,364/5,754) in pT3/4 disease. Comparing 2011-12 to 2019-20, the pT3/4 PSM proportion declined from 50% to 38% while pT2 percentages were steady at 13%. In "high volume" institutions, pT2 PSM fell from 12% to 6.5%. Independent predictors of lower PSM were robotic vs. open method and being treated at a private vs. public institution., Conclusion: A clear decline in the proportion of pT3 PSM was observed in a large prostate cancer registry. Proposed explanatory factors include improved technical proficiency with robotic surgery and participation in a registry-based quality improvement initiative., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Early detection and management of prostate cancer has evolved over the past decade, with a focus now on harm minimisation and reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment, given the proven improvements in survival from randomised controlled trials. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is now an important aspect of the diagnostic pathway in prostate cancer, improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, enabling accurate localisation of appropriate sites to biopsy, and reducing unnecessary biopsies in most patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging scans. Biopsies are now performed transperineally, substantially reducing the risk of post-procedure sepsis. Australian-led research has shown that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has superior accuracy in the staging of prostate cancer than conventional imaging (CT and whole-body bone scan). Localised prostate cancer that is low risk (International Society for Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade 1, Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6; and ISUP grade group 2, Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 with less than 10% pattern 4) can be offered active surveillance, reducing harms from overtreatment. Prostatectomy and definitive radiation remain the gold standard for localised intermediate and high risk disease. However, focal therapy is an emerging experimental treatment modality in Australia in carefully selected patients. The management of advanced prostate cancer treatment has evolved to now include several novel agents both in the metastatic hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease settings. Multimodal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, additional systemic therapy and radiotherapy are often recommended. PSMA-based radioligand therapy has emerged as a treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and is currently being evaluated in earlier disease states., (© 2022 The Authors. Medical Journal of Australia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to understand the variation in the reporting of neuroendocrine staining and determine the influence of reporting neuroendocrine staining at diagnosis on patient outcomes., Methods: Medical databases were searched to identify studies in which adenocarcinoma specimens were stained with any of the following four neuroendocrine markers: chromogranin A (CgA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), synaptophysin and CD56. The prevalence of neuroendocrine staining and correlation of the prevalence of neuroendocrine staining to patient outcomes were analysed using a random-effects model. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Sixty-two studies spanning 7616 patients were analysed. The pooled prevalence for the most common marker, CgA (41%), was similar to that of NSE (39%) and higher than that of synaptophysin (31%). The prevalence of CgA staining was significantly influenced by reporting criteria, where objective thresholds reduced the variation in prevalence to 26%. No correlation was found between CgA prevalence and tumour grade. Patients positive for CgA staining using objective criteria had more rapid biochemical progression (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 2.65) and poorer prostate cancer-specific survival (HR 7.03, 95% CI 2.55 to 19.39) compared to negative patients, even among those with low-risk cancers., Conclusion: Discrepancies in the reported prevalence of neuroendocrine cells in adenocarcinoma are driven by the inconsistent scoring criteria. This study unequivocally demonstrates that when neuroendocrine cell staining is assessed with objective criteria it identifies patients with poor clinical outcomes. Future studies are needed to determine the exact quantifiable thresholds for use in reporting neuroendocrine cell staining to identify patients at higher risk of progression., (© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International.)

Purpose: Our aim was to evaluate whether transperineal (TP) MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (TBx) may improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology ≥2, in comparison to transrectal (TR) TBx., Materials and Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study comprising patients who underwent MRI-guided prostate biopsy was conducted. To address possible benefits of TP-TBx in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and csPCa, a cohort of patients undergoing TP-TBx were compared to patients undergoing TR-TBx. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess predictors of PCa and csPCa detection., Results: Overall, 1,936 and 3,305 patients who underwent TR-TBx vs TP-TBx at 10 referral centers were enrolled. The rate of PCa and csPCa diagnosed was higher for TP-TBx vs TR-TBx (64.0% vs 50%, p <0.01 and 49% vs 35%, p <0.01). At multivariable analysis adjusted for age, biopsy naïve/repeated biopsy, cT stage, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System®, prostate volume, PSA, and number of biopsy cores targeted, TP-TBx was an independent predictor of PCa (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.72) and csPCa (1.19, 95% CI 1.12-1.50). When considering the approach according to the site of the index lesion, TP-TBx had a significantly higher likelihood than TR-TBx to detect csPCa in the apex (OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.03-6.27), transition/central zone (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.42-5.00), and anterior zone (OR 5.62, 95% CI 1.74-8.13)., Conclusions: The use of TP-TBx allows a better cancer grade definition and PCa risk assessment. This has important implication in the decision-making process and in patient counseling for further therapies.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021., Design, Setting, and Participants: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: 68 Gallium-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET) is a valuable staging tool, but its utility in characterising primary prostate cancer remains unclear. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) is a quantification measure of highest radiotracer uptake within PET-avid lesions., Objective: To assess the utility of SUVmax in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on biopsy alone and in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective analysis of 200 men who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and transperineal template prostate biopsy between 2016 and 2018., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary and secondary outcomes were detection of grade group (GG) 3-5 and GG 2-5 prostate cancer, respectively. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare SUVmax by GG, and calculated sensitivity and specificity for csPCa detection via 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and both. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of csPCa on biopsy., Results and Limitations: The median SUVmax was greater for GG 3-5 tumours (6.40, interquartile range [IQR] 4.47-11.0) than for benign and GG 1-2 tumours (3.14, IQR 2.55-3.91; p <  0.001). The median SUVmax was greater for GG 3 (5.70, IQR 3.68-8.67) than for GG 2 (3.47, IQR 2.70-4.74; p <  0.001). For GG 3-5 disease, sensitivity was 86.5%, 95.9%, and 98.6%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 88.4%, 88.5%, and 93.3% using SUVmax ≥4, a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3-5, and both, respectively. This combined model detected more GG 3-5 disease than mpMRI alone (98.6% vs 95.9%; p =  0.04). SUVmax was an independent predictor of csPCa for GG 3-5 disease only (odds ratio 1.27 per unit, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.45). Our results are limited by the retrospective study design., Conclusions: Greater SUVmax on 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT is associated with detection of GG 3-5 cancer on biopsy. The combination of PI-RADS score and SUVmax provides higher sensitivity and NPV than either alone. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may be useful alongside mpMRI in improving risk stratification for localised disease., Patient Summary: The amount of a radioactive tracer taken up in the prostate during a type of scan called PET (positron emission tomography) can predict whether aggressive prostate cancer is likely to be found on biopsy. This may complement the more usual type of scan, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), used to detect prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is associated with poorer postoperative urinary continence in older men. However, published studies reporting conflicting results have design limitations with insufficient data at the extremes of age. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of age on post-RARP urinary continence., Materials and Methods: This study included 5,648 patients from 2 prospective Australian databases who underwent a primary RARP for prostate cancer between 2008 and 2019. Significant urinary bother and pad-usage were evaluated 12 months post-RARP by EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaires, independently collected by third parties. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between continence and age., Results: Percentages of significant bother increased with age: 4.2%, 6.8% 9.1% and 12.9% at age groups <55, 55-64, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. Compared with men aged 65-69 years, the odds of significant bother in patients <55 years was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.75, p=0.001). Corresponding OR found no significant difference in bother in patients ≥70 (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.94-1.63, p=0.13) or ≥75 years (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.88-2.25, p=0.16). Pad-free rates markedly decreased with age: 86%, 79%, 68% and 50% at ages, <55, 55-64, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively. Corresponding social continence (0-1 pads/day) rates also decreased with age: 98%, 96%, 92% and 85%., Conclusions: Urinary bother and pad-usage post-RARP are excellent in young men but worsen with age. Older patients were only slightly more likely to be "significantly bothered" by incontinence despite higher pad-usage.

Objective: To determine whether the addition of inhaled methoxyflurane to periprostatic infiltration of local anaesthetic (PILA) during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBs) improved pain and other aspects of the experience., Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial, involving 420 men undergoing their first TRUSB. The intervention was PILA plus a patient-controlled device containing either 3 mL methoxyflurane, or 3 mL 0.9% saline plus one drop of methoxyflurane to preserve blinding. The primary outcome was the pain score (0-10) reported by the participant after 15 min. Secondary outcomes included ratings of other aspects of the biopsy experience, willingness to undergo future biopsies, urologists' ratings, biopsy completion, and adverse events., Results: The mean (SE) pain scores 15 min after TRUSB were 2.51 (0.22) in those assigned methoxyflurane vs 2.82 (0.22) for placebo (difference 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75 to 0.14; P = 0.18). Methoxyflurane was associated with better scores for discomfort (difference -0.48, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.03; P = 0.035, adjusted [adj.] P = 0.076), whole experience (difference -0.50, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.08; P = 0.021, adj. P = 0.053), and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.12-2.49; P = 0.01) than placebo. Methoxyflurane resulted in higher scores for drowsiness (difference +1.64, 95% CI 1.21-2.07; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) and dizziness (difference +1.78, 95% CI 1.31-2.24; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) than placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of ≥ grade 3 adverse events., Conclusions: We found no evidence that methoxyflurane improved pain scores at 15 min, however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies., (© 2021 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Objective: Feeling depressed and lethargic are common side effects of prostate cancer (PCa) and its treatments. We examined the incidence and severity of feeling depressed and lack of energy in patients in a population based PCa registry., Methods: We included men diagnosed with PCa between 2015 and 2019 in Victoria, Australia, and enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry. The primary outcome measures were responses to two questions on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) patient reported instrument: problems with feeling depressed and problems with lack of energy 12 months following treatment. We evaluated associations between these and age, cancer risk category, treatment type, and urinary, bowel, and sexual function., Results: Both outcome questions were answered by 9712 out of 12,628 (77%) men. 981 patients (10%) reported at least moderate problems with feeling depressed; 1563 (16%) had at least moderate problems with lack of energy and 586 (6.0%) with both. Younger men reported feeling depressed more frequently than older men. Lack of energy was more common for treatments that included androgen deprivation therapy than not (moderate/big problems: 31% vs. 13%), irrespective of disease risk category. Both outcomes were associated with poorer urinary, bowel, and sexual functional domain scores., Conclusions: Self-reported depressive feelings and lack of energy were frequent in this population-based registry. Problems with feeling depressed were more common in younger men and lack of energy more common in men having hormonal treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the incidence of these symptoms in these at-risk groups and be able to screen for them., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the implementation of a multicomponent survivorship programme for men with prostate cancer and their carers., Design: A single cohort study, guided by the RE-AIM framework., Setting: Multiple health services in Australia., Participants: Men with prostate cancer and their carers, and health professionals., Intervention: A 12-month telehealth programme that provided centralised and coordinated decision and information support, exercise and nutrition management, specialised clinical support and practical support to men and their carers., Data Collection: Multiple sources of data including participant-reported health outcomes and experience of care, qualitative interviews, records of the programme were collected at different time points., Results: Reach: Of 394 eligible men at various stages of survivorship, 142 consented (36% consent rate) and 136 (96%) completed the programme. Adoption: All men participated in general care coordination and more than half participated in exercise and/or nutrition management interventions. Participation in the specialised support component (ie, psychosocial and sexual health support, continence management) was low despite the high level of need reported by men. Effectiveness: Overall, the men reported improvements in their experience of care. Implementation: Factors such as addressing service gaps, provision of specialised services, care coordination, adoption of needs-based and telehealth-based approaches were identified as enablers to the successful implementation of the programme. Issues such as insufficient integration with existing services, lack of resources and high caseload of the intervention team, men's reluctance to discuss needs and lack of confidence with technology were barriers in implementing the programme., Conclusion: Survivorship interventions are relevant to men regardless of the stage of their disease and treatments undertaken. It is possible to provide access to a comprehensive model of survivorship care to promote the health and quality of life for men with prostate cancer., Trial Registration Number: This study was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617000174381)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DC and CD were employees of Movember during the study. CD was the Project Manager and DC was a central care coordinator of the TrueNTH programme. ND was a private practitioner who provided dietetic service in the programme., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Accurate risk stratification remains a barrier for the safety of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) may improve risk stratification within this population., Materials and Methods: We reviewed men with International Society for Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) 2-3 disease on transperineal template biopsy undergoing 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT from November 2015 to January 2021. Primary outcome was the presence of high percentage Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) disease per segment at surgery at 3 thresholds: >/<50% GP4, >/<20% GP4, and >/<10% GP4. SUVmax was compared by GP4, and multivariable logistic regression examined the relationship between SUVmax and GP4. Secondary outcome was association between SUVmax and pathological upgrading (GG 1/2 to GG ≥3 from biopsy to surgery)., Results: Of 220 men who underwent biopsy, 135 men underwent surgery. SUVmax was higher in high GP4 groups: 5.51 (IQR 4.19-8.49) vs 3.31 (2.64-4.41) >/<50% GP4 (p <0.001); 4.77 (3.31-7.00) vs 3.13 (2.64-4.41) >/<20% GP4 (p <0.001); and 4.54 (6.10-3.13) vs 3.03 (2.45-3.70) >/<10% GP4 (p <0.001). SUVmax remained an independent predictor of >50% (OR=1.39 [95%CI 1.18-1.65], p <0.001) and >20% (OR=1.24 [1.04-1.47], p=0.015) GP4 disease per-segment, and of pathological upgrading (OR=1.22 [1.01-1.48], p=0.036). SUVmax threshold 4.5 predicted >20% GP4 with 58% specificity, 85% sensitivity, positive predictive value 75% and negative predictive value 72%. Threshold 5.4 predicted pathological upgrading with 91% specificity and negative predictive value 94%., Conclusions: SUVmax on 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT is associated with GP4. SUVmax may improve risk stratification for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Objective: To develop contemporary and inclusive prostate cancer survivorship guidelines for the Australian setting., Participants and Methods: A four-round iterative policy Delphi was used, with a 47-member expert panel that included leaders from key Australian and New Zealand clinical and community groups and consumers from diverse backgrounds, including LGBTQIA people and those from regional, rural and urban settings. The first three rounds were undertaken using an online survey (94-96% response) followed by a fourth final face-to-face panel meeting. Descriptors for men's current prostate cancer survivorship experience were generated, along with survivorship elements that were assessed for importance and feasibility. From these, survivorship domains were generated for consideration., Results: Six key descriptors for men's current prostate cancer survivorship experience that emerged were: dealing with side effects; challenging; medically focused; uncoordinated; unmet needs; and anxious. In all, 26 survivorship elements were identified within six domains: health promotion and advocacy; shared management; vigilance; personal agency; care coordination; and evidence-based survivorship interventions. Consensus was high for all domains as being essential. All elements were rated high on importance but consensus was mixed for feasibility. Seven priorities were derived for immediate action., Conclusion: The policy Delphi allowed a uniquely inclusive expert clinical and community group to develop prostate cancer survivorship domains that extend beyond traditional healthcare parameters. These domains provide guidance for policymakers, clinicians, community and consumers on what is essential for step change in prostate cancer survivorship outcomes., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Purpose: To evaluate outcomes for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer who were selected for transponder-guided salvage radiotherapy (SRT) to the prostate bed alone by 68 Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA-PET)., Methods: This is a single-arm, prospective study of men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level rising to 0.1-2.5 ng/mL following radical prostatectomy. Patients were staged with 68 Ga-PSMA-PET and those with a negative finding, or a positive finding localised to the prostate bed, continued to SRT only to the prostate bed alone with real-time target-tracking using electromagnetic transponders. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical relapse (FFBR, PSA > 0.2 ng/mL from the post-radiotherapy nadir). Secondary endpoints were time to biochemical relapse, toxicity and patient-reported quality of life (QoL)., Results: Ninety-two patients (median PSA of 0.18 ng/ml, IQR 0.12-0.36), were screened with 68 Ga-PSMA-PET and metastatic disease was found in 20 (21.7%) patients. Sixty-nine of 72 non-metastatic patients elected to proceed with SRT. At the interim (3-year) analysis, 32 (46.4%) patients (95% CI 34.3-58.8%) were FFBR. The median time to biochemical relapse was 16.1 months. The rate of FFBR was 82.4% for ISUP grade-group 2 patients. Rates of grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 0% and 15.2%, respectively. General health and disease-specific QoL remained stable., Conclusion: Pre-SRT 68 Ga-PSMA-PET scans detect metastatic disease in a proportion of patients at low PSA levels but fail to improve FFBR. Transponder-guided SRT to the prostate bed alone is associated with a favourable toxicity profile and preserved QoL., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001183572, 03/11/2015, retrospectively registered., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of implementing an integrated multicomponent survivorship care model for men affected by prostate cancer., Methods: Using a single arm prospective cohort study design, men with prostate cancer were recruited from two regional public hospitals in Australia for a 6-months program that provided information and decision support, exercise and nutrition management, specialised clinical support, and practical support through localised and central care coordination. Carers of the men were also invited to the program. Data were collected from multiple sources to evaluate: (1) recruitment capability and participant characteristics; (2) appropriateness and feasibility of delivering the specific intervention components using an electronic care management tool; and (3) suitability of data collection procedures and proposed outcome measures., Results: Of the 105 eligible men, 51 (consent rate 49%) participated in the program. Of the 31 carers nominated by the men, 13 consented (consent rate 42%). All carers and 50 (98%) men completed the program. Most (92%) men were newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer. All men attended initial screening and assessment for supportive care needs; a total of 838 episodes of contact/consultation were made by the intervention team either in person (9%) or remotely (91%). The intervention was implemented as proposed with no adverse events. The proposed outcome measures and evaluation procedures were found to be appropriate., Conclusions: Our results support the feasibility of implementing this integrated multicomponent care model for men affected by prostate cancer., (© 2021 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Preclinical testing is a crucial step in evaluating cancer therapeutics. We aimed to establish a significant resource of patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) of prostate cancer for rapid and systematic evaluation of candidate therapies. The PDX collection comprises 59 tumors collected from 30 patients between 2012-2020, coinciding with availability of abiraterone and enzalutamide. The PDXs represent the clinico-pathological and genomic spectrum of prostate cancer, from treatment-naïve primary tumors to castration-resistant metastases. Inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity in adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine phenotypes is evident from bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing data. Organoids can be cultured from PDXs, providing further capabilities for preclinical studies. Using a 1 x 1 x 1 design, we rapidly identify tumors with exceptional responses to combination treatments. To govern the distribution of PDXs, we formed the Melbourne Urological Research Alliance (MURAL). This PDX collection is a substantial resource, expanding the capacity to test and prioritize effective treatments for prospective clinical trials in prostate cancer., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance., Materials and Methods: An individual participant data meta-analysis using data from 25 established cohorts within the Movember Foundations GAP3 Consortium. In total 5,530 men were included. Disease reclassification was defined as any increase in Gleason grade group at biopsy at 1 and 4 years. Associations were estimated using random effect logistic regression models. The discriminative ability of combinations of predictors was assessed in an internal-external validation procedure using the AUC curve., Results: Among the 5,570 men evaluated at 1 year, we found 815 reclassifications to higher Gleason grade group at biopsy (pooled reclassification rate 13%, range 0% to 31%). Important predictors were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, T-stage and number of biopsy cores with prostate cancer. Among the 1,515 men evaluated at 4 years, we found 205 reclassifications (pooled reclassification rates 14%, range 3% to 40%), with similar predictors. The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve at internal-external validation were 0.68 and 0.61 for 1-year and 4-year reclassification, respectively., Conclusions: Disease reclassification occurs typically in 13% to 14% of biopsies at 1 and 4 years after the start of active surveillance with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Current guidelines might be extended by considering prostate volume to improve individualized selection for active surveillance. Additional predictors are needed to improve patient selection for active surveillance.

Background: Ductal adenocarcinoma is an uncommon prostate cancer variant. Previous studies suggest that ductal variant histology may be associated with worse clinical outcomes, but these are difficult to interpret. To address this, we performed an international, multi-institutional study to describe the characteristics of ductal adenocarcinoma, particularly focussing on the effect of presence of ductal variant cancer on metastasis-free survival., Methods: Patients with ductal variant histology from two institutional databases who underwent radical prostatectomies were identified and compared with an independent acinar adenocarcinoma cohort. After propensity score matching, the effect of the presence of ductal adenocarcinoma on time to biochemical recurrence, initiation of salvage therapy and the development of metastatic disease was determined. Deep whole-exome sequencing was performed for selected cases (n = 8)., Results: A total of 202 ductal adenocarcinoma and 2037 acinar adenocarcinoma cases were analysed. Survival analysis after matching demonstrated that patients with ductal variant histology had shorter salvage-free survival (8.1 versus 22.0 months, p = 0.03) and metastasis-free survival (6.7 versus 78.6 months, p < 0.0001). Ductal variant histology was consistently associated with RB1 loss, as well as copy number gains in TAP1, SLC4A2 and EHHADH., Conclusions: The presence of any ductal variant adenocarcinoma at the time of prostatectomy portends a worse clinical outcome than pure acinar cancers, with significantly shorter times to initiation of salvage therapies and the onset of metastatic disease. These features appear to be driven by uncoupling of chromosomal duplication from cell division, resulting in widespread copy number aberration with specific gain of genes implicated in treatment resistance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) for patients with prostate cancer (PC) with low risk of PC death is an alternative to radical treatment. A major drawback of AS is the uncertainty whether a patient truly has low risk PC based on biopsy alone. Multiparametric MRI scan together with biopsy, appears useful in separating patients who need curative therapy from those for whom AS may be safe. Two small clinical trials have shown short-term high-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent PC progression. There is no substantial evidence for its long-term safety and efficacy, hence its use in the care of men with PC on AS needs assessment. This protocol describes the ProsD clinical trial which aims to determine if oral high-dose vitamin D supplementation taken monthly for 2 years can prevent PC progression in cases with low-to-intermediate risk of progression., Method and Analysis: This is an Australian national multicentre, 2:1 double-blinded placebo-controlled phase II randomised controlled trial of monthly oral high-dose vitamin D supplementation (50 000 IU cholecalciferol), in men diagnosed with localised PC who have low-to-intermediate risk of disease progression and are being managed by AS. This trial will assess the feasibility, efficacy and safety of supplementing men with an initial oral loading dose of 500 000 IU cholecalciferol, followed by a monthly oral dose of 50 000 IU during the 24 months of AS. The primary trial outcome is the commencement of active therapy for clinical or non-clinical reason, within 2 years of AS., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial is approved by Bellberry Ethics Committee (2016-06-459). All results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12616001707459., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Before integrating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) into routine care, it is important to assess if the benefits justify the differences in resource use., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PSMA-PET/CT when compared with conventional imaging., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed using data from the proPSMA study. proPSMA included patients with high-risk prostate cancer assigned to conventional imaging or 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with planned health economics data collected. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an Australian societal perspective., Intervention: 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary outcome from proPSMA was diagnostic accuracy (nodal and distant metastases). This informed a decision tree analysis of the cost per accurate diagnosis., Results and Limitations: The estimated cost per scan for PSMA PET/CT was AUD$1203, which was less than the conventional imaging cost at AUD$1412. PSMA PET/CT was thus dominant, having both better accuracy and a lower cost. This resulted in a cost of AUD$959 saved per additional accurate detection of nodal disease, and AUD$1412 saved for additional accurate detection of distant metastases. The results were most sensitive to variations in the number of men scanned for each 68 Ga-PSMA-11 production run. Subsequent research is required to assess the long-term costs and benefits of PSMA PET/CT-directed care., Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT has lower direct comparative costs and greater accuracy compared to conventional imaging for initial staging of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This provides a compelling case for adopting PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice., Patient Summary: The proPSMA study demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) better detects disease that has spread beyond the prostate compared with conventional imaging. Our analysis shows that PSMA PET/CT is also less costly than conventional imaging for the detection of disease spread. This research was presented at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Scientific Meeting in October 2020., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is the disease management option of choice for low-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) find management decisions distressing and confusing. We developed Navigate, an online decision aid to help men and their partners make management decisions consistent with their values. The aims are to evaluate the impact of Navigate on uptake of AS; decision-making preparedness; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life and anxiety. In addition, the healthcare cost impact, cost-effectiveness and patterns of use of Navigate will be assessed. This paper describes the study protocol., Methods: Three hundred four men and their partners are randomly assigned one-to-one to Navigate or to the control arm. Randomisation is electronically generated and stratified by site. Navigate is an online decision aid that presents up-to-date, unbiased information on LRPC tailored to Australian men and their partners including each management option and potential side-effects, and an interactive values clarification exercise. Participants in the control arm will be directed to the website of Australia's peak national body for prostate cancer. Eligible patients will be men within 3 months of being diagnosed with LRPC, aged 18 years or older, and who are yet to make a treatment decision, who are deemed eligible for AS by their treating clinician and who have Internet access and sufficient English to participate. The primary outcome is self-reported uptake of AS as the first-line management option. Secondary outcomes include self-reported preparedness for decision-making; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. Uptake of AS 1 month after consent will be determined through patient self-report. Men and their partners will complete study outcome measures before randomisation and 1, 3 and 6 months after study consent., Discussion: The Navigate online decision aid has the potential to increase the choice of AS in LRPC, avoiding or delaying unnecessary radical treatments and associated side effects. In addition, Navigate is likely to reduce patients' and partners' confusion and distress in management decision-making and increase their quality of life., Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616001665426 . Registered on 2 December 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data set can be found in this manuscript.

Background: Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy., Methods: We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652., Findings: Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3-7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81-92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82-93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65-1·90; p non-inferiority =0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%])., Interpretation: Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity., Funding: New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the accuracy of 68 gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting and localising primary prostate cancer when compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen pathology., Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of men who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI for primary prostate cancer before RP across four centres between 2015 and 2018. Patients undergoing imaging for recurrent disease or before non-surgical treatment were excluded. We defined pathological index tumour as the lesion with highest International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) on RP specimen pathology. Our primary outcomes were rates of accurate detection and localisation of RP specimen pathology index tumour using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT or mpMRI. We defined tumour detection as imaging lesion corresponding with RP specimen tumour on any imaging plane, and localisation as imaging lesion matching RP specimen index tumour in all sagittal, axial, and coronal planes. Secondary outcomes included localisation of clinically significant and transition zone (TZ) index tumours. We defined clinically significant disease as GG 3-5. We used descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U-test to define and compare demographic and pathological characteristics between detected, missed and localised tumours using either imaging modality. We used the McNemar test to compare detection and localisation rates using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI., Results: In all, 205 men were included in our analysis, including 133 with clinically significant disease. There was no significant difference between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI in the detection of any tumour (94% vs 95%, P > 0.9). There was also no significant difference between localisation of all index tumours (91% vs 89%, P = 0.47), clinically significant index tumours (96% vs 91%, P = 0.15) or TZ tumours (85% vs 80%, P > 0.9) using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Limitations include retrospective study design and non-central review of imaging and pathology., Conclusion: We found no significant difference in the detection or localisation of primary prostate cancer between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate a combined PET/MRI model in minimising tumours missed by either modality., (© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Conventional imaging using CT and bone scan has insufficient sensitivity when staging men with high-risk localised prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate whether novel imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT might improve accuracy and affect management., Methods: In this multicentre, two-arm, randomised study, we recruited men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and high-risk features at ten hospitals in Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning or gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET-CT. First-line imaging was done within 21 days following randomisation. Patients crossed over unless three or more distant metastases were identified. The primary outcome was accuracy of first-line imaging for identifying either pelvic nodal or distant-metastatic disease defined by the receiver-operating curve using a predefined reference-standard including histopathology, imaging, and biochemistry at 6-month follow-up. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTR12617000005358., Findings: From March 22, 2017 to Nov 02, 2018, 339 men were assessed for eligibility and 302 men were randomly assigned. 152 (50%) men were randomly assigned to conventional imaging and 150 (50%) to PSMA PET-CT. Of 295 (98%) men with follow-up, 87 (30%) had pelvic nodal or distant metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT had a 27% (95% CI 23-31) greater accuracy than that of conventional imaging (92% [88-95] vs 65% [60-69]; p<0·0001). We found a lower sensitivity (38% [24-52] vs 85% [74-96]) and specificity (91% [85-97] vs 98% [95-100]) for conventional imaging compared with PSMA PET-CT. Subgroup analyses also showed the superiority of PSMA PET-CT (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 91% vs 59% [32% absolute difference; 28-35] for patients with pelvic nodal metastases, and 95% vs 74% [22% absolute difference; 18-26] for patients with distant metastases). First-line conventional imaging conferred management change less frequently (23 [15%] men [10-22] vs 41 [28%] men [21-36]; p=0·008) and had more equivocal findings (23% [17-31] vs 7% [4-13]) than PSMA PET-CT did. Radiation exposure was 10·9 mSv (95% CI 9·8-12·0) higher for conventional imaging than for PSMA PET-CT (19·2 mSv vs 8·4 mSv; p<0·001). We found high reporter agreement for PSMA PET-CT (κ=0·87 for nodal and κ=0·88 for distant metastases). In patients who underwent second-line image, management change occurred in seven (5%) of 136 patients following conventional imaging, and in 39 (27%) of 146 following PSMA PET-CT., Interpretation: PSMA PET-CT is a suitable replacement for conventional imaging, providing superior accuracy, to the combined findings of CT and bone scanning., Funding: Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. VIDEO ABSTRACT., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence., Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019., Design, Setting, and Participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material., Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prostate cancer changes the phenotype of cells within the stromal microenvironment, including fibroblasts, which in turn promote tumour progression. Functional changes in prostate cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) coincide with alterations in DNA methylation levels at loci-specific regulatory regions. Yet, it is not clear how these methylation changes compare across CAFs from different patients. Therefore, we examined the consistency and prognostic significance of genome-wide DNA methylation profiles between CAFs from patients with different grades of primary prostate cancer., Results: We used Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChips to evaluate genome-wide DNA methylation profiles from 18 matched CAFs and non-malignant prostate tissue fibroblasts (NPFs) from men with moderate to high grade prostate cancer, as well as five unmatched benign prostate tissue fibroblasts (BPFs) from men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. We identified two sets of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in patient CAFs. One set of DMRs reproducibly differed between CAFs and fibroblasts from non-malignant tissue (NPFs and BPFs). Indeed, more than 1200 DMRs consistently changed in CAFs from every patient, regardless of tumour grade. The second set of DMRs varied between CAFs according to the severity of the tumour. Notably, hypomethylation of the EDARADD promoter occurred specifically in CAFs from high-grade tumours and correlated with increased transcript abundance and increased EDARADD staining in patient tissue. Across multiple cohorts, tumours with low EDARADD DNA methylation and high EDARADD mRNA expression were consistently associated with adverse clinical features and shorter recurrence free survival., Conclusions: We identified a large set of DMRs that are commonly shared across CAFs regardless of tumour grade and outcome, demonstrating highly consistent epigenome changes in the prostate tumour microenvironment. Additionally, we found that CAFs from aggressive prostate cancers have discrete methylation differences compared to CAFs from moderate risk prostate cancer. Together, our data demonstrates that the methylome of the tumour microenvironment reflects both the presence and the severity of the prostate cancer and, therefore, may provide diagnostic and prognostic potential.

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy, but only some tumors are lethal. Accurately identifying these tumors will improve clinical practice and instruct research. Aggressive cancers often have distinctive pathologies, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) and ductal adenocarcinoma. Here, we review the importance of these pathologies because they are often overlooked, especially in genomics and preclinical testing. Pathology, genomics, and patient-derived models show that IDC-P and ductal adenocarcinoma accompany multiple markers of poor prognosis. Consequently, "knowing what is growing" will help translate preclinical research to pinpoint and treat high-risk prostate cancer in the clinic., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.)

Objective: To describe contemporary consumer experiences and priorities of prostate cancer survivorship to inform the development of survivorship guidelines., Method: In a cross-sectional qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with fifty prostate cancer support group leaders (50% response) across urban and rural/regional Australia. An interpretative phenomenological approach was used to identify participants' experiences and priorities of survivorship., Results: Three themes were identified for informing the development of prostate cancer survivorship guidelines: (a) the Experience of Diagnosis and Treatment, (b) Priorities for Survivorship and (c) Mechanisms for Support. Four priorities for prostate cancer survivorship were: delivering person and men-centred care; improving communication; improving care coordination; and facilitating access to care. Mechanisms for support were as follows: advocacy; peer support; prostate cancer specialist nurses; and communication training for health professionals., Conclusions: The lack of progress in changing prostate cancer survivorship outcomes for men will become increasingly problematic as this patient population group grows. Co-production provides a way forward to ensure relevance and accessibility for future survivorship initiatives., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) enrolment criteria and follow-up schedules for low-risk prostate cancer vary between institutions. However, uncertainty remains about adherence to these protocols., Objective: To determine adherence to institution-specific AS inclusion criteria and follow-up schedules within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative., Design, Setting, and Participants: We retrospectively assessed the data of 15 101 patients from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide between 2014 and 2016., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Adherence to individual AS inclusion criteria was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from poor to excellent. Nonadherence to follow-up schedules was defined as absence of repeat biopsy 1 yr after the scheduled date. Cohorts were pooled into annual and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS)-based biopsy schedules, and a generalised linear mixed model was constructed to test for nonadherence., Results and Limitations: Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) inclusion criteria were followed in 92%, Gleason score (GS) criteria were followed in 97%, and the number of positive biopsy cores was followed in 94% of men. Both age and tumour stage (T stage) criteria had 99% adherence overall. Pooled nonadherence rates increased over time-8%, 16%, and 34% for annual schedules and 11%, 30%, and 29% for PRIAS-based schedules at 1, 4, and 7 yr, respectively-and did not differ between biopsy schedules. A limitation is that our results do not consider the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging., Conclusions: In on-going development of evidence-based AS protocols, variable adherence to PSA and GS inclusion criteria should be considered. Repeat biopsy adherence reduces with increased duration of surveillance, independent of biopsy frequency. This emphasises the importance of risk stratification at the commencement of AS., Patient Summary: We studied adherence to active surveillance protocols for prostate cancer worldwide. We found that inclusion criteria were generally followed well, but adherence to repeat biopsy reduced with time. This should be considered when optimising future active surveillance protocols., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There is little research assessing the impact of providing men with information about prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options at the time of referral for a prostate biopsy. Study objectives were to determine whether receiving an information booklet about PCa treatment options prior to receiving biopsy results was acceptable to patients, and if receiving this information influenced levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and treatment decisional conflict., Methods: Between June 2016 and September 2017, a randomised block design was used to allocate patients from an Australian urology practice into the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were provided with written information about treatment options for localised PCa prior to their biopsy. Outcome measures including the Distress Thermometer, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Decisional Conflict Scale were completed pre-biopsy and 2-3 weeks post-biopsy. Ninety-eight patients referred for an initial prostate biopsy for an elevated PSA test or suspicious digital rectal exam participated in the study (response rate = 78%)., Results: Multimodal repeated-measures analyses showed no significant differences between control and intervention groups in changes in distress, anxiety, or depression from pre- to post-biopsy, and in decisional conflict post-diagnosis (all p > .05). Thirty-five (87%) patients believed that the resource made it easier to understand subsequent explanation of treatment options, and 51 patients (98%) who received the intervention preferred to be given information at that time., Conclusions: Providing patients with information about treatment options prior to biopsy did not impact on changes in psychological distress and decisional conflict post-biopsy. However, the majority of patients preferred to be given such information at this time point.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can delay escalation to systemic treatment in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, large, prospective studies are still required to evaluate the efficacy of this approach in different patient groups. This is the interim analysis of a prospective, single institution study of men relapsing with up to five synchronous lesions following definitive local treatment for primary PCa. Our aim was to determine the proportion of patients not requiring treatment escalation following SBRT. In total, 199 patients were enrolled to receive fractionated SBRT (50 Gray in 10 fractions) to each visible lesion. Fourteen patients were castration resistant at enrolment. The proportion of patients not requiring treatment escalation 2 years following SBRT was 51.7% (95% CI: 44.1-59.3%). The median length of treatment escalation-free survival over the entire follow-up period was 27.1 months (95% CI; 21.8-29.4 months). Prior androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) predicted a significantly lower rate of freedom from treatment escalation at 2 years compared to no prior ADT (odds ratio = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08-0.54, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the efficacy of SBRT when treating 4-5 vs. 1-3 initial lesions. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline was induced in 75% of patients, with PSA readings falling to an undetectable level in six patients. No late grade three toxicities were observed. These interim results suggest that SBRT can be used to treat up to five synchronous PCa oligometastases to delay treatment escalation., (© 2019 UICC.)