Tag Archive for: Prostate cancer

You are here: / Prostate cancer

Posts

Video: Effect of MetS on serum PSA levels is concealed by enlarged prostate

/by

Actual lowering effect of metabolic syndrome on serum prostate-specific antigen levels is partly concealed by enlarged prostate: results from a large-scale population-based study

Sicong Zhao*, Ming Xia*, Jianchun Tang† and Yong Yan*

 

*Department of Urology, and †Department of Cardiology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

 

Abstract

Objectives

To clarify the lowering effect of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in a Chinese screened population.

Subjects and Methods

A total of 45 540 ostensibly healthy men aged 55–69 years who underwent routine health check-ups at Beijing Shijitan Hospital between 2008 and 2015 were included in the study. All the men underwent detailed clinical evaluations. PSA mass density was calculated (serum PSA level × plasma volume ÷ prostate volume) for simultaneously adjusting plasma volume and prostate volume. According to the modified National Cholesterol Education Programme–Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP) III criteria, patients were dichotomized by the presence of MetS, and differences in PSA density and PSA mass density were compared between groups. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels.

Results

When larger prostate volume in men with MetS was adjusted for, both PSA density and PSA mass density in men with MetS were significantly lower than in men without MetS, and the estimated difference in mean serum PSA level between men with and without MetS was greater than that before adjusting for prostate volume. In the multivariate regression model, the presence of MetS was independently associated with an 11.3% decline in serum PSA levels compared with the absence of MetS. In addition, increasing number of positive MetS components was significantly and linearly associated with decline in serum PSA levels.

Conclusion

The actual lowering effect of MetS on serum PSA levels was partly concealed by the enlarged prostate in men with MetS, and the presence of MetS was independently associated with lower serum PSA levels. Urologists need to be aware of the effect of MetS on serum PSA levels and should discuss this subject with their patients.

Read more articles of the week

Residents’ Podcast: sRPLND+PLND for ‘node-only’ recurrent PCa

/1 Comment/by

Jesse Ory, Kyle Lehmann and Jeff Himmelman

Department of Urology, Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS, Canada

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To describe the technique of robot-assisted high-extended salvage retroperitoneal and pelvic lymphadenectomy (sRPLND+PLND) for ‘node-only’ recurrent prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods

In all, 10 patients underwent robot-assisted sRPLND+PLND (09/2015–03/2016) for ‘node-only’ recurrent prostate cancer, as identified by 11C-acetate positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Our anatomical template extends from bilateral renal artery/vein cranially up to Cloquet’s node caudally, completely excising lymphatic-fatty tissue from aorto-caval and iliac vascular trees; RPLND precedes PLND. Meticulous node-mapping assessed nodes at four prospectively assigned anatomical zones.

Results

The median operative time was 4.8 h, estimated blood loss 100 mL and hospital stay 1 day. No patient had an intraoperative complication, open conversion or blood transfusion. Three patients had spontaneously resolving Clavien–Dindo grade II postoperative complications. The mean (range) number of nodes excised per patient was 83 (41–132) and mean (range) number of positive nodes per patient was 23 (0–109). Seven patients (70%) had positive nodes on final pathology. Node-positive rates per anatomical level I, II, III and IV were 28%, 32%, 33% and 33%, respectively. In patients with positive nodes, the median PSA level had decreased by 83% at the 2-month follow-up.

Conclusion

The initial series of robot-assisted sRPLND+PLND is presented, wherein we duplicate open surgery with superior nodal counts and decreased morbidity. Robot-assisted technical details for an anatomical LND template up to the renal vessels are presented. Longer follow-up is necessary to assess oncological outcomes.

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

Highlights from the Urological Association of Asia Annual Congress 2017

/by

Having trained and worked in London throughout my urology career, I have recently relocated and joined the exciting, dynamic urology community of my birthplace, Hong Kong. Coincidentally, it so happens to be this year’s host of the Urological Association of Asia (UAA) annual congress #UAA2017.

1-1

The beautiful and mesmerising night view of the Victoria Harbour of Hong Kong.

Established in 1990 in Fukuoka, Japan, the #UAA currently has 25 urological associations as members or affiliated members across Asia and Australasia with and over 25,000 members. This was my attendance at the #UAA and it most certainly did not disappoint. What made the conference even more special was the chance to meet up with my good friend and ex-colleague from Guy’s Hospital @nairajesh – both of us were honoured to speak at the meeting. With over 1600 delegates attending the meeting and over 500 scientific abstracts presented, the congress served as an excellent platform for knowledge exchange and the establishment of professional links with many urological greats in Asia and beyond.

 

Pre #UAA2017 Congress Activities

#UAA2017 started off with a pre-congress ‘wet-lab’ 3D laparoscopic skills and endourology workshop hosted by @HKUniversity and the European School of Urology @UrowebESU. Both transperitoneal laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic techniques were taught by eminent leaders and pioneers in minimally invasive urological surgery by faculties from Europe, India and China, including Professor Jens Rassweiller, Professor Christian Schwentner (@Schwenti1977), Dr Domenico Veneziano (@d_veneziano), Professor Janak Desai (@drjanajddesai), and Professor Zhang Shudong.

1-2

Joint UAA-ESU 3D laparoscopic and endourological skills course faculties. Left to right: Dr Ada Ng (Hong Kong), Dr Wayne Lam @WayneLam_Urol (Hong Kong), Professor Janek Desai @drjanajddesai (India), Professor Jens Rassweiller (Germany), Professor MK Yiu (Hong Kong), Dr James Tsu (Hong Kong), Dr WK Ma (Hong Kong).

1-3

1-4

Joint UAA-ESU 3D Laparoscopic skills workshop – Above: Professor Rassweiller (Germany) supervising overseas delegates. Below: Professor MK Yiu (Hong Kong) demonstrating techniques of laparoscopic suturing to delegates from China.

The renal cell carcinoma #RCC masterclass was a particular highlight. A whole day of excellent lectures and speakers entertained both local and international delegates, and was particularly popular with trainees. There were talks examining the role of percutaneous biopsy of renal tumours presented by Alessandro Volpe (@foxal72), an update of current trends and techniques in robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy by Dr. Joseph Wong (Hong Kong) and Dr. Shuo Wang (China) and a fantastic discussion examining the role of non-clamping partial nephrectomy by Dr. Ringo Chu (Hong Kong). The afternoon session kicked off with @nairajesh giving a comprehensive review on the surgical management of advanced #RCC. Professor Axel Bex (Netherlands) continued with an examination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in #RCC and the emerging role of #immunotherapy. Professor Alessandro Volpe (@foxal72) discussed the current #EAU guidelines and recent updates.

1-5

Masterclass in #RCC: @foxal72 , @nairajesh , Professor Axel Bex (Netherlands), with moderators Dr Ringo Chu (Hong Kong) and Dr Joseph Wong (Hong Kong).

 

Day 1 of #UAA2017

The plenary session on day 1 of #UAA started off with Professor Zengnan Mo from China on the epidemiology of prostate cancer in Asia. There is, not surprisingly, a very diverse range of incidence of #prostatecancer rate across the largest continent in the world, inevitably effected by the presence of #PSA screening in countries such as Japan and Korea, ethnicity (East Asia vs Middle East), genetics (Israeli Jewish population), and their local healthcare system and policies. Arguably the currently available #prostatecancer screening trials may not be applicable to the Asian populations, and various on-going studies in Japan and China are going to address these issues. One in particular is an ongoing population-based study funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, in which over 50,000 men will be recruited into the screening, early detection, localised, and advanced #prostatecancer cohorts and to be followed up with time. Obviously, we will not expect to see the results of the trial anytime soon, but will surely answers to address the behaviour of prostate cancer in the Asian population in the future.

Professor Sam Cheng (@UroCancerMD) from Vanderbilt University then gave a comprehensive review on the current status of #cystectomy. Robotic cystectomy appears to have the benefit of reduced blood loss and length of stay. However, long-term oncological outcome still remains uncertain, and certainly, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is lacking.

1-6

 

Day 2 of #UAA2017

After early showers on day 2 of UAA, Hong Kong was heating up with temperatures over 33 degrees Celsius. So were the discussions in the plenary session in the morning. Professor Freddie Hamdy (@Freddie_Hamdy) gave the #EAU lecture on #activesurveillance for #prostatecancer. This was followed on nicely with the current status of #prostatecancer management in Hong Kong by Dr. Yau-Tung Chan and Dr. Gerhardt Attard (UK) enlightened the audience with a concise update in the management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer, an area where the landscape is ever-changing.

The advanced oncology session started off with a heated debate in the use of mass clamping (Dr Ringo Chu, Hong Kong) versus selective artery clamping in partial nephrectomy (Dr Tae-Gyun Kwon, Korea). Both speakers presented with very valid arguments and perhaps it was fair to say it ended up with all square. Professor Krishna Sethia (UK) gave a fascinating summary of the current local management of #penilecancer at centralised penile cancer centres in the UK, after which I was honoured to provide an update on current nodal management in #penilecancer from my recent experience at St George’s University Hospitals @StGeorgesTrust in the UK. It was exciting to see the centralisation of services in #penilecancer in the UK has given great opportunities to understand and optimise management of patients with such rare disease.

The Semi-live sessions entertained the audience on both days of the conference. Excellent videos were presented throughout. Professor Koon Rha of Yonsei University in South Korea gave a fantastic semi-live talk on his tricks and techniques of Retzius-space sparing Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Perhaps what’s even more exciting to know is that a Korean company has produced a new robot for surgery which has been well tested by Professor Rha’s group, which has just literally been licenced and approved in Korea just days before #UAA2017. Will this finally drive the cost of robotic surgery down? Time will tell.

1-7

Associate Professor Declan Murphy (@declanmurphy) and Mr. Rajesh Nair (@nairajesh) both contributed with a beautiful video showcasing techniques in total pelvic exenteration and long-term outcomes of urinary diversion and reconstruction in this cohort of patients.

The Gala dinner in the evening was full of fun and entertainment. Following the performance of a soprano quartet formed by local Hong Kong urologists (who sang the classic My Way with a twist on prostate examination!), the rock stars of urology – Professor Jens Rassweiller, Dr Samuel Yee from Hong Kong, and Dr Domenico Veneziano (@d_veneziano) provided an energetic and electrifying live performance of some rock classics!

1-8

Urology Rock N’ Roll! Left to right: Professor Jens Rassweiller (Germany), Dr Domenico Veneziano (Italy), Dr Samuel Yee (Hong Kong).

However, perhaps the highlight and the most touching moment of the evening the performance of a song written and sung by a young local former patient with a history of #ketaminebladder , who was successfully treated by the urology team lead by Professor Anthony Ng at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong. His surgery and treatment has transformed his life – he is now enjoying a career as both a singer-songwriter of a rock band and as a footballer!

 

Day 3 of #UAA2017

The morning plenary session also saw the evergreen Dr Peggy Chu of Hong Kong, renown for her discovery of ketamine-associated uropathy and pioneered the management of this challenging 21st century urological disease.

1-9

Left to right: Dr CW Man (Hong Kong), Congress President of #UAA2017, and Dr Peggy Chu (Hong Kong).

She delivered a very interesting talk on revisiting the role of #gastrocystoplasty. Interestingly, the operation was first described and carried out in human by the honourable Professor CH Leong at my current institution, Queen Mary Hospital @HKUniversity , in the 1970s following a successful animal study at the same institution. Its use has been limited due to its associated metabolic disturbances, but arguably it is still a weapon that can be used when tackling patients with tuberculosis-associated severely contracted bladder, in particular those who have already been rendered to have a single solitary kidney due to the disease. Another situation when #gastrocystoplasty can still be considered are those patients with #ketamine uropathy. Although patients are usually required to be completely abstinence from #ketamine abuse for a certain lengthy period of time before they are eligible for surgical treatment, many fear the avalanche effect of ileal re-absorption of the drug if an ileo-cystoplasty has been carried out in these patients, if they happen to resume ketamine use in the future. Hence, #gastrocystoplasty may be a better substitution tissue for cystoplasty in the management of such patients.

The meeting also provided an opportunity to catch up with fellow Guy’s Hospital urology graduates @nairajesh and @declanmurphy over a cold pint of Hong Kong locally made #MoonzenBeer, when the temperature outside the conference centre was hitting 34 degrees Celsius!

1-10

Left to right: Dr Wayne Lam (Hong Kong), Mr Rajesh Nair (Australia/United Kingdom), A/Prof Declan Murphy (Australia).

All credits to #UAA and the local organisers’ immense effort and hard work, making this congress a valuable learning experience for everyone who participated. We very much look forward to #UAA2018. Bring on Kyoto, Japan!

 

 

Wayne Lam

Assistant Professor in Urology, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong

Twitter: @WayneLam_Urol

1-11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Nair

Fellow in Robotic Surgery and Uro-Oncology

1-12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article of the Week: Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance

/1 Comment/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance

Mufaddal M. Mamawala, Karthik Rao, Patricia Landis, Jonathan I. Epstein, Bruce J. Trock, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Kenneth J. Pienta and H. Ballentine Carter

 

The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA
Read the full article

 

How to Cite

Mamawala, M. M., Rao, K., Landis, P., Epstein, J. I., Trock, B. J., Tosoian, J. J., Pienta, K. J. and Carter, H. B. (2017), Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU International, 120: 25–31. doi: 10.1111/bju.13608

Objective

To create a nomogram for men on active surveillance (AS) for prediction of grade re-classification (GR) above Gleason score 6 (Grade group >2) at surveillance biopsy.

Patients and Methods

From a cohort of men enrolled in an AS programme, a multivariable model was used to identify clinical and pathological parameters predictive of GR. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision curve analysis.

aotw-jul-2017-5-results

Results

Of 1 374 men, 254 (18.50%) were re-classified to Gleason ≥7 on surveillance prostate biopsy. Variables predictive of GR were earlier year of diagnosis [≤2004 vs ≥2005; odds ratio (OR) 2.16, P < 0.001], older age (OR 1.05, P < 0.001), higher prostate-specific antigen density [OR 1.19 (per 0.1 unit increase), P = 0.04], bilateral disease (OR 2.86, P < 0.001), risk strata (low-risk vs very-low-risk, OR 1.79, P < 0.001), and total number of biopsies without GR (OR 0.68, P < 0.001). On internal validation, a nomogram created using the multivariable model had an area under the curve of 0.757 (95% confidence interval 0.730–0.797) for predicting GR at the time of next surveillance biopsy.

Conclusion

The nomogram described is currently being used at each return visit to assess the need for a surveillance biopsy, and could increase retention in AS.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Shift from protocol-based to personalized medicine in active surveillance: beginning of a new era

/by

The use of active surveillance (AS) is rapidly expanding worldwide, with rates as high as 74% among patients with low-risk prostate cancer in the nationwide registry of Sweden [1]. Despite increasing uptake of this strategy by patients, there is no consensus among the medical community as to the ideal criteria for selection and monitoring [2]. For example, the Johns Hopkins AS programme restricts enrolment to men with low-risk disease and performs annual biopsies for monitoring. Other protocols also include men with intermediate-risk disease and perform prostate biopsy at less frequent intervals.

Is it really optimal to use the same follow-up protocol for all patients? Many factors influence the risk of reclassification, including patient characteristics (e.g. race, body mass index) and disease features (e.g. PSA density, Gleason score and extent of disease on biopsy) [3]. Moreover, previous studies have shown that the risk of reclassification during AS is a conditional probability, where the risk decreases with each additional negative biopsy [4]. Given that individual patients have vastly different risks of reclassification, and that the risk changes over time, AS represents an ideal context for personalized medicine.

There has already been a significant paradigm shift in prostate cancer screening from a one-size-fits-all to a multivariable, risk-adapted approach [5]. Why would we use the same screening intervals and biopsy cutoff for patients with vastly different risk profiles? Multiple guidelines already recommend using PSA levels to guide screening protocols, and there are several validated multivariable tools to provide more personalized estimates of prostate cancer risk. Both the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators have been extensively studied and are readily available online for use in clinical practice [6].

To date, the concept of risk-adapted AS has received relatively little attention, and few nomograms have been created specifically for the AS population. Using data from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS), Ankerst et al. [7] designed a nomogram to predict biopsy reclassification using age at biopsy, months since the last biopsy, last PSA level, percentage of cores positive for cancer on the last biopsy, and number of previous negative biopsies. This tool had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.724 on internal validation, and is available online at https://prostate-cancer-risk-calculator.org to facilitate additional validation and clinical use.

In the current issue of BJUI, Mamawala et al. [8] report on the development of another new AS nomogram using data from the Johns Hopkins programme. Specifically, the tool predicts the risk of biopsy reclassification using six variables: age; PSA density; year of diagnosis; laterality; risk strata; and total number of biopsies. The nomogram was well calibrated and had an AUC of 0.757 on internal validation. Notably, the same authors have also recently developed a different tool to predict pathological Gleason score for men on AS using a Bayesian joint model [9]. Following external validation, these tools may help provide more customized decision support for the AS population by integrating longitudinal data.

It is noteworthy that none of these nomograms incorporate new markers or imaging, and it is likely that such data could further refine their estimates. For example, longitudinal measurements of the Prostate Health Index were previously shown to predict biopsy reclassification during AS [10], and the use of multiparametric MRI continues to expand. As more data on these tests become available, the AS risk calculators should be updated, as has been done with the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators used in the screening context. In the future, continued research on genetics may allow further tailoring of AS. In the meantime, these risk calculators are an important first step (‘version 1.0’) toward a more personalized approach to AS.

Stacy Loeb

 

Department of Urology, Population Health, Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, NY, US
Read the full article

 

References

 

1 Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, Robinson D, Bratt O, Stattin P. Almost complete uptake of active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol 2016; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1001/ jamaoncol.2016.3600

 

2 Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol 2016; 13: 205–15

 

3 Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 619–26

 

4 Alam R, Carter HB, Landis P, Epstein JI, Mamawala M. Conditional probability of reclassification in an active surveillance program for prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 193: 1950–5

 

5 Loeb S. Evidence-based versus personalized prostate cancer screening: using baseline prostate-specific antigen measurements to individualize screening. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2684–6

 

6 PoyetC, Niebo er D, Bhindi B et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int 2016; 117: 401– 8

 

7 Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the canary-early detection research network active surveillance biopsy risk calculator. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1083–8

 

8 Mamawala MM, Rao K, Landis P et al. Risk prediction tool for grade re- classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int 2017; 120: 25–31

 

9 ColeyRY, Zeger S L, Mamawala M, Pienta KJ, Carter HB. Prediction of the pathologic gleason score to inform a personalized management program for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2016; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.005

 

10 Tosoian JJ, Loeb S , Feng Z et al. Association of [2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 1131–6

 

Video: Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance

/by

Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To create a nomogram for men on active surveillance (AS) for prediction of grade re-classification (GR) above Gleason score 6 (Grade group >2) at surveillance biopsy.

Patients and Methods

From a cohort of men enrolled in an AS programme, a multivariable model was used to identify clinical and pathological parameters predictive of GR. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision curve analysis.

Results

Of 1 374 men, 254 (18.50%) were re-classified to Gleason ≥7 on surveillance prostate biopsy. Variables predictive of GR were earlier year of diagnosis [≤2004 vs ≥2005; odds ratio (OR) 2.16, P < 0.001], older age (OR 1.05, P < 0.001), higher prostate-specific antigen density [OR 1.19 (per 0.1 unit increase), P = 0.04], bilateral disease (OR 2.86, P < 0.001), risk strata (low-risk vs very-low-risk, OR 1.79, P < 0.001), and total number of biopsies without GR (OR 0.68, P < 0.001). On internal validation, a nomogram created using the multivariable model had an area under the curve of 0.757 (95% confidence interval 0.730–0.797) for predicting GR at the time of next surveillance biopsy.

Conclusion

The nomogram described is currently being used at each return visit to assess the need for a surveillance biopsy, and could increase retention in AS.

View more videos

Article of the Week: Decision-Making by PCa Physicians During AS

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance

Stacy Loeb*,†,‡,§, Caitlin Curnyn†, Angela Fagerlin¶,**, Ronald Scott Braithwaite†
Mark D. Schwartz†,§, Herbert Lepor*‡, Herbert Ballentine Carter†† and Erica Sedlander†

 

Departments of *Urology, †Population Health, ‡Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, §Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, **Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Surveillance (IDEAS) Center, Salt Lake City VA, UT, and ††Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA

 

Read the full article

How to Cite

Loeb, S., Curnyn, C., Fagerlin, A., Braithwaite, R. S., Schwartz, M. D., Lepor, H., Carter, H. B. and Sedlander, E. (2017), Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU International, 120: 32–39. doi: 10.1111/bju.13651

Abstract

Objective

To explore and identify factors that influence physicians’ decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS).

Subjects and Methods

A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis.

Results

Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting ‘harm’; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives.

Conclusion

These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients’ needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: AS in PCa- New Efforts, New Voices, New Hope

/by

In January 2016, in his final State of the Union address, US President Barack Obama tasked Vice President Joseph Biden with heading up a new national mission, the Cancer Moonshot, to expedite advances in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment. One of the blue-ribbon panel recommendations was to minimize the side effects of cancer treatment.

There is no better target for that goal than prostate cancer, the cancer that leads all others in the toll of Americans annually diagnosed with cancer, and the fourth most common worldwide. Many men with low-risk prostate cancer undergo unnecessary treatments, including prostatectomy and radiation therapy, which are unlikely to affect their survival, even if their disease were left untreated. A case in point is the ProtecT study [1], which showed at a median of 10 years that there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between treatment with surgery or radiation therapy and no treatment [1]. Although there has been a paradigm shift in the management of low-risk prostate cancer with an increased uptake of active surveillance (AS) [2], the fact is that only ~40% of men with low-risk prostate cancer choose AS.

Because of equivalency in effectiveness of treatment options in low-risk prostate cancer, an explication of the steps involved in the clinical decision-making process were long overdue. In an innovative study in the present issue of BJUI, Loeb et al. [3] report a qualitative analysis using a purposive sampling strategy to explore the decision-making process of physicians caring for patients with prostate cancer undergoing AS. This study used qualitative interviews and investigators then analysed responses to identify factors influencing therapeutic decision-making. It is noteworthy that despite the fact that AS acceptance rates have increased and it is an established therapeutic approach, significant differences still remain with regard to when physicians enroll and how they monitor patients on AS. These findings align with those from a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry study of 12 068 men with low-risk prostate cancer whose urologists and radiation oncologists reported a spectrum of observation practices [4]. Neither study accounted for patients’ preference or perspectives.

Although there are many national guidelines for AS, no consensus on optimum AS management exists, but Movember–GAP3 (https://au.movember.com/report-cards/view/id/3372/gap3-prostate-cancer-active-surveillance), an international effort comprising 25 institutions with AS programmes, may change that. It seeks to establish standard guidelines for patient selection and monitoring and to find agreement on a trigger for treatment. The tumour heterogeneity and possible lack of linearity in early disease progression that we can glean from the next-generation sequencing studies in advanced prostate cancer [5] will not make that easy. Given the promise of precision medicine, we anticipate a decision-making process that by integrating clinical and pathological data, imaging, and biomarkers prognostic of risk of disease progression as well as patient comorbidity effectively removes guesswork from the calculation.

As this international effort and the vice president’s work proceed, we urge all to listen to the voices of patients and ensure they are heard as clearly as those of the experts. We know the paternalistic model of medicine, in which physicians are the exclusive decision-makers, has long been outmoded [6]. With so much at stake, let us now act like it.

Spyridon P. Basourakos* Karen Hoffman† and Jeri Kim*

 

*Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, and †Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, US

 

Read the full article

 

References

 

1 Hamdy F, Donovan J, Lane J et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–24

 

2 Cooperberg M, Carroll P. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80–2

 

3 Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A et al. Qualitative study on decision- making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU Int 2017; 120: 32–9

 

4 Hoffman K, Niu J, Shen Y et al. Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1450–9

 

5 Robinson D, Van Allen E, Wu Y et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell 2015; 161: 1215–28

 

6 Lerner B. The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics. Boston: Beacon Press, 2014

 

Video: Decision-Making by PCa Physicians During AS

/by

Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To explore and identify factors that influence physicians’ decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS).

Subjects and Methods

A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis.

Results

Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting ‘harm’; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives.

Conclusion

These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients’ needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.

View more videos

Have the days of ADT Monotherapy for Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer Come to an End? STAMPEDE in the June #urojc

/by

The much awaited results of the STAMPEDE study of abiraterone for hormone naive prostate cancer was simultataneously presented at #ASCO17 and published ‘on line ahead of print’ in the NEJM. The formal title of the study was “Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy”.

Briefly, the study randomised 1917 men with locally advanced or metastatic hormone naive prostate cancer  to receive either ADT alone or ADT in combination with abiraterone and prednisolone.  significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone.We were privileged to have the lead author Professor Nick James join us for the June #urojc.  He posted the following video which is a lovely summary about STAMPEDE.  All of us could benefit from watching this and it is a useful link for our patients.

The data from the study is clear and it was not surprising that the majority of the discussion surrounding this paper was not going to be a dissection of the methodology or dataset and its analysis but rather how these results might impact upon urological practice.

There was a somewhat provocative start to the discussion with:-

To turn the question around, we saw the following tweet:-

But @urogeek came out swinging

But he was not alone in these thoughts.

But lets be fair, these responses are from urologists immersed in clinical trials experience and highly academic centers.  The following tweet perhaps brought out what many were thinking.

But perhaps the onus is upon us to make that extra effort to learn. As has been mentioned, we manage one of the most toxic agents competently in the form of intravesical BCG for bladder cancer.

Naturally, there was bound to be some discussion about cost of treatment.

For a bit of light hearted banter, there was the following exchange which we hope nobody took too seriously.

The twitter account of the journal Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases posted a poll which was responded to by 117 participants with only 10% choosing the ADT alone option.  Whilst far from scientific, does this represent a significant change in thinking?  It was not long ago where we could have predicted that almost all respondents would have chosen the ADT alone option.

And to finish up, a question answered by Nick James as follows:-

A big thanks to all who participated in the June #urojc discussion. A special thanks to lead author Nick James for his insightful comments that really added to the discussion.  We will be back for another installment of the #urojc in July.  See you then.

Henry Woo (@drhwoo) is the Director of Uro-Oncology and Professor of Robotic Cancer Surgery at the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney, Australia. He is also Professor Surgery at the Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School of the University of Sydney.

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.