Search

Context While urinary incontinence (UI) commonly occurs after radical prostatectomy (RP), it is unclear what factors increase the risk of UI development. Objective To perform a systematic review of patient- and tumour-related prognostic factors for post-RP UI. The primary outcome was UI within 3 mo after RP. Secondary outcomes included UI at 3–12 mo and ≥12 mo after RP. Evidence acquisition Databases including Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched between January 1990 and May 2020. All studies reporting patient- and tumour-related prognostic factors in univariable or multivariable analyses were included. Surgical factors were excluded. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for all prognostic factor, where possible. Evidence synthesis A total of 119 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 24 prospective, 88 retrospective, and 2 case-control studies) with 131 379 patients were included. RoB was high for study participation and confounding; moderate to high for statistical analysis, study attrition, and prognostic factor measurement; and low for outcome measurements. Significant prognostic factors for postoperative UI within 3 mo after RP were age (odds ratio [OR] per yearly increase 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.05), membranous urethral length (MUL; OR per 1-mm increase 0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88), prostate volume (PV; OR per 1-ml increase 1.005, 95% CI 1.000–1.011), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI; OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09–1.50). Conclusions Increasing age, shorter MUL, greater PV, and higher CCI are independent prognostic factors for UI within 3 mo after RP, with all except CCI remaining prognostic at 3–12 mo. Patient summary We reviewed the literature to identify patient and disease factors associated with urinary incontinence after surgery for prostate cancer. We found increasing age, larger prostate volume, shorter length of a section of the urethra (membranous urethra), and lower fitness were associated with worse urinary incontinence for the first 3 mo after surgery, with all except lower fitness remaining predictive at 3–12 mo.

Context The impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. Objective To perform a systematic review on the association between surgeon or hospital volume and oncological and nononcological outcomes following RP for PCa. Evidence acquisition Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative studies for nonmetastatic PCa patients treated with RP published between January 1990 and May 2020 were included. For inclusion, studies had to compare hospital or surgeon volume, defined as caseload per unit time. Main outcomes included oncological (including prostate-specific antigen persistence, positive surgical margin [PSM], biochemical recurrence, local and distant recurrence, and cancer-specific and overall survival) and nononcological (perioperative complications including need for blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure and within 90-d death, and continence and erectile function) outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Both a narrative and a quantitative synthesis were planned if the data allowed. Evidence synthesis Sixty retrospective comparative studies were included. Generally, increasing surgeon and hospital volumes were associated with lower rates of mortality, PSM, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. Combining group size cut-offs as used in the included studies, the median threshold for hospital volume at which outcomes start to diverge is 86 (interquartile range [IQR] 35–100) cases per year. In addition, above this threshold, the higher the caseload, the better the outcomes, especially for PSM. RoB and confounding were high for most domains. Conclusions Higher surgeon and hospital volumes for RP are associated with lower rates of PSMs, adjuvant or salvage therapies, and perioperative complications. This association becomes apparent from a caseload of >86 (IQR 35–100) per year and may further improve hereafter. Both high- and low-volume centres should measure their outcomes, make them publicly available, and improve their quality of care if needed. Patient summary We reviewed the literature to determine whether the number of prostate cancer operations (radical prostatectomy) performed in a hospital affects the outcomes of surgery. We found that, overall, hospitals with a higher number of operations per year have better outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and complications during or after hospitalisation. However, it must be noted that surgeons working in hospitals with lower annual operations can still achieve similar or even better outcomes. Therefore, making hospital’s outcome data publicly available should be promoted internationally, so that patients can make an informed decision where they want to be treated.

PURPOSEThe STAMPEDE trial recruits men with newly diagnosed, high-risk, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. To ascertain the feasibility of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) and the prevalence of baseline genomic aberrations, we sequenced tumor and germline DNA from patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).METHODSIn a 2-stage approach, archival, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostate tumor core biopsy samples were retrospectively subjected to 2 tNGS assays. Prospective enrollment enabled validation using tNGS in tumor and germline DNA.RESULTSIn stage 1, tNGS data were obtained from 185 tumors from 287 patients (65%); 98% had de novo mPCa. We observed PI3K pathway aberrations in 43%, due to PTEN copy-number loss (34%) and/or activating mutations in PIK3 genes or AKT (18%) and TP53 mutation or loss in 33%. No androgen receptor ( AR) aberrations were detected; RB1 loss was observed in < 1%. In stage 2, 93 (92%) of 101 FFPE tumors (biopsy obtained within 8 months) were successfully sequenced prospectively. The prevalence of DNA damage repair (DDR) deficiency was 14% (somatic) and 5% (germline). BRCA2 mutations and mismatch repair gene mutations were exclusive to high-volume disease. Aberrant DDR (22% v 15%), Wnt pathway (16% v 4%), and chromatin remodeling (16% v 8%) were all more common in high-volume compared with low-volume disease, but the small numbers limited statistical comparisons.CONCLUSIONProspective genomic characterization is feasible using residual diagnostic tumor samples and reveals that the genomic landscapes of de novo high-volume mPCa and advanced metastatic prostate cancer have notable similarities (PI3K pathway, DDR, Wnt, chromatin remodeling) and differences ( AR, RB1). These results will inform the design and conduct of biomarker-directed trials in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Background Prostate radiotherapy (RT) is a first-line option for newly diagnosed men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. The current criterion to define this clinical state is based on manual bone metastasis counts, but enumeration of bone metastases is limited by interobserver variations, and it does not account for metastasis volume or lesional coalescence. The automated bone scan index (aBSI) is a quantitative method of evaluating bone metastatic burden in a standardised and reproducible manner. Objective To evaluate whether aBSI has utility as a predictive imaging biomarker to define a newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer population that might benefit from the addition of prostate RT to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy. Design, setting, and participants This is an exploratory analysis of men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either SOC or SOC + prostate RT within the STAMPEDE “M1|RT comparison”. Intervention The SOC was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December 2015. Men allocated RT received either a daily or a weekly schedule that was nominated before randomisation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Baseline bone scans were evaluated retrospectively to calculate aBSI. We used overall (OS) and failure-free (FFS) survival as the end points. Treatment-aBSI interaction was evaluated using the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) and subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. Further analysis was done in aBSI quartiles using Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors. Results and limitations : Baseline bone scans for 660 (SOC: 323 and SOC + RT: 337) of 2061 men randomised within the “M1|RT comparison” met the software requirements for aBSI calculation. The median age was 68 yr, median PSA was 100 ng/mL, median aBSI was 0.9, and median follow-up was 39 mo. Baseline patient characteristics including aBSI were balanced between the treatment groups. Using the MFPI procedure, there was evidence of aBSI-treatment interaction for OS (p = 0.04, MFPI procedure) and FFS (p, Take Home Message In this exploratory analysis of 660 men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomised within a clinical trial, a low automated bone scan index was found to be predictive of overall and failure-free survival benefit from the addition of prostate radiotherapy to standard of care systemic therapy. This was also observed with secondary clinical end points.

Purpose: Due to recent treatment advances, men are increasingly living longer with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). This study sought to understand men’s experiences of living with and adjusting to advanced hormone-responsive PCa and how this influenced their quality of life (QoL), in order to highlight how support could be optimized. Methods: Participants were recruited through a UK wide survey—the ‘Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis’ study. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 24 men (aged 46–77 years) with advanced (stage IV) hormone-responsive PCa diagnosed 18–42 months previously. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a framework approach. Results: Most participants perceived their QoL to be relatively good, which was influenced by the following factors (enablers to ‘living well’ with PCa): a sense of connectedness to others, engagement in meaningful activities, resources (social, cognitive, financial), ability to manage uncertainty, utilization of adjustment strategies and support, communication and information from health professionals. Barriers to ‘living well’ with PCa were often the converse of these factors. These also included more troublesome PCa-related symptoms and stronger perceptions of loss and restriction. Conclusions: In our study, men living with advanced hormone-responsive PCa often reported a good QoL. Exploring the influences on QoL in men with advanced PCa indicates how future interventions might improve the QoL of men who are struggling. Further research is required to develop and test interventions that enhance QoL for these men.

Background Abiraterone acetate received licencing for use in only "high-risk" metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC) following the LATITUDE trial findings. However, a "risk"-related effect was not seen in the STAMPEDE trial. There remains uncertainty as to whether men with LATITUDE "low-risk" M1 disease benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone (AAP). Objective Evaluation of heterogeneity of effect between LATITUDE high- and low-risk M1 prostate cancer patients receiving ADT + AAP in the STAMPEDE trial. Design, setting, and participants A post hoc subgroup analysis of the 2017 STAMPEDE "abiraterone comparison". Staging scans for M1 patients contemporaneously randomised to ADT or ADT + AAP within the STAMPEDE trial were evaluated centrally and blind to treatment assignment. Stratification was by risk according to the criteria set out in the LATITUDE trial. Exploratory subgroup stratification incorporated the CHAARTED criteria. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome measure was failure-free survival (FFS). Further exploratory analysis evaluated clinical skeletal-related events, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate cancer-specific death. Standard Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were employed for analysis. Results and limitations A total of 901 M1 STAMPEDE patients were evaluated after exclusions. Of the patients, 428 (48%) were identified as having a low risk and 473 (52%) a high risk. Patients receiving ADT + AAP had significantly improved OS (low-risk hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval or CI [0.44–0.98]) and FFS (low-risk HR: 0.24, 95% CI [0.17–0.33]) compared with ADT alone. Heterogeneity of effect was not seen between low- and high-risk groups for OS or FFS. For OS benefit in low risk, the number needed to treat was four times greater than that for high risk. However, this was not observed for the other measured endpoints. Conclusions Men with mHNPC gain treatment benefit from ADT + AAP irrespective of risk stratification for "risk" or "volume". Patient summary Coadministration of abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with prolonged overall survival and disease control, compared with ADT alone, in all men with metastatic disease starting hormone therapy for the first time.

Purpose To investigate men’s experiences of receiving external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) for localized prostate cancer (LPCa) in the ProtecT trial. Methods A longitudinal qualitative interview study was embedded in the ProtecT RCT. Sixteen men with clinically LPCa who underwent EBRT in ProtecT were purposively sampled to include a range of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. They participated in serial in-depth qualitative interviews for up to 8 years post-treatment, exploring experiences of treatment and its side effects over time. Results Men experienced bowel, sexual, and urinary side effects, mostly in the short term but some persisted and were bothersome. Most men downplayed the impacts, voicing expectations of age-related decline, and normalizing these changes. There was some reticence to seek help, with men prioritizing their relationships and overall health and well-being over returning to pretreatment levels of function. Some unmet needs with regard to information about treatment schedules and side effects were reported, particularly among men with continuing functional symptoms. Conclusions These findings reinforce the importance of providing universal clear, concise, and timely information and supportive resources in the short term, and more targeted and detailed information and care in the longer term to maintain and improve treatment experiences for men undergoing EBRT.

Lifestyle interventions involving exercise training offset the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Yet provision of integrated exercise pathways in cancer care is sparse. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an embedded supervised exercise training intervention into standard prostate cancer care in a single-arm, multicentre prospective cohort study. Feasibility included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and safety. Acceptability of behaviourally informed healthcare and exercise professional training was assessed qualitatively. Despite the imposition of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic, referral rates into and adherence to, the intervention was high. Of the 45 men eligible for participation, 79% (n = 36) received the intervention and 47% (n = 21) completed the intervention before a government mandated national lockdown was enforced in the United Kingdom. Patients completed a mean of 27 min of aerobic exercise per session (SD = 3.48), at 77% heart rate maximum (92% of target dose), and 3 sets of 10 reps of 3 resistance exercises twice weekly for 12 weeks, without serious adverse event. The intervention was delivered by 26 healthcare professionals and 16 exercise trainers with moderate to high fidelity, and the intervention was deemed highly acceptable to patients. The impact of societal changes due to the pandemic on the delivery of this face-to-face intervention remain uncertain but positive impacts of embedding exercise provision into prostate cancer care warrant long-term investigation.

Context The clinical effectiveness of focal therapy (FT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. Objective To analyse the evidence base for primary FT for localised PCa via a systematic review (SR) to formulate clinical practice recommendations. Evidence acquisition A protocol-driven, PRISMA-adhering SR comparing primary FT (sub-total, focal, hemi-gland, or partial ablation) versus standard options (active surveillance [AS], radical prostatectomy [RP], or external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) was undertaken. Only comparative studies with ≥50 patients per arm were included. Primary outcomes included oncological, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were undertaken. Eligible SRs were reviewed and appraised (AMSTAR) and ongoing prospective comparative studies were summarised. Evidence synthesis Out of 1119 articles identified, four primary studies (1 randomised controlled trial [RCT] and 3 retrospective studies) recruiting 3961 patients and ten eligible SRs were identified. Only qualitative synthesis was possible owing to clinical heterogeneity. Overall, RoB and confounding were moderate to high. An RCT comparing vascular-targeted focal photodynamic therapy (PDT) with AS found a significantly lower rate of treatment failure at 2 yr with PDT. There were no differences in functional outcomes, although PDT was associated with worse transient adverse events. However, the external validity of the study was contentious. A retrospective study comparing focal HIFU with robotic RP found no significant differences in treatment failure at 3 yr, with focal HIFU having better continence and erectile function recovery. Two retrospective cohort studies using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data compared focal laser ablation (FLA) against RP and EBRT, reporting significantly worse oncological outcomes for FLA. The overall data quality and applicability of the primary studies were limited because of clinical heterogeneity, RoB and confounding, lack of long-term data, inappropriate outcome measures, and poor external validity. Virtually all the SRs identified concluded that there was insufficient high-certainty evidence to make definitive conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of FT, with the majority of SRs judged to have a low or critically low confidence rating. Eight ongoing prospective comparative studies were identified. Ways of improving the evidence base are discussed. Conclusions The certainty of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of FT as a primary treatment for localised PCa was low, with significant uncertainties. Until higher-certainty evidence emerges from robust prospective comparative studies measuring clinically meaningful outcomes at long-term time points, FT should ideally be performed within clinical trials or well-designed prospective cohort studies. Patient summary We examined the literature to determine the effectiveness of prostate-targeted treatment compared with standard treatments for untreated localised prostate cancer. There was no strong evidence showing that focal treatment compares favourably with standard treatments; consequently, focal treatment is not recommended for routine standard practice.

Background Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. Objective To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. Design, setting, and participants We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. Intervention SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. Conclusions Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. Patient summary Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body., Take Home Message Docetaxel is a cost-effective intervention in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic prostate cancer starting hormone therapy. Clinicians and National Health Service funding bodies should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support initiating docetaxel in patients with nonmetastatic disease.

Importance Prostate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site. Objective To evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT. Design, setting, and participants This exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcomes were OS and FFS. Results A total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P = .003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P = .002). Conclusions and relevance In this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.

Lifestyle interventions involving exercise training offset the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer (PCa). Yet provision of integrated exercise pathways in cancer care is sparse. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an embedded supervised exercise training intervention into standard PCa care in a single-arm, multicentre prospective cohort study. Feasibility included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and safety. Acceptability of behaviourally informed healthcare and exercise professional training was assessed qualitatively. Despite the imposition of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic, referral rates into and adherence to, the intervention was high. Of the 45 men eligible for participation, 79% received the intervention. Patients completed a mean of 27 minutes of aerobic exercise per session (SD=3.48), at 77% heart rate maximum (92% of target dose), and 3 sets of 10 reps of 3 resistance exercises twice weekly for 12 weeks, without serious adverse event. The intervention was delivered by healthcare and exercise professionals with moderate to high fidelity and the intervention was deemed highly acceptable to patients. The impact of societal changes due to the pandemic on the delivery of this face-to-face intervention remain uncertain but positive impacts of embedding exercise provision into PCa care warrant long-term investigation.

Context Surgical techniques aimed at preserving the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy (RP) have been proposed to improve functional outcomes. However, it remains unclear if nerve-sparing (NS) surgery adversely affects oncological metrics. Objective To explore the oncological safety of NS versus non-NS (NNS) surgery and to identify factors affecting the oncological outcomes of NS surgery. Evidence acquisition Relevant databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1, 1990 and May 8, 2020. Comparative studies for patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) treated with primary RP were included. NS and NNS techniques were compared. The main outcomes were side-specific positive surgical margins (ssPSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding assessments were performed. Evidence synthesis Out of 1573 articles identified, 18 studies recruiting a total of 21 654 patients were included. The overall RoB and confounding were high across all domains. The most common selection criteria for NS RP identified were characteristic of low-risk disease, including low core-biopsy involvement. Seven studies evaluated the link with ssPSM and showed an increase in ssPSM after adjustment for side-specific confounders, with the relative risk for NS RP ranging from 1.50 to 1.53. Thirteen papers assessing BCR showed no difference in outcomes with at least 12 mo of follow-up. Lack of data prevented any subgroup analysis for potentially important variables. The definitions of NS were heterogeneous and poorly described in most studies. Conclusions Current data revealed an association between NS surgery and an increase in the risk of ssPSM. This did not translate into a negative impact on BCR, although follow-up was short and many men harbored low-risk PCa. There are significant knowledge gaps in terms of how various patient, disease, and surgical factors affect outcomes. Adequately powered and well-designed prospective trials and cohort studies accounting for these issues with long-term follow-up are recommended. Patient summary Neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are structures containing nerves and blood vessels. The NVBs close to the prostate are responsible for erections. We reviewed the literature to determine if a technique to preserve the NVBs during removal of the prostate causes worse cancer outcomes. We found that NVB preservation was poorly defined but, if applied, was associated with a higher risk of cancer at the margins of the tissue removed, even in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The long-term importance of this finding for patients is unclear. More data are needed to provide recommendations.

Objective: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). Evidence acquisition: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. Evidence synthesis: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment. Conclusions: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. Patient summary: Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them. The 2020 European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) summarise the most recent findings and provide recommendations for clinical practice, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Key stakeholders in PCa management were involved in their development, including a patient representative. A full version is available at the EAU office and online at http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/. A separate publication will address the management of relapsing-, metastatic-, and castration-resistant PCa.

Objective: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Evidence acquisition: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016–2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature. Evidence synthesis: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa. Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). Patient summary: This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017–2020 period of new evidence. The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and castration-resistant prostate cancer is changing rapidly. The 2020 European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).

Background Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50–69 years. Design A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. Setting Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. Participants Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50–69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. Interventions The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. Trial primary outcome measure Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. Secondary outcome measures Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p Limitations A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. Conclusions At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer does not necessarily lead to clinically apparent progressive disease. To aid in prognostication, the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel undertook a systematic review and successfully developed a novel BCR risk stratification system (groups with a low risk or high risk of BCR) based on disease and prostate-specific antigen characteristics. Patient summary: Following treatment to cure prostate cancer, some patients can develop recurrence of disease identified via a prostate-specific antigen blood test (ie, biochemical recurrence, or BCR). However, not every man who experiences BCR develops progressive disease (symptoms or evidence of disease progression on imaging). We conducted a review of the literature and developed a classification system for predicting which patients might progress to optimize treatment decisions. The EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guidelines panel recommends stratifying patients experiencing biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer into EAU low-risk and high-risk BCR groups. Each patient's risk profile and life expectancy should be considered when discussing the benefits and toxicities of salvage treatments.

Context: The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown. Objective: To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported. Evidence acquisition: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence synthesis: Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems. Conclusions: Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment. Patient summary: We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.

Background: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. Objective: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT. Design, setting, and participants: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed. Results and limitations: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Conclusions: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials. Patient summary: We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

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

Background There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. Methods The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years’ median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. Results Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. Conclusions Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man’s lifetime. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Purpose There are known associations between treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) involving Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and psychological and physical side effects. We investigate the associations between cancer-related symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and poor psychological outcomes in men whose treatment for PCa involved ADT. Methods A cross-sectional postal questionnaire was administered to UK men 18–42 months post diagnosis of PCa. Men completed items on functional outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Fatigue subscale. Psychological outcomes (mental well-being and psychological distress) were assessed using the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and the Kessler 6-item scale (K6), respectively. Associations between explanatory variables and psychological outcomes were assessed using stepped logistic regression. Results 13,097 men treated with ADT completed a questionnaire. A minority of men reported poor mental well-being (15.5%) or severe psychological distress (6.6%). After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables, reporting clinically significant fatigue was strongly associated with severe psychological distress (OR 9.92; 95% CI 7.63 to 12.89) and poor well-being (OR 3.86; 95% CI 3.38 to 4.42). All cancer-related symptoms and HRQL variables were associated with both psychological outcomes. Conclusions While the majority of men treated with ADT did not report poor psychological outcomes, a small proportion reported severe problems. Clinically significant fatigue was demonstrated as a possible indicator of poor outcomes. Healthcare systems need to have clear protocols in place which specifically and routinely target psychological distress and fatigue. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02212-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Quality of life among prostate cancer survivors varies by socio-demographic factors and treatment type received; however, less in known about differences in functional outcomes by method of presentation. We investigate differences in reported urinary, bowel, sexual and hormone-related problems between symptomatic and PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors. Methods A UK wide cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors conducted 18-42 months post-diagnosis. Questions were included on presentation method and treatment. Functional outcome was determined using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Reported outcomes were compared for symptomatic and PSA-detected survivors using ANOVA and multivariable log-linear regression. Results Thirty-five thousand eight hundred twenty-three men responded (response rate: 60.8%). Of these, 31.3% reported presenting via PSA test and 59.7% symptomatically. In multivariable analysis, symptomatic men reported more difficulty with urinary incontinence (Adjusted mean ratio (AMR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.97), urinary irritation (AMR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96), bowel function (AMR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98), sexual function (AMR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92), and vitality/hormonal function (AMR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.96) than PSA-detected men. Differences were consistent across respondents of differing age, stage, Gleason score and treatment type. Conclusion Prostate cancer survivors presenting symptomatically report poorer functional outcomes than PSA-detected survivors. Differences were not explained by socio-demographic or clinical factors. Clinicians should be aware that men presenting with symptoms are more likely to report functional difficulties after prostate cancer treatment and may need additional aftercare if these difficulties persist. Method of presentation should be considered as a covariate in patient-reported outcome studies of prostate cancer.

AimTo determine how clinicians use data in contemporary prostate biopsy reports.MethodsA survey was circulated to members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the British Uro-oncology Group.ResultsResponses were received from 114 respondents (88 urologists, 26 oncologists). Ninety-seven (94%) use the number of positive cores from each side and 43 (42%) use the % number of positive cores. When determining the number and percentage of positive cores, 72 (71%) would not differentiate between targeted and non-targeted samples. If multiple Gleason Scores (GS) were included in a report, 77 (78%) would use the worst GS even if present in a core with very little tumour, 12% would use the global GS and 10% the GS in the core most involved by tumour. Fifty-five (55%) either never or rarely used perineural invasion for patient management.ConclusionsThe number of positive cores is an important parameter for patient management but may be difficult to determine in the laboratory due to core fragmentation so the biopsy taker must indicate the number of biopsies obtained. Multiple biopsies taken from a single site are often interpreted by clinicians as separate cores when determining the number of positive cores so pathologists should also report the number of sites positive. Clinicians have a non-uniform approach to the interpretation of multiple GS in prostate biopsy reports so we recommend that pathologists also include a single ‘bottom-line’ GS for each case to direct the clinician’s treatment decision.

Objective\ud \ud To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).\ud \ud Evidence acquisition\ud \ud The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013–2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence.\ud \ud Evidence synthesis\ud \ud BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).\ud \ud \ud Patient summary\ud \ud The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

Context: Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain. Objective: To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis: Of 11. 486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13. 604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling. Patient summary: Our review of the current evidence suggests that for a period of up to 6 yr after treatment, men with localised prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance reported high levels of quality of life (QoL). Men treated with surgery reported mainly urinary and sexual problems, while those treated with external beam radiotherapy reported mainly bowel problems. Men eligible for brachytherapy reported urinary problems up to a year after therapy, but then their QoL returned gradually to as it was before treatment. This is the first systematic review comparing the impact on cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) of different primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa), using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that the choice of primary treatment for localised PCa has a distinct impact on patients' QoL. These aspects should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling.

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that upfront docetaxel (Doc) improved overall survival (OS) for patients (pts) starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We report the long-term outcomes for M1 pts using OS as the primary outcome measure. We also assessed if benefit of Doc depended on metastatic burden, as suggested by previous trials, using the CHAARTED definition of high burden (HB) and low burden (LB) baseline disease. Methods 724 SOC and 362 SOC+Doc pts were recruited with a 2:1 randomised stratified allocation. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for all stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time if hazards were non-proportional. Retrospectively-collected imaging data, blinded to trial arm, was used to categorise pts as having LB or HB disease. Results Median follow-up was ∼6.5yr, compared to ∼3.5yr when last reported. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% increase in deaths compared to previous report), with median OS=43.1 months (m). There was good evidence of benefit of SOC+Doc on OS (median = 59.1m, HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P=0.009). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) pts; subgroups were representative of the full M1 cohort in terms of stratification factors. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of Doc effect between the LB and HB subgroups (interaction P=0.827; LB HR=0.76, 95%CI 0.54-1.07, P=0.107; HB HR=0.81, 95%CI 0.64-1.02, P=0.064). Analysis of other outcomes also found evidence of benefit of SOC+Doc over SOC in failure-free survival (FFS; HR=0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront Doc persists after longer follow-up, with no evidence that the benefit differed dependent on disease burden. We advocate that upfront Doc is considered for both LB and HB M1 pts. Clinical trial identification NCT00268476. Legal entity responsible for the study University College London. Funding Cancer Research UK; Sanofi; MRC; Astellas; Clovis; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer. Disclosure N.W. Clarke: Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen. G. Attard: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Medivation; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Millennium Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Abbott Laboratories; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Essa Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi-Aventis; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Arno Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (self): Innocrin Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: Veridex; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche/Ventana; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution), I was an employee of the ICR, where abiraterone acetate was developed, up to 8 January 2018. The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). S. Chowdhury: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen Pharmaceutical. D. Dearnaley: Research grant / Funding (institution), Financial Support for Trial Recruitment: UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN); Research grant / Funding (institution), My employer, The Institute of Cancer Research, receives a royalty income from abiraterone. I receive a share of this income through the ICR's Rewards to Discoverer's Scheme: The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR); Research grant / Funding (self): Cancer Research UK; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sandoz; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen. S. Gillessen: Honoraria (institution): Bayer; Honoraria (institution): Curevac; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Honoraria (institution): Astellas; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Orion; Advisory / Consultancy: MaxiVax SA; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Honoraria (institution): Ferring; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (institution): Innocrin Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Honoraria (institution): Novartis; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Nectar Therapeutics; Non-remunerated activity/ies: ProteoMedix; Honoraria (institution): Cell Search; Honoraria (institution): Clovis; Honoraria (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb. R. Jones: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Astellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis. Z. Malik: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer. M.D. Mason: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer. C. Parker: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen. A.G. Omlin: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Molecular Partners; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Teva. M.R. Sydes: Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eli Lilly; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Janssen; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Sanofi. M.K.B. Parmar: Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Sanofi. N.D. James: Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

BackgroundProstate cancer incidence, treatment, and survival rates vary throughout the UK, but little is known about regional differences in quality of survival.ObjectiveTo investigate variations in patient-reported outcomes between UK countries and English Cancer Alliances.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors diagnosed 18–42 mo previously.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisUrinary, bowel, and sexual problems and vitality were patient reported using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. General health was also self-assessed. Regional variations were identified using multivariable log-linear regression.Results and limitationsA total of 35 823 men responded, 60.8% of those invited. Self-assessed health was significantly lower than the UK average in Wales and Scotland. Respondents reported more urinary incontinence in Scotland, more urinary irritation/obstruction in Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI), poorer bowel function in Scotland and NI, worse sexual function in Scotland, and reduced vitality/hormonal function in Scotland, Wales, and NI. Self-assessed health was poorer than the English average in South Yorkshire and North-East and Cumbria, with more urinary incontinence in North-East and Cumbria and Peninsula, greater sexual problems in West Midlands, and poorer vitality in North-East and Cumbria and West Midlands. Limitations include difficulty identifying clinically significant differences and limited information on pretreatment conditions.ConclusionsDespite adjustment for treatment, and clinical and sociodemographic factors, quality of survival among prostate cancer survivors varied by area of residence. Adoption of best practice from areas performing well could support enhanced survival quality in poorer performing areas, particularly with regard to bowel problems and vitality, where clinically relevant differences were reported.Patient summaryWe conducted a UK-wide survey of patient's quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer. Outcomes were found to vary depending upon where patients live. Different service providers need to ensure that all prostate cancer patients receive the same follow-up care.

Deferred active treatment (DAT) strategies, including active surveillance and active monitoring, are a recognised management option for men with localised low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is uncertainty due to heterogeneity of patient selection criteria, follow-up and monitoring characteristics, reclassification thresholds, and which outcome measures should be prioritised. This protocol describes a study led by the European Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel in conjunction with other guideline organisations and societies to develop consensus statements for all domains of deferred active treatment. The project is divided into 3 sequential phases: (1) Systematic review of studies reporting on DAT in order to summarise and define range of heterogeneity regarding all domains; (2) Two-round Delphi online survey involving a large, international panel of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to initiate consensus; and (3) Consensus group meeting involving representatives from HCP and patient stakeholder groups to finalise the consensus process. The consensus statements are expected to be adopted by clinical practice guidelines in order to standardise and guide practice for clinicians and researchers until better evidence emerges. Patient summary: We describe a project aimed at standardising elements of practice in active surveillance/monitoring for early localised prostate cancer, because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. This will be achieved through a structured process of agreement (i.e. consensus) amongst a large, international panel of healthcare professionals and patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of men living with advanced prostate cancer. We report population-wide functional outcomes and HRQOL in men with all stages of prostate cancer and identify implications for health-care delivery.METHODS: For this population-based study, men in the UK living 18-42 months after diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified through cancer registration data. A postal survey was administered, which contained validated measures to assess functional outcomes (urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and obstruction, bowel, sexual, and vitality and hormonal function), measured with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26), plus questions about use of interventions for sexual dysfunction) and generic HRQOL (assessed with the 5-level EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L] measuring mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, plus a rating of self-assessed health). Log-linear and binary logistic regression models were used to compare functional outcomes and HRQOL across diagnostic stages and self-reported treatment groups. Each model included adjustment for age, socioeconomic deprivation, and number of other long-term conditions.FINDINGS: 35 823 (60·8%) of 58 930 men responded to the survey. Disease stage was known for 30 733 (85·8%) of 35 823 men; 19 599 (63·8%) had stage I or II, 7209 (23·4%) stage III, and 3925 (12·8%) stage IV disease. Mean adjusted EPIC-26 domain scores were high, indicating good function, except for sexual function, for which scores were much lower. Compared with men who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy, more men who received the therapy reported moderate to big problems with hot flushes (30·7% [95% CI 29·8-31·6] vs 5·4% [5·0-5·8]), low energy (29·4% [95% CI 28·6-30·3] vs 14·7% [14·2-15·3]), and weight gain (22·5%, 21·7-23·3) vs 6·9% [6·5-7·3]). Poor sexual function was common (81·0%; 95% CI 80·6-81·5), regardless of stage, and more than half of men (n=18 782 [55·8%]) were not offered any intervention to help with this condition. Overall, self-assessed health was similar in men with stage I-III disease, and although slightly reduced in those with stage IV cancer, 23·5% of men with metastatic disease reported no problems on any EQ-5D dimension.INTERPRETATION: Men diagnosed with advanced disease do not report substantially different HRQOL outcomes to those diagnosed with localised disease, although considerable problems with hormonal function and fatigue are reported in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Sexual dysfunction is common and most men are not offered helpful intervention or support. Service improvements around sexual rehabilitation and measures to reduce the effects of androgen deprivation therapy are required.FUNDING: The Movember Foundation, in partnership with Prostate Cancer UK.

Disease burden is the most important determinant of survival in patients with cancer. This domain, reflected by the cancer stage and codified using the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, is a fundamental determinant of prognosis. Accurate and consistent tumour classification is required for the development and use of treatment guidelines and to enable clinical research (including clinical trials), cancer surveillance and control. Furthermore, knowledge of the extent and stage of disease is frequently important in the context of translational studies. Attempts to include additional prognostic factors in staging classifications, in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of prognosis, are often made with a lack of knowledge and understanding and are one of the main causes of the inconsistent use of terms and definitions. This effect has resulted in uncertainty and confusion, thus limiting the utility of the TNM classification. In this Position paper, we provide a consensus on the optimal use and terminology for cancer staging that emerged from a consultation process involving representatives of several major international organizations involved in cancer classification. The consultation involved several steps: a focused literature review; a stakeholder survey; and a consultation meeting. This aim of this Position paper is to provide a consensus that should guide the use of staging terminology and secure the classification of anatomical disease extent as a distinct aspect of cancer classification., Attempts to incorporate additional criteria into the traditional tumour-node-metastasis staging classification have often resulted in inaccuracy and confusion in the use of terminology. In this Position paper, the authors provide guidance on the consistent use of the terminology relating to cancer staging.

Background\ud \ud STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

OBJECTIVES:To provide data on the prevalence of urinary, bowel and sexual dysfunction in Northern Ireland (NI), to act as a baseline for studies of prostate cancer outcomes and to aid service provision within the general population.SUBJECTS AND METHODS:A cross-sectional postal survey of 10 000 men aged ≥40 years in NI was conducted and age-matched to the distribution of men living with prostate cancer. The EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite (EPIC-26) instruments were used to enable comparisons with prostate cancer outcome studies. Whilst representative of the prostate cancer survivor population, the age-distribution of the sample differs from the general population, thus data were generalised to the NI population by excluding those aged 40-59 years and applying survey weights. Results are presented as proportions reporting problems along with mean composite scores, with differences by respondent characteristics assessed using chi-squared tests, analysis of variance, and multivariable log-linear regression.RESULTS:Amongst men aged ≥60 years, 32.8% reported sexual dysfunction, 9.3% urinary dysfunction, and 6.5% bowel dysfunction. In all, 38.1% reported at least one problem and 2.1% all three. Worse outcome was associated with increasing number of long-term conditions, low physical activity, and higher body mass index (BMI). Urinary incontinence, urinary irritation/obstruction, and sexual dysfunction increased with age; whilst urinary incontinence, bowel, and sexual dysfunction were more common among the unemployed.CONCLUSION:These data provide an insight into sensitive issues seldom reported by elderly men, which result in poor general health, but could be addressed given adequate service provision. The relationship between these problems, raised BMI and low physical activity offers the prospect of additional health gain by addressing public health issues such as obesity. The results provide essential contemporary population data against which outcomes for those living with prostate cancer can be compared. They will facilitate greater understanding of the true impact of specific treatments such as surgical interventions, pelvic radiation or androgen-deprivation therapy.

Introduction Incidental liver irradiation during breast radiotherapy can increase the risk of second primary malignancy and induce adverse inflammatory states. This study establishes the volume of liver irradiated during free-breathing breast radiotherapy. Novel associations between liver dose-volume data and systemic interleukin-6 soluble receptor and blood counts are evaluated. Methods The volume of liver within the 10%, 50% and 90% isodose was determined for 100 women with stage 0 to II breast carcinoma undergoing 40Gy in 15 fractions over three weeks tangential irradiation. Blood counts and interleukin 6 soluble receptor concentration were recorded before, during and four weeks after radiotherapy. Dose-volume data for right-sided treatments was associated with longitudinal measures at bivariate and multivariable levels. Results A maximum of 226cm3 (19%), 92 cm3 (8%) and 62 cm3 (5%) of the liver was irradiated within the 10%, 50% and 90% isodose. Liver irradiation was almost exclusively a feature of the 52 right-sided treatments and was strongly correlated with breast volume (ρ = 0.7, p < 0.0001). Liver V10% was significantly associated with interleukin-6 soluble receptor concentration four weeks post-radiotherapy (beta = 0.38, p = 0.01) after controlling for theoretical confounding variables. Conclusion Up to 8% of the liver is irradiated within the primary beam during local right-sided breast radiotherapy. Select use of a deep inspiration breath hold technique would reduce this volume, and minimise the risk of radiation-induced malignancy and acute systemic elevation of inflammatory interleukin 6 soluble receptor.

The management of high-risk prostate cancer has become increasingly sophisticated, with refinements in radical therapy and the inclusion of adjuvant local and systemic therapies. Despite this, high-risk prostate cancer continues to have significant treatment failure rates, with progression to metastasis, castrate resistance and ultimately disease-specific death. In an effort to discuss the challenges in this field, the UK National Clinical Research Institute’s Prostate Cancer Clinical Studies localised subgroup convened a multidisciplinary national meeting in the autumn of 2014. The remit of the meeting was to debate and reach a consensus on the key clinical and research challenges in high-risk prostate cancer and to identify themes that the UK would be best placed to pursue to help improve outcomes. This report presents the outcome of those discussions and the key recommendations for future research in this highly heterogeneous disease entity.

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history ofprostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localized prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n ¼ 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outliningreview showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of theprostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints inProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials. 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

Our review establishes the empirical evidence for patient mobility for elective secondary care services in countries that allow patients to choose their health care provider. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles between 1990 and 2015. Of 5,994 titles/abstracts reviewed, 26 studies were included. The studies used three main methodological models to establish mobility. Variation in the extent of patient mobility was observed across the studies. Mobility was positively associated with lower waiting times, indicators of better service quality, and access to advanced technology. It was negatively associated with advanced age or lower socioeconomic backgrounds. From a policy perspective we demonstrate that a significant proportion of patients are prepared to travel beyond their nearest provider for elective services. As a consequence, some providers are likely to be “winners” and others “losers,” which could result in overall decreased provider capacity or inefficient utilization of existing services. Equity also remains a key concern.

Changes within interstitial stromal compartments often accompany carcinogenesis, and this is true of prostate cancer. Typically, the tissue becomes populated by myofibroblasts that can promote progression. Not all myofibroblasts exhibit the same negative influence, however, and identifying the aggressive form of myofibroblast may provide useful information at diagnosis. A means of molecularly defining such myofibroblasts is unknown. We compared protein profiles of normal and diseased stroma isolated from prostate cancer patients to identify discriminating hallmarks of disease-associated stroma. We included the stimulation of normal stromal cells with known myofibroblast inducers namely soluble TGFβ and exosome-associated-TGFβ and compared the function and protein profiles arising. In all 6-patients examined, diseased stroma exhibited a pro-angiogenic influence on endothelial cells, generating large multicellular vessel-like structures. Identical structures were apparent following stimulation of normal stroma with exosomes (5/6 patients), but TGFβ-stimulation generated a non-angiogenic stroma. Proteomics highlighted disease-related cytoskeleton alterations such as elevated Transgelin (TAGLN). Many of these were also changed following TGFβ or exosome stimulation and did not well discriminate the nature of the stimulus. Soluble TGFβ, however triggered differential expression of proteins related to mitochondrial function including voltage dependent ion channels VDAC1 and 2, and this was not found in the other stromal types studied. Surprisingly, Aldehyde Dehydrogenase (ALDH1A1), a stem-cell associated protein was detected in normal stromal cells and found to decrease in disease. In summary, we have discovered a set of proteins that contribute to defining disease-associated myofibroblasts, and emphasise the similarity between exosome-generated myofibroblasts and those naturally arising in situ.

INTRODUCTION: Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), the cell surface receptor for double stranded RNA (dsRNA), expressed in ∼40% of advanced primary breast cancers (T2/T3/N+) has been shown to be an effective therapeutic target for synthetic dsRNA poly A:U in combination with radiation and adjuvant chemotherapy, producing a significant decrease in risk of metastatic relapse (HR 1.85-2.0; 1.03-3.89; Cancer Res;71:1607). AIM: The present pre-clinical study aimed to explore the therapeutic potential of a ubiquitously expressed intracellular dsRNA receptor, retinoic-acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I) - a cytoplasmic pathogen recognition receptor directed at pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) motifs to differentiate viral from cellular dsRNAs. We have shown Ampligen, poly I:C12U (a synthetic dsRNA polymer designed to rapidly degrade in vivo to prevent the toxicity of long dsRNA polymers such as poly I:C) is capable of entering cells in its fragmented dsRNA oligomeric form ( METHODOLOGY & RESULTS: Preliminary experiments with Ampligen on several human breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7 & MDA-MB 453) and normal human mammary epithelial & fibroblast cell lines (HMEC & HFC) unexpectedly showed it to consistently cause a significant loss of cell viability (CellTiter-Glo Luminescent Cell Viability Assay) in p53-deficient drug resistant (5-FU/doxorubicin) MDA-MB 453 cell line in contrast to cell growth arrest (Guava cell Cycle Assay) in p53 wild type MCF-7 cancer and the two non-neoplastic cells lines. This selective effect was confirmed using syngeneic clones of MCF-7 breast cancer cells stably transfected with a dominant negative p53 construct or vector alone: p53-function blocked (DD1) vs p53-function active (EV1) MCF-7 cell lines, respectively (J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1525–1530), and shown to be associated with RIG-I specific mRNA induction (RT-PCR) and Type I interferon pathway activation both inhibited by BX795 (selective inhibitor of IRF3 activation and IFN-b production). Decitabine (DNA demethylating drug capable of intra-cellular generation of dsRNA through transcriptional activation of Alu retrotransposons - PNAS 2012; December 10: E89–E98 ) was next tested as an alternative source of intra-cellular dsRNA, and found to produce results similar to Ampligen on DD1 and EV1. Work is in progress to examine dose response and time-course relationships of the effects Ampligen or decitabine added singly or in combination with chemotherapeutic drug (e.g. doxorubicin) on DD1 and triple negative breast cancer cell lines such as MDA-MB 453 to explore potential therapeutically most effective protocols. PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS: Intra-cellular dsRNA receptor RIG-I constitutively expressed in all cells offers a more ubiquitous target compared to TLR3 for the treatment of breast cancer. Ampligen and decitabine with their selective growth inhibitory effect on drug resistant p53-deficient breast cancer cell lines, merit testing as novel drugs for treatment of p53-deficient drug resistant breast cancer e.g. triple negative breast cancer frequently (∼70%) associated with drug resistance and altered p53 status. Citation Format: Jasani B, Navabi N, Barrett-Lee P, Thompson A, Chester J, Mason M. Intra-cellular dsRNA receptor RIG-I: A ubiquitous novel target for treatment of chemotherapy drug resistant breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-07.

Objective In patients with prostate cancer (PCa), prostate enlargement may give rise to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); many patients suffer from moderate-to-severe symptoms. We compare the efficacy of degarelix and goserelin plus bicalutamide in improving LUTS in PCa patients. Methods Data were pooled from three Phase 3, randomized clinical trials of once-monthly treatment for 12 weeks with degarelix (240/80 mg; n = 289) or goserelin (3.6 mg) plus bicalutamide (50 mg; n = 174) for initial flare protection. LUTS at weeks 4, 8, and 12 were compared to baseline. Clinically relevant LUTS relief was a ≥3-point International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) decrease. Adverse events were assessed throughout the trials. Results Patients receiving degarelix had significantly greater decreases in IPSS vs. goserelin at week 12 (adjusted difference: −1.24; 95% CI −2.33 to −0.14, P = 0.03). Clinically relevant LUTS relief with degarelix was especially pronounced in patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS (baseline IPSS ≥13) (odds ratio; OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.19–4.47, P = 0.01) and advanced PCa (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.10–5.04, P = 0.03). A twofold higher OR for early (week 4) LUTS relief was seen with degarelix vs. goserelin (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.14–3.60, P = 0.02). No difference in total prostate volume or urinary tract infection-related adverse events (2%) was seen between treatment groups. Conclusion An early, significant and clinically more pronounced improvement of LUTS, especially in patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS or advanced PCa, was seen with degarelix vs. goserelin plus bicalutamide.

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