Tag Archive for: #ProstateCancer

Posts

July 2019 – About the cover

The Article of the Month for July is the latest NICE guideline on prostate cancer – diagnosis and management. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) based in London, UK was established in 1999 to provide national guidance and advice to improve health and social care. It has published over 50 documents covering urology, including guidance, advice and pathways. Since 2012 NICE has also been responsible for social care guidance. Although its main focus is England, NICE has gained an international reputation as a role model for developing clinical guidelines and providing assessments of new technologies.

The cover image shows the UK from space with the northern lights over the horizon. The best place in the UK to see the northern lights is in the northern part of Scotland, however, if the conditions are right they can be seen as far south as Cornwall.

 

© istock.com/Elen11

BJUI in the news: prostate urine risk

A recent BJUI article, A four‐group urine risk classifier for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancerby Shea Connell and coworkers from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) has been featured on various news outlets including the BBC and ITV in the UK following its online publication.

The article describes a new urine test, the Prostate Urine Risk, for predicting potentially aggressive prostate cancer meaning many men may avoid needing invasive biopsies and unnecessary treatment. It is likely to be one of a range of tests including blood tests and MRI scans which will enter routine clinical practice for prostate cancer diagnosis.

The research team was led by Prof Colin Cooper, Dr Daniel Brewer and Dr Jeremy Clark, all from the University of East Anglia’s Norwich Medical School, with the support and expertise of Rob Mills, Marcel Hanna and Prof Richard Ball at the NNUH.

Read the full article

Article of the month: NICE Guidance – Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management

Every month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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 editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are 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 month, it should be this one.

NICE Guidance – Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management

Read the full article

Overview

This guideline covers the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in secondary care, including information on the best way to diagnose and identify different stages of the disease, and how to manage adverse effects of treatment. It also includes recommendations on follow‐up in primary care for people diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Who is it for?

  • Healthcare professionals
  • Commissioners and providers of prostate cancer services
  • People with prostate cancer, their families and carers

Context

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and the second most common cancer in the UK. In 2014, there were over 46,000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer, which accounts for 13% of all new cancers diagnosed. About 1 in 8 men will get prostate cancer at some point in their life. Prostate cancer can also affect transgender women, as the prostate is usually conserved after gender-confirming surgery, but it is not clear how common it is in this population.

More than 50% of prostate cancer diagnoses in the UK each year are in men aged 70 years and over (2012), and the incidence rate is highest in men aged 90 years and over (2012 to 2014). Out of every 10 prostate cancer cases, 4 are only diagnosed at a late stage in England (2014) and Northern Ireland (2010 to 2014). Incidence rates are projected to rise by 12% between 2014 and 2035 in the UK to 233 cases per 100,000 in 2035.

A total of 84% of men aged 60 to 69 years at diagnosis in 2010/2011 are predicted to survive for 10 or more years after diagnosis. When diagnosed at the earliest stage, virtually all people with prostate cancer survive 5 years or more: this is compared with less than a third of people surviving 5 years or more when diagnosed at the latest stage.

There were approximately 11,000 deaths from prostate cancer in 2014. Mortality rates from prostate cancer are highest in men aged 90 years and over (2012 to 2014). Over the past decade, mortality rates have decreased by more than 13% in the UK. Mortality rates are projected to fall by 16% between 2014 and 2035 to 48 deaths per 100,000 men in 2035.

People of African family origin are at higher risk of prostate cancer (lifetime risk of approximately 1 in 4). Prostate cancer is inversely associated with deprivation, with a higher incidence of cases found in more affluent areas of the UK.

Costs for the inpatient treatment of prostate cancer are predicted to rise to £320.6 million per year in 2020 (from
£276.9 million per year in 2010).

This guidance was updated in 2014 to include several treatments that have been licensed for the management of
hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer since the publication of the original NICE guideline in 2008.
Since the last update in 2014, there have been changes in the way that prostate cancer is diagnosed and treated. Advances in imaging technology, especially multiparametric MRI, have led to changes in practice, and new evidence about some prostate cancer treatments means that some recommendations needed to be updated.

 

Read more Articles of the week
Read more Urology guidelines

 

Editorial: NICE guidelines on prostate cancer 2019

The much‐anticipated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines are finally published [1] after a period of consultation when they were in the draft phase. These are updated from the previous 2008 and 2014 versions and reflect the changes in our knowledge and practice over the last 10 years. While there are many similarities, the astute reader will find distinct differences from the AUA Guidelines, which feature in a summary booklet released at the #AUA19 meeting in Chicago this spring.

NICE does not comment on screening for prostate cancer so many of us continue to rely on our Guideline of Guidelines [2], which make pragmatic recommendations such as smart screening in well‐informed men who are at higher risk because of their family history. For staging, bone scan has not been replaced by prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA)‐positron‐emission tomography/CT, and Lu‐PSMA theranostics is yet to become an option in castrate‐resistant disease as the international trials are not mature.

Multiparametric MRI before prostate biopsy in men suitable for radical treatment is a new addition, based on the PROMIS [3] and PRECISION trials [1]. This approach is thought to be cost‐effective through reducing the number of biopsies and side effects despite the initial added cost of MRI scanning. In Grade Group 1 and some low‐volume Grade Group 2 cancers, protocol‐based active surveillance is recommended provided the patients are well counselled and it has been discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

To reduce variations in active surveillance, Prostate Cancer UK has carefully examined eight different guidelines and published a consensus statement for the benefit of our patients [4]. We have already promoted this widely on social media and hope that our readers will use this practical tool in their clinics. We often find that some patients just cannot live with a cancer inside their body and seek surgery as a result, however small their tumour. Careful discussion about management options and their risks vs benefits [1] can help patients arrive at a pragmatic decision. The effect of a cancer diagnosis on patients’ minds should therefore not be underestimated and a trained psychologist should be available for appropriate counselling.

NICE also recommends hypofractionated intensity‐modulated radiotherapy, if appropriate, in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localized disease, and methods of decreasing the side effects while increasing accuracy of radiation. As in 2014, robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy remains a surgical option in centres performing at least 150 of these procedures per year [1]. These numbers are similar to those published from other health services such as Canada. One such very high‐volume centre is the Martini Clinic which has reported its comparison of open and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy in >10 000 patients. The oncological and functional outcomes are no different, open surgery is quicker and there is less blood loss and shorter time to catheter removal after robotic surgery. Just like the randomized trial of the two techniques, this large series highlights that surgeon experience rather than the technique is more important for clinical outcomes [5]. Finally, based on the STAMPEDE results, docetaxel is recommended for metastasis in addition to ADT and can be considered for high‐risk patients receiving ADT and radiotherapy [6]. NICE has also identified a number of important research questions which we hope will be answered by ongoing studies in coming years.

by Prokar Dasgpta, John Davis & Simon Hughes

 

References

  1. NICE GuidanceNICE guidelines prostate cancer. BJU Int 20191249– 26.
  2. Loeb, SReview of prostate cancer screening guidelines. BJU Int 2014114323– 5
  3. Ahmed, HUThe PROMIS of MRI. BJU Int 20161187
  4. Merriel, SWDHetherington, LSeggie, A et al. PCUK consensus statement. BJUI 201912447– 54
  5. Haese, AKnipper, SIsbarn, H et al. A comparative study of robot‐assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int 20191231031– 40
  6. Sathianathen, NJPhilippou, YAKuntz, GM et al. Taxane‐based chemohormonal therapy for metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer: a Cochrane ReviewBJU Int 2019; [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14711

 

Why attend Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2019?

From the 29th to the 31st of August 2019 the next Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference #APCCC19 will take place in Basel, Switzerland. The consensus conference was inspired by the very successful and pioneering early breast cancer consensus conference that was started in 1978 in St Gallen.

APCCC was initiated in 2015 because of the rapid developments in the field of advanced prostate cancer with the aim to discuss the clinical management of men with advanced prostate cancer, with a special focus on situations with a lack of or only weak evidence from the literature or conflicting evidence. Prostate cancer is such a common disease that the majority of men across the globe are not treated in expert centers but rather in smaller hospitals or community-based practices. APCCC wants to help the process of knowledge translation by assembling a large group of international prostate cancer experts that hold highly educational lectures summarizing the available literature and evidence, and discussing controversial questions.

The recommendations from the previous two conferences in 2015 and 2017 have been published open access in renowned scientific journals and have been widely read:

APCCC 2015 report

APCCC 2017 report

The expert panel in action at APCCC 2017

The following topics have been chosen for discussion at the 2019 conference:

  1. Locally advanced prostate cancer
  2. Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after local therapy
  3. Management of primary tumour in the metastatic situation
  4. Newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, including oligometastatic prostate cancer
  5. Management of nmCRPC
  6. Management of mCRPC
  7. Bone and bone metastases
  8. Molecular characterization: tissue and blood
  9. Heterogeneity of men with prostate cancer (ethnicity, elderly)
  10. Side effects of hormonal treatments and their management

Difficult questions at APCCC17

Importantly all participants of APCCC can attend the consensus discussion and voting on Saturday morning. The questions and voting results will again form the basis for a report that will be published soon after the conference.

Why attend APCCC 2019?

The management of men with advanced prostate cancer keeps changing rapidly. Practice changing results have been recently presented and controversially discussed at ESMO (e.g. radiation therapy of the primary in the metastatic situation) and important new data will be presented at ASCO 2019 (e.g. results of standard-of-care therapy with or without enzalutamide or apalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer), making the choice of treatment in this situation even more challenging.

There are many reasons to attend APCCC 2019:

  • A unique opportunity to focus on the important topic of advanced prostate cancer management for two and a half days and be updated on current standards and state of the art of the care of men with advanced prostate cancer
  • Be involved in a global discussion on questions relevant to daily clinical practice but not investigated well

Expert interactions at APCCC17

  • Help to translate the outcomes from clinical trials into the management of men with prostate cancer in daily practice especially for men treated outside of large prostate cancer centers.
  • Be inspired and organize an APCCC satellite meeting for your country or region as has been done after the previous consensus conferences, with manuscripts published here in the BJUI.
    • Chiong et al. The Asia-Pacific Satellite of the APCCC BJUI 2019
    • Ma WK et al. Consensus statements on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer from the Hong Kong Urological Association and the Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology BJU Int. 2019
    • Omlin A, Gillessen S. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus on a regional level – what can we learn? BJU Int. 2019
  • And of course, enjoy a few wonderful summer days in the beautiful city of Basel!!!

Further information and links

APCCC 2019

Preview of APCCC 2019: Silke Gillessen, in conversation with Alicia Morgans, discusses many of the changes we have experienced in clinical practice since the last APCCC in 2017


APCCC on the THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK

 

by Dr Aurelius Omlin

Twitter: @apccc19
 

Article of the week: The impact on oncological outcomes after RP for PCa of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative

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 editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community and the authors have also kindly produced a video describing their work. These are 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.

The impact on oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative

Sahyun Pak*, Sejun Park, Myong Kim*, Heounjeong Go, Yong Mee Choand Hanjong Ahn*

 

*Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Department of Urology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan and Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of conversion from histologically positive to negative soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck on biochemical recurrence‐free survival (BCRFS) and distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

The records of 2 013 patients who underwent RP and intra‐operative frozen section (IFS) analysis between July 2007 and June 2016 were reviewed. IFS analysis of the urethra and bladder neck was performed, and if malignant or atypical cells remained, further resection with the aim of achieving histological negativity was carried out. Patients were divided into three groups according to the findings: those with a negative surgical margin (NSM), a positive surgical margin converted to negative (NCSM) and a persistent positive surgical margin (PSM).

Table 4. Impact of converting margins from tumour‐positive to ‐negative on biochemical recurrence

Results

Among the 2 013 patients, rates of NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 75.1%, 4.9%, and 20.0%, respectively. The 5‐year BCRFS rates of patients with NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 89.6%, 85.1% and 57.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). In both pathological (p)T2 and pT3 cancers, the 5‐year BCRFS rate for patients with NCSMs was similar to that for patients with NSMs, and higher than for patients with PSMs. The 7‐year DMFS rates of patients with NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 97.8%, 99.1% and 89.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). Among patients with pT3 cancers, the 7‐year DMFS rate was significantly higher in the NCSM group than in the PSM group (98.0% vs 86.7%; P = 0.023), but not among those with pT2 cancers (100% vs 96.9%; P = 0.616). The 5‐year BCRFS rate for the NCSM group was not significantly different from that of the NSM group among the patients with low‐ (96.3% vs 95.8%) and intermediate‐risk disease (91.1% vs 82.8%), but was lower than that of the NSM group among patients in the high‐risk group (73.2% vs 54.7%).

Conclusions

Conversion of the soft tissue margin at the prostate apex and bladder neck from histologically positive to negative improved the BCRFS and DMFS after RP for prostate cancer; however, the benefit of conversion was not apparent in patients in the high‐risk group.

Read more Articles of the week

 

Editorial: Conversion to negative surgical margin after intraoperative frozen section – (un)necessary effort and relevance in 2019?

The assessment and impact of positive surgical margins (PSMs) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) have been discussed for many decades. The determination and reporting should be performed in a standardised fashion according to the International Society of Urological Pathology [1]. The SM is considered positive if tumour cells touch the inked surface of the RP specimen. However, reasons for difficulty in truly differentiating between negative SMs (NSMs) and PSMs include iatrogenic disruption of the prostatic capsule, penetration of ink into small cracks on the outside, or cases in which prostate cancer cells are very close to, but not definitely touching, the inked margins.

A systematic review by Yossepowitch et al. [2] found a contemporary PSM rate of 15% (range 6.5–32%), which increases with extracapsular extension. In addition, the likelihood of PSM is strongly influenced by surgeon experience, independent of the surgical technique. Although PSM is considered an adverse pathological outcome and associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR), the impact on long‐term survival and actual prognostic value remains debatable. The association with other endpoints, such as prostate‐cancer specific mortality and overall survival, is controversial and may be primarily influenced by other risk factors, such as preoperative PSA level, Gleason score, and pathological T‐stage [2].

The role of intraoperative frozen section analysis in order to reduce the PSM rate continues to evolve. In a study by von Bodman et al. [3], 92.3% of patients with a PSM on frozen‐section analysis could ultimately be converted to a NSM. Similar findings were reported by Schlomm et al. [4] in 5392 patients using the intraoperative neurovascular structure‐adjacent frozen section examination (NeuroSAFE) technique, PSMs were detected in 25%, leading to re‐resection and conversion to definitive NSMs in 86% of these patients. In the setting of increasing experience with intraoperative frozen section analysis, a false‐positive SM status was found in only 48 patients (3.3%).

The study by Pak et al. [5], published in this issue of the BJUI, reported that specimens with initial PSMs were converted to NSMs upon permanent specimen evaluation (NCSM) in 4.9% of 2013 men undergoing RP. In this subgroup, the 5‐year BCR‐free survival (BCRFS) rates did not differ from those observed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low‐ and intermediate‐risk patients with an initially NSM. However, the benefit of conversion from an initial PSM to final NSM was not apparent in high‐risk patients, as the authors found a significantly lower rate of BCRFS amongst this NCSM group. In multivariate analysis, NCSM status was independently associated (hazard ratio 0.624, P = 0.033) with BCR but not distant metastasis. These findings corroborate the findings of the Schlomm et al. [4] study, in which the BCRFS rates of propensity score‐based matched patients with conversion to NSMs did not differ significantly from patients with primarily NSMs.

What is the current role of intraoperative frozen section analysis during RP? How important is it to achieve NSMs in contemporary practice? In whom and how should the assessment be performed? Although it is clearly desirable to completely remove the entire tumour at the time of surgery, and NSMs are a surrogate marker of adequate local excision, the devil is in the details. First, in this study [5], the authors only assessed SMs at the bladder neck and apex. Although the apex is one of the most frequent locations for PSMs, other and/or multiple sites of PSMs are possible and could have been missed. Alternatively, the NeuroSAFE method is able to assess the entire laterorectal circumference albeit with the trade‐off of more extensive pathological involvement and assessment. Second, intraoperative frozen section analysis, and manoeuvers for NCSM, may ultimately be necessary and beneficial in only a small number of patients currently undergoing RP. An increasing proportion of men harbour more aggressive, higher‐risk disease in whom PSMs may have no impact on oncological outcomes or treatment decisions. In these men, long‐term cancer outcomes are probably more related to risks of unsuspected metastatic disease rather than residual, microscopic cancer within the prostatic fossa. As suggested in this study [5], an initial PSM in high‐risk men, independent of ultimate NCSM, may be a surrogate for non‐localised disease and poorer outcomes; PSMs were found in 53% of men with pT3b. In low‐risk men, the issues are whether active surveillance is a more appropriate initial management strategy and that routine intraoperative frozen section analysis may not be worthwhile with a PSM rate of only 10%. How does this alter the decision for adjuvant therapy? Adjuvant radiotherapy is probably under‐utilised in men with PSMs after RP (~11%), and NCSM may spare men from unnecessary treatment, particularly with lower‐risk disease [6]. However, men with PSMs and additional adverse pathological features, such as extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion, should probably receive adjuvant therapy, primarily driven by T stage.

The incremental value and potential clinical benefit of intraoperative frozen section analysis to achieve NSMs remain to be determined. Although one would suspect that PSM leading to excision of additional tissue could lead to worse functional outcomes, the study from Mirmilstein et al. [7] is reassuring. Despite higher Gleason score and pT stage in those undergoing the NeuroSAFE approach, the PSM rate was lower in this group (9.2%) compared with those undergoing standard intraoperative nerve‐sparing while leading to greater bilateral nerve preservation, higher potency rates at 12 months, and pad‐free continence.

In the future, other methods may guide surgical decision‐making and may eventually alter PSM rate including preoperative MRI of the prostate to evaluate extracapsular extension, genomic risk scores, or real‐time, near‐infrared fluorescent surgical guidance with prostate‐specific membrane antigen ligands [8]. However, one should not forget that outcomes are not solely based on the SM status. Various pathological and clinical factors and patients’ comorbidities and preference should be taken into consideration in the surgical management and that evaluation of validated oncological and functional outcomes is critical.

by Annika Herlemann and Maxwell Meng

References

  1. Tan, PHCheng, LSrigley, JR et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol 20112448– 57
  2. Yossepowitch, OBriganti, AEastham, JA et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 201465303– 13
  3. Bodman, CBrock, MRoghmann, F et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2013190515– 20
  4. Schlomm, TTennstedt, PHuxhold, C et al. Neurovascular structure‐adjacent frozen‐section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve‐sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 201262333– 40
  5. Pak, SPark, SKim, MGo, HCho, YMAhn, HThe impact on oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative. BJU Int 2019123811– 7
  6. Ghabili, KNguyen, KHsiang, W et al. National trends in the management of patients with positive surgical margins at the time of radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 201836 (Suppl.)111
  7. Mirmilstein, GRai, BPGbolahan, O et al. The neurovascular structure‐adjacent frozen‐section examination (NeuroSAFE) approach to nerve sparing in robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a British setting – a prospective observational comparative study. BJU Int 2018;121854– 62
  8. Neuman, BPEifler, JBCastanares, M et al. Real‐time, near‐infrared fluorescence imaging with an optimized dye/light source/camera combination for surgical guidance of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 201521771– 80

 

Video: The impact on oncological outcomes after RP for PCa of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative

The impact on oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer of converting soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck from tumour‐positive to ‐negative

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the impact of conversion from histologically positive to negative soft tissue margins at the apex and bladder neck on biochemical recurrence‐free survival (BCRFS) and distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

The records of 2 013 patients who underwent RP and intra‐operative frozen section (IFS) analysis between July 2007 and June 2016 were reviewed. IFS analysis of the urethra and bladder neck was performed, and if malignant or atypical cells remained, further resection with the aim of achieving histological negativity was carried out. Patients were divided into three groups according to the findings: those with a negative surgical margin (NSM), a positive surgical margin converted to negative (NCSM) and a persistent positive surgical margin (PSM).

Results

Among the 2 013 patients, rates of NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 75.1%, 4.9%, and 20.0%, respectively. The 5‐year BCRFS rates of patients with NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 89.6%, 85.1% and 57.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). In both pathological (p)T2 and pT3 cancers, the 5‐year BCRFS rate for patients with NCSMs was similar to that for patients with NSMs, and higher than for patients with PSMs. The 7‐year DMFS rates of patients with NSMs, NCSMs and PSMs were 97.8%, 99.1% and 89.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). Among patients with pT3 cancers, the 7‐year DMFS rate was significantly higher in the NCSM group than in the PSM group (98.0% vs 86.7%; P = 0.023), but not among those with pT2 cancers (100% vs 96.9%; P = 0.616). The 5‐year BCRFS rate for the NCSM group was not significantly different from that of the NSM group among the patients with low‐ (96.3% vs 95.8%) and intermediate‐risk disease (91.1% vs 82.8%), but was lower than that of the NSM group among patients in the high‐risk group (73.2% vs 54.7%).

Conclusions

Conversion of the soft tissue margin at the prostate apex and bladder neck from histologically positive to negative improved the BCRFS and DMFS after RP for prostate cancer; however, the benefit of conversion was not apparent in patients in the high‐risk group.

 

View more videos

Video: Prostatic capsular incision during RP has important oncological implications. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Prostatic capsular incision during radical prostatectomy has important oncological implications. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Capsular Incision (CapI) is an iatrogenic breach of the prostatic capsule during radical prostatectomy that can cause positive surgical margins (PSM) in organ‐confined (pT2) prostate cancer (PCa), or the retention of benign prostatic tissue. We systematically interrogated the literature in order to clarify the definition of CapI, and the implications of this event for rates of PSM and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

A literature search was conducted according to PRISMA criteria using the search terms ‘CapI’ AND ‘prostatectomy’ and variations of each. 18 studies were eligible for inclusion.

Results

A total of 51,057 radical prostatectomy specimens were included. The incidence of CapI ranged from 1.3‐54.3%. CapI definitions varied, and included a breach of the prostatic capsule “exposing both benign or malignant PCa cells”, “malignant tissue only”, or “benign tissue only”. The incidence of PSM due to CapI ranged from 2.8 – 71.7%. Our meta‐analysis results found that when CapI was defined as “exposing malignant tissue only in organ‐confined prostate cancer” there was an increased risk of BCR compared to patients with pT2 disease and no CapI (RR 3.53, 95%CI 2.82‐4.41; p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

The absolute impact of CapI on oncological outcomes is currently unclear due to inconsistent definitions. However, the data implies an association between CapI and PSM and BCR. Reporting of possible areas of CapI on the operation note, or marking areas of concern on the specimen, are critical to assist CapI recognition by the pathologist.

 

View more videos

IP2 – ATLANTA is launched!

IP2 – ATLANTA is launched! ATLANTA is a phase II randomised controlled trial that will explore sequential multi-modal treatment using systemic therapy, local physical cytoreduction and metastasis directed therapy in men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer against a comparator of standard of care alone.

All men with new histologically diagnosed hormone sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, within three months of commencing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and of performance status 0 to 2 are eligible.  No upper limit on metastatic burden will apply, although men must be fit to undergo all trial interventions at point of randomisation.

Men will be randomised to: Control (Standard of Care) OR Intervention 1 (Minimally Invasive Ablative Therapy [MIAT] +/- pelvic lymph node dissection [PLND]) OR Intervention 2 (Local Radiotherapy +/- Lymph Nodes OR Radical Prostatectomy +/- PLND). Randomisation stratified by metastatic burden (CHAARTED definition), intent to treat pelvic lymph nodes, intent to treat metastasis and intent to commence chemotherapy.

Systemic therapy in all arms includes ADT +/- Docetaxel. Radical prostatectomy will be with or without PLND. Local radiotherapy will be 60Gy/20Fr OR 74-78Gy in 2Gy per fraction over a minimum of 27 days, with or without simultaneous nodal radiotherapy. MIAT will be cryotherapy or focal HIFU. Men in both intervention arms will be eligible for metastasis directed therapy in the form of stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) or surgery.

Men will be recruited over a two year period and followed up for a minimum of two years. Primary outcome will be progression free survival (PFS). ATLANTA is commencing in 17 UK trial centres with a target recruitment of 80 patients in the internal pilot, rising to 918 patients in full phase across 30 UK trial centres from November 2019.

ATLANTA is entirely charity funded (Wellcome Trust) and available on the NIHR CRN portfolio. Follow-up trial visits are not in excess of routine practice and extra burden is minimal. If you would like to join the main phase of ATLANTA as a site, please contact Mr Martin J. Connor ([email protected]) www.imperialprostate.org.uk/ATLANTA.

Prof. Hashim U. Ahmed (ATLANTA PI & CI),

Mr. Martin J. Connor (ATLANTA Doctoral Clinical Research Fellow)

Mr. Taimur T. Shah (Urology SpR & Research Fellow)

 

ATLANTA Surgeons Board: Mr Mathias Winkler, Mr Tim Dudderidge, Prof. Chris Eden, Mr Paul Cathcart, Prof. Naeem Soomro, Mr Adel Makar

ATLANTA Radiotherapy Board: Prof. John Staffurth, Dr. Alison Falconer, Dr. Stephen Mangar, Dr Olivia Naismith, RTTQA team

ATLANTA MIAT Board: Prof. Hashim U. Ahmed, Mr Stuart McCracken, Mr Raj Nigam, Mr Tim Dudderidge, Prof Iqbal Shergill

ATLANTA SABR Board: Dr Vincent Khoo, RTTQA team

ATLANTA Medical Oncologists: Dr. Naveed Sarwar, Dr Michael Gonzalez

ATLANTA Trial Sites: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Royal Surrey County (Guildford) Hospital, University Hospital Southampton, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre & Arrowe Park Hospital, Newcastle Freeman Hospital, King’s Lynn (Cambridge), Norfolk & Norwich (Cambridge), Sunderland Royal Hospital, Frimley Park Hospital, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Wrexham Park Hospital, West Middlesex University Hospital, Royal United Hospital Bath, Betsi Calderwar Health Board, Lister Hospital, Hampshire (Basingstoke) Hospitals, University Hospital Coventry, Worcestershire Royal Hospital.

Trial Sponsor: Imperial College London

Trial Funder: Wellcome Trust

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03763253

See more infographics

 

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.