Search

Introduction: Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners., Methods and Analysis: We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Heterogeneity of tumour grading is common in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). WHO/ISUP grading specifies that RCC should be graded based on the highest grade present in at least one high power field. This does not take into account the proportion of high grade tumour present in a cancer, which may itself influence outcome. Cases of ccRCC accessioned by Aquesta Uropathology, Brisbane, Australia, between 2008 and 2015, were reviewed and grading assigned according to WHO/ISUP criteria. For tumours classified as grade 3 (G3) and 4 (G4), the percentage of tumour showing G3 and G4 morphology was assessed for each case. Survival analysis, with time to the development of metastases as the clinical outcome, was performed for six grading subclasses (G3 <10%, G3 10-50%, G3 >50%, G4 <10%, G4 10-50%, G4 >50%). Of the 681 cases of ccRCC in the series, there were 153 cases classified as G3 (91 cases) and G4 (62 cases) for which follow-up was available. During the follow-up period of <1-89 months, 19 (20.9%) patients with G3 and 30 (48.3%) patients with G4 cancers developed metastatic disease. The three subgroups of <10%, 10-50% and >50% G3 tumour were not significant in predicting outcome (p=0.47). Separating G3 into two groups of ≤50% vs >50% was also not significantly associated with outcome (p=0.22). For the three subgroups of G4 ccRCC (<10%, 10-50% and >50% G4) a higher percentage of G4 correlated with time to the development of metastases (p=0.01). Even though G4 tumours as a whole had a significantly worse outcome than G3 tumours (p=0.0004), the difference between G4 <10% and G3 tumours was not significant (p=0.27). On multivariate analysis, that included pT staging category and tumour size, there was a significant difference in survival between G4<10% and G4>50% tumours (p=0.018). The results of the study suggest that for ccRCC, WHO/ISUP G4 category should incorporate the percentage of G4 tumour present., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The optimal duration of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy with curative intent is yet to be defined. Zoledronic acid is effective in preventing androgen suppression-induced bone loss, but its role in preventing castration-sensitive bone metastases in locally advanced prostate cancer is unclear. The RADAR trial assessed whether the addition of 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression, 18 months of zoledronic acid, or both, can improve outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer who receive 6 months of androgen suppression and prostatic radiotherapy. This report presents 10-year outcomes from this trial., Methods: For this randomised, phase 3, 2 × 2 factorial trial, eligible men were 18 years or older with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2b-4, N0 M0 tumours or T2a, N0 M0 tumours provided Gleason score was ≥7 and baseline prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration was ≥10 μg/L). We randomly allocated participants in a 2 × 2 factorial design by computer-generated randomisation (using the minimisation technique, and stratified by centre, baseline PSA concentration, clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four treatment groups. Patients in the control group received 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) and radiotherapy alone (short-term androgen suppression [STAS]); this treatment was either followed by another 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly; intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]), or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously) starting at randomisation (STAS plus zoledronic acid), or both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). All patients received radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, starting from the end of the fifth month of androgen suppression; dosing options were 66, 70, and 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions per day, or 46 Gy in 2-Gy fractions followed by a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose of 19·5 Gy in 6·5-Gy fractions. Treatment allocation was open label. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality and was analysed according to intention-to-treat using competing-risks methods. The trial is closed to follow-up and this is the final report of the main endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856., Findings: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were enrolled and randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), ITAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 10·4 years (IQR 7·9-11·7). At this 10-year follow-up, no interactions were observed between androgen suppression and zoledronic acid so the treatment groups were collapsed to compare treatments according to duration of androgen suppression: 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (6AS+RT) versus 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (18AS+RT) and to compare treatments according to whether or not patients received zoledronic acid. The total number of deaths was 375 (200 men receiving 6AS+RT and 175 men receiving 18AS+RT), of which 143 (38%) were attributable to prostate cancer (81 men receiving 6AS+RT and 62 men receiving 18AS+RT). When analysed by duration of androgen suppression, the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 13·3% (95% CI 10·3-16·0) for 6AS+RT versus 9·7% (7·3-12·0) for 18AS+RT, representing an absolute difference of 3·7% (95% CI 0·3-7·1; sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·98], adjusted p=0·035). The addition of zoledronic acid did not affect prostate cancer-specific mortality; the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 11·2% (95% CI 8·7-13·7) with zoledronic acid vs 11·7% (9·2-14·1) without, representing an absolute difference of -0·5% (95% CI -3·8 to 2·9; sHR 0·95 [95% CI 0·69-1·32], adjusted p=0·78). Although safety analysis was not prespecified for this 10-year analysis, one new serious adverse event (osteonecrosis of the mandible, in a patient who received 18 months of androgen suppression plus zoledronic acid) occurred since our previous report, bringing the total number of cases of this serious adverse event to three (<1% out of 530 patients who received zoledronic acid evaluated for safety) and the total number of drug-related serious adverse events to 12 (1% out of all 1065 patients evaluable for safety). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy is a more effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer than 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, but the addition of zoledronic acid to this treatment regimen is not beneficial. Evidence from the RADAR and French Canadian Prostate Cancer Study IV trials suggests that 18 months of androgen suppression with moderate radiation dose escalation is an effective but more tolerable option than longer durations of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer including intermediate and high risk elements., Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare the burden and outcomes of cancer in New Zealand with those in Australia., Methods: For the years 1996-1997 and 2006-2007, the incidence and mortality of cancer in New Zealand and Australia was compared to determine if differences between the two countries had changed over the decade under study. Summarised cancer data from New Zealand and Australia, age standardised to the 2002 World Health Organisation's standard population, were used to make the comparisons., Results: For the 11 year timeframe of this study, total rates of cancer incidence reduced in New Zealand and increased in Australia. The incidence of cancer in New Zealand, relative to Australia, changed from an excess of +10.3 to a deficit of -27.5 per 100,000 people. When considering the excess in terms of gender, the annual excess of cancer registrations for New Zealand females fell from +19.9 to +0.9 per 100,000, and male cancer registration fell from an excess of +3.7 to a deficit of -58.0 per 100,000, due almost entirely to a surge in prostate cancer registration in Australia. Over the same 11-year timeframe, cancer-specific mortality rates decreased in both countries, but there was no change in the difference between New Zealand and Australian rates, which remained 10% higher in New Zealand. Similar to findings on 1996/7 data, the main cancer sites responsible for the overall excess mortality in 2006/7 were colorectal cancer in both sexes, and lung and breast cancer in females., Conclusion: The persisting different cancer mortality rates between the two countries is likely to have been partly due to lifestyle and ethnic differences in the populations, and partly due to New Zealanders presenting with more advanced cancers and having less easy access to some treatments. Until we know the relative contributions of these factors, it will be difficult for New Zealand to plan interventions in the future which have a good chance of lifting our cancer survival rates to those of our closest neighbour. The collection of clinical stage on all new cancer registrations would provide the base information required.