Search

Aims: Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) percentage, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (IC/IDC) and the presence of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (TP5) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens all aid in the risk stratification of Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer patients. However, it is unclear to what extent these pathological features are mutually related and what are their individual values if they are investigated simultaneously. The aims of this study were: (i) to determine the mutual relationships of the GP4 percentage, IC/IDC and TP5 in GG2 RP specimens; and (ii) to assess their prognostic value for biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). Methods and results: Of 1064 RP specimens, 472 (44.4%) showed GG2 prostate cancer. Patients with ≥25% GP4 more frequently had IC/IDC (67.0% versus 43.9%; P < 0.001) and TP5 (20.6% versus 5.8%; P < 0.001) than those with <25% GP4. In unadjusted analysis, an increased GP4 percentage [hazard ratio (HR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–1.6; P = 0.04] and IC/IDC (log rank P < 0.001) were associated with shorter BCRFS, whereas TP5 (P = 0.12) and a dichotomised (<25%, ≥25%) GP4 percentage (P = 0.10) were not. In multivariable analysis, IC/IDC was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2–2.9; P = 0.005) for BCRFS, whereas a continuous or dichotomised GP4 percentage and TP5 were not independent prognostic factors. Conclusion: In conclusion, a higher GP4 percentage in RP specimens was associated with more frequent IC/IDC and TP5. IC/IDC was an independent predictor for BCRFS, whereas the GP4 percentage and TP5 were not. These findings underscore the importance of routinely including the presence of IC/IDC in RP pathology reports.

Context: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. Evidence acquisition: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. Evidence synthesis: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. Conclusions: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. Patient summary: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patie

Background: The optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database. Materials and Methods: Intensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers’ protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity. Results: Out of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51–1.83; p < 0.001), while risk of upgrading did not differ (HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.84–1.10). Conclusion: Results suggest more frequent biopsy schedules may deter some men from continuing AS despite no evidence of grade progression.

Background: Urinary incontinence is a prevalent form of pelvic floor dysfunction, with a non-negligible impact on a patient’s quality of life. There are several treatment options, varying from conservative to invasive. The aim of this study is to predict treatment outcomes of pure or predominant urge urinary incontinence (UUI) in women to support shared decision-making and manage patient expectations. Methods: Data on patient characteristics, disease history, and investigations of 512 consecutive women treated for UUI in three hospitals in the Netherlands were retrospectively collected. The predicted outcome was the short-term subjective continence outcome, defined as patient-reported continence 3 months after treatment categorized as cure (no urinary leakage), improvement (any degree of improvement of urinary leakage), and failure (no improvement or worsening of urinary leakage). Multivariable ordinal regression with backward stepwise selection was performed to analyze association between outcome and patient’s characteristics. Interactions between patient characteristics and treatment were added to estimate individual treatment benefit. Discriminative ability was assessed with the ordinal c-statistic. Results: Conservative treatment was applied in 12% of the patients, pharmacological in 62%, and invasive in 26%. Subjective continence outcome was cure, improvement, and failure in 20%, 49%, and 31%, respectively. Number of incontinence episodes per day, voiding frequency during the day, subjective quantity of UI, coexistence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), night incontinence, and bladder capacity and the interactions between these variables were included in the model. After internal validation, the ordinal c-statistic was 0.699. Conclusions: Six variables were of value to predict pure or predominant UUI treatment outcome in women. Further development into a comprehensive set of models for the use in various pelvic floor disorders and treatments is recommende

Objectives: To investigate the impact of intra-operative neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) on the rate of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and oncological outcome in a large radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort. Patients and methods: Between January 2016 and December 2020, 1756 prostate cancer patients underwent robot-assisted RP, of whom 959 (55%) underwent this with NeuroSAFE and 797 (45%) without (control cohort). In cases where NeuroSAFE showed tumour in the margin, a secondary resection was performed. The effect of NeuroSAFE on NSS and positive surgical margin (PSM) status was analysed using logistic regression. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). Results and limitations: Patients in the NeuroSAFE cohort had a higher tumour grade (P < 0.001) and clinical stage (P < 0.001) than those in the control cohort. NeuroSAFE enabled more frequent NSS for both pT2 (93% vs 76%; P < 0.001) and pT3 disease (83% vs 55%; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, NeuroSAFE resulted in more frequent unilateral (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.90–5.30; P < 0.001) and bilateral (OR 5.22, 95% CI 3.90–6.98; P < 0.001) NSS. While the PSM rate decreased from 51% to 42% in patients with pT3 stage disease (P = 0.031), NeuroSAFE was not an independent predictor of PSM status (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68–1.06; P = 0.2) in the entire cohort. Patients who underwent NeuroSAFE had better BCRFS compared to the control cohort (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.84; P = 0.002). This study is limited by its comparison with a historical cohort and lack of functional outcomes. Conclusions: NeuroSAFE enables more unilateral and bilateral NSS without negatively affecting surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence. This validation study provides a comprehensive overview of the implementation, evaluation and intra-operative decision making associated with NeuroSAFE in clinical pract

Objectives: To recalibrate and validate the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators (ERSPC RCs) 3/4 and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ERSPC-RCs to a contemporary Norwegian setting to reduce upfront prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate biopsies.Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified and entered all men who underwent prostate mpMRI and subsequent prostate biopsy between January 2016 and March 2017 in a Norwegian centre into a database. mpMRI was reported using PI-RADS v2.0 and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. Probabilities of csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa) on biopsy were calculated by the ERSPC RCs 3/4 and the MRI-ERSPC-RC and compared with biopsy results. RCs were then recalibrated to account for differences in prevalence between the development and current cohorts (if indicated), and calibration, discrimination and clinical usefulness assessed.Results: Three hundred and three patients were included. The MRI-ERSPC-RCs were perfectly calibrated to our cohort, although the ERSPC RCs 3/4 needed recalibration. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the ERSPC RCs 3/4 was 0.82 for the discrimination of csPCa and 0.77 for any PCa. The AUC for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs was 0.89 for csPCa and 0.85 for any PCa. Decision curve analysis showed clear net benefit for both the ERSPC RCs 3/4 (>2% risk of csPCa threshold to biopsy) and for the MRI-ERSPC-RCs (>1% risk of csPCa threshold), with a greater net benefit for the MRI-RCs. Using a >10% risk of csPCa or 20% risk of any PCa threshold for the ERSPC RCs 3/4, 15.5% of mpMRIs could be omitted, missing 0.8% of csPCa. Using the MRI-ERSPC-RCs, 23.4% of biopsies could be omitted with the same threshold, missing 0.8% of csPCa.Conclusion: The ERSPC RCs 3/4 and MRI-ERSPC-RCs can considerably reduce both upfront mpMRI and prostate biopsies with little risk of missing csPCa.

Aims: Invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma (IDC) are associated with adverse outcome in prostate cancer patients, with the large cribriform pattern having the worst outcome in radical prostatectomies. Our objective was to determine the impact of the large and small cribriform patterns in prostate cancer biopsies. Methods and results: Pathological revision was carried out on biopsies of 1887 patients from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. The large cribriform pattern was defined as having at least twice the size of adjacent benign glands. The median follow-up time was 13.4 years. Hazard ratios for metastasis-free survival (MFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Any cribriform pattern was found in 280 of 1887 men: 1.1% IDC in grade group (GG) 1, 18.2% in GG2, 57.1% in GG3, 55.4% in GG4 and 59.3% in GG5; the large cribriform pattern was present in 0, 0.5, 9.8, 18.1 and 17.3%, respectively. In multivariable analyses, small and large cribriform patterns were both (P < 0.005) associated with worse MFS [small: hazard ratio (HR) = 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.93–4.78; large: HR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.68–5.99] and DSS (small: HR = 4.07, 95% CI = 2.51–6.62; large: HR = 4.13, 95% CI = 2.14–7.98). Patients with the large cribriform pattern did not have worse MFS (P = 0.77) or DSS (P = 0.96) than those with the small cribriform pattern. Conclusions: Both small and large cribriform patterns are associated with worse MFS and DSS in prostate cancer biopsies. Patients with the large cribriform pattern on biopsy have a similar adverse outcome as those with the small cribriform pattern.

Introduction: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. Methods: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). Results: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. Conclusion: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Background: Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) have shown to cope with anxiety caused by living with an ‘untreated cancer’ and different factors can influence the tolerance level for anxiety in these patients. The present study analyzes Italian (Milan) and Dutch (Rotterdam) men prospectively included in the Prostate cancer International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial, aiming to explore whether socio-demographic factors (i.e. age, relationship status, education, nationality) may be relevant factors in conditioning the level of anxiety at AS entry and over time. Methods: Italian and Dutch men participating in the IRB-approved PRIAS study, after signing an informed consent, filled in the Memorial Anxiety Scale for PCa (MAX-PC) at multiple time points after diagnosis. A linear mixed model was used to assess the relationship between the level of patient’s anxiety and time spent on AS, country of origin, the interaction between country and time on AS, patients’ relationship status and education, on PCa anxiety during AS. Results: 823 MAX-PC questionnaires were available for Italian and 307 for Dutch men, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (IQR 60–70 years) and did not differ between countries. On average, Dutch men had a higher total MAX-PC score than Italian men. However, the level of their anxiety decreased over time. Dutch men on average had a higher score on the PCa anxiety sub-domain, which did not decrease over time. Minimal differences were observed in the sub-domains PSA anxiety and fear of recurrence. Conclusion: Significant differences in PCa anxiety between the Italian and Dutch cohorts were observed, the latter group of men showing higher overall levels of anxiety. These differences were not related to the socio-demographic factors we studied. Although both PRIAS-centers are dedicated AS-centers, differences in PCa-care organization (e.g. having a multidisciplinary team) may have contributed to

Benchmark surveillance tests for detecting disease progression (eg, biopsies, endoscopies) in early-stage chronic noncommunicable diseases (eg, cancer, lung diseases) are usually burdensome. For detecting progression timely, patients undergo invasive tests planned in a fixed one-size-fits-all manner (eg, annually). We aim to present personalized test schedules based on the risk of disease progression, that optimize the burden (the number of tests) and the benefit (shorter time delay in detecting progression is better) better than fixed schedules, and enable shared decision making. Our motivation comes from the problem of scheduling biopsies in prostate cancer surveillance. Using joint models for time-to-event and longitudinal data, we consolidate patients' longitudinal data (eg, biomarkers) and results of previous tests, into individualized future cumulative-risk of progression. We then create personalized schedules by planning tests on future visits where the predicted cumulative-risk is above a threshold (eg, 5% risk). We update personalized schedules with data gathered over follow-up. To find the optimal risk threshold, we minimize a utility function of the expected number of tests (burden) and expected time delay in detecting progression (shorter is beneficial) for different thresholds. We estimate these two in a patient-specific manner for following any schedule, by utilizing a patient's predicted risk profile. Patients/doctors can employ these quantities to compare personalized and fixed schedules objectively and make a shared decision of a test schedule.

Background: Risk stratification in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer (PCa) can be used to reduce biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, while maintaining the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The use of highly discriminating and well-calibrated models will generate better clinical outcomes if context-dependent thresholds are used. Objective: To retrospectively assess the effect of the upfront use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) developed in a screening cohort and the RPCRC-MRI developed in a clinical cohort while exploring the need to adapt thresholds in biopsy-naïve men in the PRECISION (Prostate Evaluation for Clinically Important Disease: Sampling Using Image Guidance or Not?) trial. Design, setting, and participants: In the transrectal ultrasonography arm, we evaluated 188 men; in the MRI arm, we evaluated 206 (for the reduction of MRI scans) and 137 (for the reduction of targeted biopsies) men. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Results and limitations: The performance of the RPCRC was good. However, intercept adjustment was warranted. Net benefit was observed from a recalibrated probability of 32% for any PCa and 10% for csPCa. After recalibration and applying a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 10% for csPCa, 28% of all biopsies could have been reduced, missing five cases of csPCa. The uncalibrated RPCRC could reduce 35% of all MRI scans, with a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 4% for csPCa. In the MRI arm, performance was good without stressing recalibration. Net benefit was observed from a probability of 22% for any PCa and 7% for csPCa. With a threshold of 20% for any PCa or 4% for csPCa, 9% of all targeted biopsies could be reduced, missing one grade group 2 PCa. Conclusions: The performance of the RPCRC and RPCRC-MRI in men included in the PRECISION trial was good, but recalibration and adaptation of the

The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) is a well-validated tool for upfront risk stratification to reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans among both biopsy-naïve and previously biopsied men. The presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) identifies men with aggressive grade group (GG) 2 tumors. This finding was recently incorporated in the RPCRC for biopsy-naïve men to predict the probability of no PCa, indolent PCa (GG 1 disease and GG 2 disease without CR/IDC), and clinically significant PCa (csPCa: GG 2 disease with CR/IDC and higher). The aim of the current study was to update the RPCRC for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of CR/IDC. A total of 2215 men were eligible for analyses, of whom 1776 (80%) were not diagnosed with PCa, 358 (16%) were diagnosed with indolent PCa, and 81 (4%) were diagnosed with csPCa according to the original 2014 Gleason grading. The optimism-corrected area under the curve was 0.69 for any PCa and 0.77 for csPCa. With a threshold of 10% for indolent PCa or 1% for csPCa, 20% of all prostate biopsies could be avoided and 2% of all csPCa cases would be missed. Our results support upfront risk stratification with the updated RPCRC. Patient summary: Risk stratification for men without a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer can reduce the number of prostate biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging scans carried out in this patient population. Our study shows that it is possible to update the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for men with a previous negative biopsy with the presence of invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma.