Search

Context Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) is a novel imaging technique with several potential applications in the prostate cancer (PCa) setting. Objective To perform a systematic review of the current evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of PSMA PET/MRI in patients with primary and recurrent PCa. Evidence acquisition A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases was performed in October 2020. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they assessed patients with primary or recurrent PCa (P) undergoing PSMA PET/MRI (I) with or without comparison with other imaging techniques (C) in order to evaluate its diagnostic performance (O). Retrospective and prospective primary clinical studies were included. Results of previous meta-analyses were reported. Evidence synthesis A total of 23 original articles and three meta-analyses were included. Limited evidence on PSMA PET/MRI is available, especially in the setting of partial gland ablation. PET/MRI can be an effective imaging modality for detecting primary PCa, showing higher accuracy than multiparametric MRI alone. It provides accurate local staging of primary PCa; however, there are contradictory results in this context when its performance is compared with other imaging techniques. PET/MRI also shows high performance for restaging and detecting tumor recurrence, even at low prostate-specific antigen levels. Conclusions PSMA PET/MRI could represent a valuable tool in the management of patients with primary and recurrent PCa. No specific recommendations can be provided. Patient summary Encouraging data regarding the benefits of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer are emerging from the literature.

To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service.Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets.There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 32 409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 11 309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide.We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one-third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure including increased use of TP biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the COVID-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.

Differential gene expression DESeq2 analysis for 16h Spheres vs Adh (Sheet #1) and 5d Spheres vs Adh

In many tumors, cells transition reversibly between slow-proliferating tumor-initiating cells (TIC) and their differentiated, faster-growing progeny. Yet, how transcriptional regulation of cell-cycle and self-renewal genes is orchestrated during these conversions remains unclear. In this study, we show that as breast TIC form, a decrease in cell-cycle gene expression and increase in self-renewal gene expression are coregulated by SOX2 and EZH2, which colocalize at CpG islands. This pattern was negatively controlled by a novel long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) that we named Stem Cell Inhibitory RNA Transcript (SCIRT), which was markedly upregulated in tumorspheres but colocalized with and counteracted EZH2 and SOX2 during cell-cycle and self-renewal regulation to restrain tumorigenesis. SCIRT specifically interacted with EZH2 to increase EZH2 affinity to FOXM1 without binding the latter. In this manner, SCIRT induced transcription at cell-cycle gene promoters by recruiting FOXM1 through EZH2 to antagonize EZH2-mediated effects at target genes. Conversely, on stemness genes, FOXM1 was absent and SCIRT antagonized EZH2 and SOX2 activity, balancing toward repression. These data suggest that the interaction of an lncRNA with EZH2 can alter the affinity of EZH2 for its protein-binding partners to regulate cancer cell state transitions.Significance:These findings show that a novel lncRNA SCIRT counteracts breast tumorigenesis by opposing transcriptional networks associated with cell cycle and self-renewal.See related commentary by Pardini and Dragomir, p. 535

Table S2. Pathway enrichment analyses for genes up- and down-regulated after growing 16h or 5d in spheres

Top 100 gene significantly up-regulated upon siSCIRT treatment (Overlap between siSCIRT #1 and siSCIRT #2). Genes are ranked from the most up-regulated to the least up-regulated.

Sequence of primers used in the study

Significant marker genes of cluster 3 after scRNA-seq analysis of Breast Cancer primary samples

Significant CHART-seq SCIRT peaks identified using HOMER

Differential gene expression DESeq2 analysis for siSCIRT vs siNC using two independent siRNAs against SCIRT (Sheet #1 contains siSCIRT #1 data; Sheet #2 contains siSCIRT #2 data).

Differential gene expression DESeq2 analysis for siEZH2 vs siNC.

Supplementary material and methods

OBJECTIVES To report toxicity of treatment observed in men participating in the Robotic surgery After Focal Therapy (RAFT) clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men were eligible for this prospective single group interventional study if they had histologically confirmed recurrent/residual prostate adenocarcinoma following primary FT. The short-form Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) measured prior to salvage robotic prostatectomy (S-RARP) and 3-monthly post-operatively together with Clavien-Dindo complications (I-IV). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCFS) following surgery and need for salvage treatment after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03011606. RESULTS Twenty-four men were recruited between February 2016 and September 2018. 1 patient withdrew from the trial after consenting and before S-RARP. 23 men completed 12-month post S-RARP follow-up. Median EPIC-26 urinary continence scores initially deteriorated after 3 months (82.4 vs 100) but there was no statistically significant difference from baseline at 12 months (100 vs 100, P = 0.31). Median lower urinary tract symptom scores improved after 12 months compared to baseline (93.8 vs 87.5, P = 0.01). At 12 months, 19/23 (83%) were pad-free and 22/23 (96%) required 0/1 pads. Median sexual function subscale scores deteriorated and remained low at 12 months (22.2 vs 58.3, P < 0.001). Utilising a minimally important difference of nine points, at 12 months after surgery 17/23 (74%) reported urinary continence to be 'better' or 'not different' to pre-operative baseline. The corresponding figure for sexual function (utilising a minimally important difference of 12 points) was 7/23 (30%). There was no statistically significant difference on median bowel/hormonal subscale scores. Only a single patient had a post-operative complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade I). BCFS at 12 months after surgery was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1-93.1%) while 4/23 (17%) received salvage radiation. CONCLUSIONS The RAFT clinical trial suggests toxicity of surgery after FT is low, with good urinary function outcomes, albeit sexual function deteriorated overall. Oncological outcomes at 12 months appear acceptable.

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

Background: Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities. Methods: Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005–2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99–1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87–1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64–1.47, P = 0.873). Conclusions: African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

In many tumors, cells transition reversibly between slow-proliferating tumor-initiating cells (TIC) and their differentiated, faster-growing progeny. Yet, how transcriptional regulation of cell-cycle and self-renewal genes is orchestrated during these conversions remains unclear. In this study, we show that as breast TIC form, a decrease in cell-cycle gene expression and increase in self-renewal gene expression are coregulated by SOX2 and EZH2, which colocalize at CpG islands. This pattern was negatively controlled by a novel long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) that we named Stem Cell Inhibitory RNA Transcript (SCIRT), which was markedly upregulated in tumorspheres but colocalized with and counteracted EZH2 and SOX2 during cell-cycle and self-renewal regulation to restrain tumorigenesis. SCIRT specifically interacted with EZH2 to increase EZH2 affinity to FOXM1 without binding the latter. In this manner, SCIRT induced transcription at cell-cycle gene promoters by recruiting FOXM1 through EZH2 to antagonize EZH2-mediated effects at target genes. Conversely, on stemness genes, FOXM1 was absent and SCIRT antagonized EZH2 and SOX2 activity, balancing toward repression. These data suggest that the interaction of an lncRNA with EZH2 can alter the affinity of EZH2 for its protein-binding partners to regulate cancer cell state transitions. Significance: These findings show that a novel lncRNA SCIRT counteracts breast tumorigenesis by opposing transcriptional networks associated with cell cycle and self-renewal. See related commentary by Pardini and Dragomir, p. 535

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

The COVID‐19 pandemic is impacting all urological cancer services. On March 19th the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) provided pragmatic guidance for prostate cancer diagnostic services (Table 1).(1)

Aims Randomised controlled trials have shown comparable early oncological outcomes after hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). The effect of hypofractionation on treatment-related gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity remains uncertain, especially in older men and those with locally advanced PCa. Materials and methods A population-based study of all patients treated with radical conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (n = 9106) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 3027) in all radiotherapy centres in the English National Health Service between 2014 and 2016 was carried out. We identified severe gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity using a validated coding framework and compared conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated radiotherapy using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. Results The median age in our cohort was 72 years old and most patients had locally advanced disease (65%). There was no difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 5.0 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 5.2 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.89–1.13; P = 0.95) or genitourinary toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.77–1.10; P = 0.35) between patients who received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and those who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. Conclusions This national cohort study has shown that the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of PCa does not increase rates of severe gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Our findings also support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in older men and those with locally advanced PCa.

Objectives To assess whether targeted cognitive freehand-assisted transperineal biopsies using a PrecisionpointTM device still require additional systematic biopsies to avoid missing clinically significant prostate cancer, and to investigate the benefit of a quadrant-only biopsy approach to analyse whether a quadrant or extended target of the quadrant containing the target only would have been equivalent to systematic biopsy. Patients and methods Patients underwent combined systematic mapping and targeted transperineal prostate biopsies at a single institution. Biopsies were performed using the Precisionpoint device (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, USA) under either local anaesthetic (58%, 163/282), i.v. sedation (12%, 34/282) or general anaesthetic (30%, 85/282). A mean (range) of 24 (5-42) systematic and 4.2 (1-11) target cores were obtained. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reported using the Likert scale. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason 7 or above. Histopathological results were correlated with the presence of an MRI abnormality within a spatial quadrant and the other adjoining or non-adjoining (opposite) quadrants. Histological concordance with radical prostatectomy specimens was analysed. Results A total of 282 patients were included in this study. Their mean (range) age was 66.8 (36-80) years, median (range) prostate-specific antigen level 7.4 (0.91-116) ng/mL and mean prostate volume 45.8 (13-150) mL. In this cohort, 82% of cases (230/282) were primary biopsies and 18% (52/282) were patients on surveillance. In all, 69% of biopsies (195/282) were identified to have clinically significant disease (Gleason ≥3 + 4). Any cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 3) was found in 84% (237/282) of patients. Of patients with clinically significant disease, the target biopsies alone picked up 88% (171/195), with systematic biopsy picking up the additional 12% (24/195) that the target biopsies missed. This altered with Likert score; 73% of Likert score 3 disease was detected by target biopsy, 92% of Likert score 4 and 100% of Likert score 5. Target biopsies with additional same-quadrant-only systematic cores picked up 75% (18/24) of significant cancer that was missed on target only, found in the same quadrant as the target. Conclusion Systematic biopsy is still an important tool when evaluating all patients referred for prostate biopsy, but the need is decreased with increasing suspicion on MRI. Patients with very high suspicion of prostate cancer (Likert score 5) may not require systematic cores, unless representative surrounding biopsies are required for other specific treatments (e.g. focal therapy, or operative planning). More prospective studies are needed to evaluate this in full.

To assess the complications of transrectal (TR) compared to transperineal prostate (TP) biopsies.Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 in England were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Administrative hospital data were then used to categorize the type of prostate biopsy and subsequent complications requiring hospital admission. Administrative hospital data were used to identify patients staying overnight immediately after biopsy and those readmitted separately for hospital admissions because of sepsis, urinary retention or haematuria. Procedure-related mortality and total length of hospital stay within 30 days were also recorded. Generalized linear models were used to calculate adjusted risk differences (aRDs).A total of 73 630 patients undergoing prostate biopsy were identified. Those undergoing TP biopsy (n = 13 723) were more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (12.3% vs 2.4%; aRD 9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-12.3), were less likely to be readmitted because of sepsis (1.0% vs 1.4%; aRD -0.4%, CI -0.6 to -0.2), and were more likely to be readmitted with urinary retention (1.9% vs 1.0%; aRD 1.1%, CI 0.7-1.4) than those undergoing a TR biopsy (n = 59 907). There were no significant differences in the risk of haematuria or mortality.Our results showed that TP biopsy had a lower risk of readmission for sepsis but a higher risk of readmission for urinary retention than TR biopsy. Use of the TP route would prevent one readmission for sepsis in 278 patients at the cost of three additional patients readmitted for urinary retention.

Measuring treatment-related quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly requisite component of delivering high-quality care for patients with prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have, therefore, become an important tool for understanding the adverse effects of radical prostate cancer treatment and have been widely integrated into clinical practice. By providing real-time symptom monitoring and improved clinical feedback to patients and providers, PRO assessment has led to meaningful gains in prostate cancer care delivery and quality improvement worldwide. By providing an avenue for benchmarking, collaboration and population health monitoring, PROMs have delivered substantial improvements beyond providing individual symptom feedback. However, multilevel barriers exist that need to be addressed before the routine implementation of PROMs is achieved. Improvements in collection, interpretation, standardization and reporting will be crucial for the continued implementation of PROM instruments in prostate cancer pathways.

ObjectivesTo test the feasibility of randomisation to radical prostatectomy (RP) plus pelvic lymphadenectomy in addition to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy in men with newly diagnosed oligo-metastatic prostate cancer.Patients and MethodsA prospective, randomised, non-blinded, feasibility clinical trial with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment was conducted in nine nationwide tertiary care centres undertaking high-volume robotic surgery. We aimed to randomise 50 men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer within an 18-month recruitment period to SOC systemic therapy vs SOC plus RP (intervention arm). The main outcome measures were: ability to randomise patients, optimised by a QRI; EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires to capture quality-of-life (QoL) data at baseline and 3 months post-randomisation; routine clinicopathological assessment to capture adverse events and prostate-specific antigen in both arms, plus standard perioperative parameters in the surgical arm.ResultsA total of 51 men were randomised within 14 months (one was subsequently deemed ineligible), with 60–83% accrual rate in centres that recruited at least two patients. All patients completed the trial follow-up; one patient in the intervention arm subsequently did not undergo the surgical intervention and one in the SOC arm refused all therapies. The QRI positively impacted recruitment. QoL data showed similarly high functioning in both study arms. Surgery for men with oligo-metastatic prostate cancer was found to be safe and had similar impact on early functional outcomes as surgery for standard indication.ConclusionIt is feasible to randomise men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer to a surgical intervention in addition to standard systemic therapies. While surgery appeared safe with no substantial impact on QoL in this feasibility study, a large randomised controlled trial is now warranted to examine treatment effectiveness of this additional component in the multimodality management of oligo-metastatic prostate cancer.

Objectives To investigate whether patient-reported urinary incontinence and bother scores after radical prostatectomy result in subsequent intervention with incontinence surgery. Methods Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and January 2016 were identified. Administrative data were used to identify men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy and those who subsequently underwent a urinary incontinence procedure. The National Prostate Cancer Audit database was used to identify men who had also completed a post-treatment survey. These surveys included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index (EPIC-26). The frequency of subsequent incontinence procedures, within 6 months of the survey, was explored according to EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores. The relationship between "good" (≥75) or "bad" (≤25) EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores and perceptions of urinary bother was also explored (responses ranging from 'no problem' to 'big problem' with respect to their urinary function). Results We identified 11,290 men who had undergone a radical prostatectomy. The 3-year cumulative incidence of incontinence surgery was 2.5%. After exclusions, we identified 5,165 men who had also completed a post-treatment survey after a median time of 19 months (response rate 74%). 481 men (9.3%) reported a "bad" urinary incontinence score and 207 men (4.0%) also reported that they had a big problem with their urinary function. 47 men went on to have incontinence surgery within 6 months of survey completion (0.9%), of whom 93.6% had a "bad" urinary incontinence score. Of the 71 men with the worst urinary incontinence score (zero), only 11 men (15.5%) subsequently had incontinence surgery. Conclusion In England, there is a significant number of men living with severe, bothersome urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy, and an unmet clinical need for incontinence surgery. The systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could be used to identify men who may benefit from incontinence surgery.

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

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

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

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

There are few data on the outcomes and toxicity of radical prostatectomy (RP) among men experiencing local recurrence of prostate cancer (PC) following focal therapy (FT). To characterise perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes after salvage robot-assisted RP (S-RALP) and determine the risk factors for S-RALP failure, we conducted a multicentre cohort study of 82 patients undergoing S-RALP after FT. All had histological confirmation of PC recurrence, with metastatic disease excluded using pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, a bone scan, and/or positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Progression-free survival was 74%, 48%, and 36% at 12, 24, and 36mo after surgery, respectively. The 12-mo continence rate was 83%. There were no intraoperative complications and no major postoperative complications. On multivariable analysis, only infield recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-12.85; p=0.03) and pT3b stage (HR 5.0, 95% CI 1.53-16.39; p=0.008) were independent predictors of recurrence. This study represents the largest series of salvage surgery after FT and shows that this approach is safe with no increase in toxicity when compared to primary RALP. Men identified as having infield recurrence after FT appear to have phenotypically aggressive disease and should be counselled regarding the potential need for a multimodal therapeutic approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robotic surgery after focal therapy for prostate cancer is safe and achieves postoperative continence results similar to those for robotic radical prostatectomy in treatment-naïve patients. However, if the cancer recurrence is within the previously treated field, the oncological prognosis seems to be worse.

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

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

Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities.Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading,30% positive cores, cT-stage 3, PIRADS 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis.Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873).African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

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

BackgroundContracting COVID-19 peri-operatively has been associated with a mortality rate as high as 23%, making prevention vital.ObjectivesThe primary objective is to determine safety of surgical admissions and procedures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic using ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ sites. The secondary objective is to determine risk factors of contracting COVID-19.Design, Setting and ParticipantsA retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted from 1st March – 31st May 2020 at a high-volume tertiary urology department in London, United Kingdom. Elective surgery was carried out at a ‘cold’ site requiring a negative COVID-19 swab 72 hours prior to admission and to self-isolate for 14 days pre-operatively, whilst all acute admissions were admitted to the ‘hot’ site.Outcome Measurements and Statistical AnalysisComplications related to COVID-19 were presented as percentages. Risk factors for developing COVID-19 infection were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.Results and LimitationsA total of 611 patients, 451 (73.8%) male and 160 (26.2%) female, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 44-70) were admitted under the urology team; 101 (16.5%) on the ‘cold’ site and 510 (83.5%) on the ‘hot’ site. Procedures were performed in 495 patients of which 8 (1.6%) contracted COVID-19 post-operatively with 1 (0.2%) post-operative mortality due to COVID-19. Overall, COVID-19 was detected in 20 (3.3%) patients with 2 (0.3%) deaths. Length of stay was associated with contracting COVID-19 in our cohort (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.39). Limitations include possible under reporting due to post-operative patients presenting elsewhere.ConclusionsContinuation of surgical procedures using ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ sites throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was safe practice, although the risk of COVID-19 remained and is underlined by a post-operative mortality.Patient SummaryUsing ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ sites has allowed the safe continuation of urological practice throughout the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID‐19 pandemic is impacting all urological cancer services. On March 19th the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) provided pragmatic guidance for prostate cancer diagnostic services (Table 1).(1)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Use of freehand-guided transperineal prostate biopsy has allowed biopsies to be performed under local anesthesia (LA) or IV sedation (IVS) with less analgesia requirement...