Search

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

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)

To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa).Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group3, clinical stageT3 and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of20 ng/mL. This cohort included men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography guided (12-14 cores) or transperineal (median 32 cores) biopsy. Multivariate Cox hazards regression analysis was undertaken to determine (i) risk of upgrading, (ii) clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and (iii) transitioning to active treatment. Suspicion of disease progression was defined as any biopsy upgrading,30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score3/T3 or PSA level of20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment.Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies.A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients.

Objectives To evaluate the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of outpatient (office-based) laser ablation (OLA), with local anaesthetic, for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in an elderly population with and without photodynamic diagnosis (PDD). To compare the cost-effectiveness of OLA of NMIBC with that of inpatient cystodiathermy (IC). Patients and Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients with NMIBC treated with OLA by one consultant surgeon between March 2008 and July 2011 A subgroup of patients had PDD before undergoing OLA. Safety and effectiveness were determined by complications (In the immediate post operative period, at three days and at three months), patient tolerability (visual analogue score) and recurrence rates. The long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of OLA and IC of NMIBC were evaluated using Markov modeling. Results A total of 74 OLA procedures (44 white-light, 30 PDD) were carried out in 54 patients. The mean (range) patient age was 77 (52–95) years. More than half of the patients had more than three comorbidities. Previous tumour histology ranged from G1pTa to T3. One patient had haematuria for 1 week which settled spontaneously and did not require hospital admission. There were no other complications. The procedure was well tolerated with pain scores of 0–2/10. Additional lesions were found in 21% of patients using PDD that were not found using white light. At 3 months, the percentage of patients who had recurrence after OLA with white light and OLA with PDD were 10.6 and 4.3%, respectively. At 1 year, 65.1% and 46.9% of patients had recurrence. The cost of OLA was found to be much lower than that of IC (£538 vs £1474), even with the addition of PDD (£912 vs £1844). Over the course of a patient's lifetime, OLA was more clinically effective, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), than IC (0.147 [sd 0.059]) and less costly (£2576.42 [sd £7293.07]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30 000/QALY, as set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, there was an 82% probability that OLA was cost-effective. Conclusions This is the first study to demonstrate the long-term cost-effectiveness of OLA of NMIBC. The results support the use of OLA for the treatment of NMIBC, especially in the elderly.