Search

Many factors are implicated in the potential ‘under-treatment’ of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model. 53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation when used for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. This study c...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:No direct comparison has been made between England and the US with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer over one contemporary time period. W...

Many factors are implicated in the potential 'under-treatment' of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation.The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model.53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P 0.001) for patients aged ≥80 years (ICC: 0.235) compared to patients aged 75-79 years (ICC: 0.070), 70-74 years (ICC: 0.041), and70 years (ICC: 0.048). Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation did not influence the between-hospital variation.Radical local treatment of high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer depended strongly on age and comorbidity, but also on socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, with the between-hospital variation being highest in older patients.

Improvements in short-term outcomes have been reported for hospitals with higher radical prostatectomy (RP) volumes. However, the association with longer-term functional outcomes is unknown.All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in the English NHS between 2014 and 2016 who underwent RP (N = 10,089) were mailed a survey ≥18 months after diagnosis. Differences in patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function (EPIC-26 on scale from 0 to 100) by hospital volume group (≤60, 61-100, 101-140,140 RPs/year) were estimated using multilevel linear regression.Overall, 7702 men (76.3%) responded. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary continence (p = 0.08) or sexual function scores with increasing volume group (p = 0.2). When modelled as a linear function, we found a non-significant increase of 0.70 (95% CI -0.41 to 1.80; p = 0.22) in urinary continence and a significant increase of 1.54 (0.62-2.45; p = 0.001) in sexual function scores for a 100-procedure increase in hospital volume, which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10-12 points). The results were similar for robotic-assisted RP (5529 men [71.8%]).These results do not support further centralisation of RP services beyond levels in England where four in five hospitals perform60 RPs/year.

PURPOSE: External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with brachytherapy boost reduces cancer recurrence in patients with prostate cancer compared with EBRT monotherapy. However, randomized controlled trials or large-scale observational studies have not compared brachytherapy boost types directly. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This observational cohort study used linked national cancer registry data, radiation therapy data, administrative hospital data, and mortality records of 54,642 patients with intermediate-risk, high-risk, and locally advanced prostate cancer in England. The records of 11,676 patients were also linked to results from a national patient survey collected at least 18 months after diagnosis. Competing risk regression analyses were used to compare gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, genitourinary (GU) toxicity, skeletal-related events (SRE), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) at 5 years with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics. Linear regression was used to compare Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores (scale, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better function). RESULTS: Five-year GI toxicity was significantly increased after low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (LDR-BB) (32.3%) compared with high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BB) (16.7%) or EBRT monotherapy (18.7%). Five-year GU toxicity was significantly increased after both LDR-BB (15.8%) and HDR-BB (16.6%), compared with EBRT monotherapy (10.4%). These toxicity patterns were matched by the mean patient-reported bowel function scores (LDR-BB, 77.3; HDR-BB, 85.8; EBRT monotherapy, 84.4) and the mean patient-reported urinary obstruction/irritation function scores (LDR-BB, 72.2; HDR-BB, 78.9; EBRT monotherapy, 83.8). Five-year incidences of SREs and PCSM were significantly lower after HDR-BB (2.4% and 2.7%, respectively) compared with EBRT monotherapy (2.8% and 3.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EBRT monotherapy, LDR-BB has worse GI and GU toxicity and HDR-BB has worse GU toxicity. HDR-BB has a lower incidence of SREs and PCSM than EBRT monotherapy.

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

Background The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) reports publicly performance indicators for all hospitals in England and Wales providing radical prostate cancer treatment, identifying those with results that fall outside the ‘accepted range’ as ‘potential negative outliers’. Hospitals with outlying results are requested to provide a formal response. This ‘outlier process’, targeting a limited number of hospitals, mirrors a ‘high-risk approach’ of preventing poor quality care in contrast to a ‘population approach’ that would target all hospitals. We invited clinicians to a national workshop to learn how the outlier process contributes to quality improvement. Methods The workshop started with presentations on reducing the ‘toxicity’ of radical prostate cancer treatment. Then, clinicians from three hospitals identified as outliers shared their experience of the process and the changes in practice they had made as a result. We collected data in three ways. First, an online platform was used to gather comments from participants during the workshop. Second, a number of participants were interviewed about the outlier process as a means to improve quality of care. Third, feedback was sought after the workshop from all participants. Responses were collated and analysed for themes. Results Sixty-nine clinicians attended including urologists, oncologists, radiographers and nurses, representing a spread of hospitals across England and Wales. There were 6 interviews, 21 online comments and 31 responses after the workshop. The clinicians representing outlying hospitals highlighted the negative (stigma, work load, negative impact on reputation) and the positive impact (detailed review of procedures, implementation of targeted approaches) of the outlier process. Participants felt that sharing experiences of outlying hospitals helps others to improve. They also suggested a ‘buddy system’ between better and worse performing hospitals. Many highlighted the importance of ‘networks’ to share experiences, either good or bad, as a vehicle for improving practice. Discussion The outlier process was generally accepted as a possible mechanism to improve practice. However, participants indicated that effective dissemination is key to ensuring that identifying poor outcomes in some hospitals (e.g. high-risk approach) can stimulate country-wide quality improvement (population approach).

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

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

To evaluate the significance of close surgical margins in organ-sparing surgery (OSS) in the treatment of penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) and clinicopathological factors that may influence local recurrence.At our tertiary referral centre, between March 2001 and September 2012, 332 patients treated with OSS for pSCC had clear surgical margins. As the focus was the impact of close clear margins on local recurrence, patients with positive margins were excluded for the purpose of this study. Our overall positive margin rate for OSS in penile cancer is 7.6% (42 patients). Analysis was carried out on an on-going prospective database, including prospective accurate pathological recording of surgical margins. Patients underwent OSS after multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion. Local recurrence was the primary outcome measured and Fisher's exact test and time-to-recurrence curves were used in the analysis. All local recurrences were scrutinised by the MDT and were categorised into: true recurrences or metachronous new occurrences (i.e. tumours arising from a background of penile intraepithelial neoplasia and forming on an epithelial surface not related to the site of initial resection). A multivariate analysis was also conducted to elucidate other factors influencing local recurrence.In all, 64% of the patients had a5 mm clear deep surgical margin, with 16% clear by1 mm. Overall, 4% of patients had a true local recurrence, with a median time to recurrence of 6 months. In all, 53% were due to embolic spread, with residual occult local disease accounting for 47%. There was a statistically significant relationship between cavernosal involvement (P = 0.014) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI; P = 0.001) and local recurrence. Although multivariate analysis revealed that the extent of clear margin was not a predictor of disease (P = 0.405), we found an increased risk of local recurrence in the clear margin cohort of1 mm compared to those of1 mm (P0.001). Those patients considered to have metachronous tumours were scrutinised by our MDT, and eight patients (2.4%) were found to have new occurrences. Our overall proportion of patients therefore needing further treatment for either new occurrences or recurrent disease after OSS stands at 6.4%.Overall the presence of local recurrent disease in OSS in our experience is low (4%). We report an embolic mechanism of local recurrence, strongly suggested by the presence of cavernosal involvement and LVI. We conclude that a deep clear margin of1 mm has a very low risk of local recurrence in penile OSS.