Search

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer in Malaysia with the lifetime risk of 1 in 117 men. Here, we initiated a longitudinal Malaysia Prostate Cancer (M‐CaP) Study to investigate the clinical and tumour characteristics, treatment patterns as well as disease outcomes of multi‐ethnic Asian men at real‐world setting. The M‐CaP database consisted of 1839 new patients with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2016 and 2018 from nine public urology referral centres across Malaysia. Basic demographic and clinical parameters, tumour characteristics, primary treatment, follow‐up and vital status data were retrieved prospectively from the hospital‐based patients' case notes or electronic medical records. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and biochemical progression‐free survival (bPFS). The median age at diagnosis of M‐CaP patients was 70 years (interquartile range, IQR 65–75). Majority of patients were Chinese (831, 45.2%), followed by Malays (704, 38.3%), Indians (124, 6.7%) and other races (181, 9.8%). The median follow‐up for all patients was 23.5 months (IQR 15.9–33.6). Although 58.1% presented with late‐stage cancer, we observed ethnic and geographic disparities in late‐stage prostate cancer diagnosis. Curative radiotherapy and primary androgen deprivation therapy were the most common treatment for stage III and stage IV diseases, respectively. The median OS and bPFS of stage IV patients were 40.1 months and 19.2 months (95% CI 17.6–20.8), respectively. Late stage at presentation remains a challenge in multi‐ethnic Asian men. Early detection is imperative to improve treatment outcome and survival of patients with prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to analyze the conditional survival and prognostic factors in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer using the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer database. Methods: Data on patients treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy between 2001 and 2003 from a nationwide database of the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer were used. The conditional 5‐year progression‐free rate, cancer‐specific survival and overall survival, as well as the conditional mortality owing to prostate cancer and other causes were calculated as per subgroups. Prognostic factors for progression‐free rate, cancer‐specific survival and overall survival at each time after androgen deprivation therapy initiation were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The conditional 5‐year progression‐free rate and cancer‐specific survival, but not overall survival, gradually increased with time. The prognostic impact of stage IV characteristics (T4, N1 and M1) changed over time; however, the prognostic impact of the Gleason score remained unchanged. In the subgroup analysis, prostate‐specific mortality risk reduced over time in patients with stage IV prostate cancer, whereas non‐prostate cancer mortality increased over time in elderly patients. Conclusions: Information regarding conditional survival and mortality obtained in this study would provide a benchmark for physicians and cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to analyze the survival rate and to examine the risk of death from prostate cancer when accounting for competing risk of death, in men aged ≥80 y treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Data of patients with prostate cancer who had received ADT were extracted from a nationwide community‐based database established by the Japan Study Group for Prostate Cancer. Prognostic variables, including progression‐free survival, cancer‐specific survival, overall survival, and death rates were compared between men stratified by prostate cancer risk. Overall, 4760 patients older than 80 y were included. The proportion of low‐, intermediate‐, high‐, or very high‐risk, regional, and metastatic prostate cancer among super‐elderly men was 9.5%, 14.6%, 48.8%, 9.0%, 3.2%, and 24.9%, respectively. Survival rates decreased with increasing risk stratification. The cumulative 5‐y death rate by prostate cancer for low‐, intermediate‐, high‐, or very high‐risk, regional, and metastatic prostate cancer, was 0.92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2%‐3.6%), 1.6% (95% CI: 0.8%‐3.4%), 5.75% (95% CI: 4.25%‐7.75%), 15.6% (95% CI: 11.6%‐23.3%), 20.7% (95% CI: 13.1%‐31.7%), and 36.9% (95% CI: 32.8%‐41.4%), respectively. Our findings support that there is no need for immediate ADT for low‐ and intermediate‐risk groups. Conversely, in high‐ or very high‐risk, regional, and metastatic prostate cancer, more efforts for curative therapy and intensive therapy are needed in selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of newly diagnosed prostate cancer cases varies across Asia, with higher mortality‐to‐incidence ratio reported in developing nations. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), alone or in combination, remains the mainstay of first‐line treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Key findings of extensive research and randomized controlled trials have shaped current clinical practice and influenced clinical guideline recommendations. We describe here the recent trend of ADT in newly diagnosed prostate cancer for Asia focusing on Japan (high‐income country) and Malaysia (middle‐income country) based on the Asian Prostate Cancer (A‐CaP) Study. The combination of radiotherapy and ADT or ADT alone was common in patients with intermediate‐to‐high risk localized and locally advanced disease. For metastatic prostate cancer, maximum androgen blockade (gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone [GnRH] agonist/antagonist plus antiandrogen) was prevalent among the Japanese patients while primary ADT alone with GnRH agonist/antagonist was widely practiced in the Malaysian cohort. Upfront combined therapy (ADT plus docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitor) has significantly improved the outcomes of patients with metastatic castration‐naïve prostate cancer. Its application, however, remains low in our cohorts due to patients' financial capacity and national health insurance coverage. Early detection remains the cornerstone in prostate cancer control to improve treatment outcome and patient survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the differences in prognosis of prostate cancer patients receiving primary androgen deprivation therapy by region and facility type using a Japan‐wide database. Methods: Data on patients treated with primary androgen deprivation therapy between 2001 and 2003 from a nationwide community‐based database established by the Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer were obtained. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic variables, including progression, cancer‐specific survival and overall survival, were compared according to region and facility type where the patients were treated. Results: Among 19 162 patients, 7102 (37.1%) and 12 060 (62.9%) men were in urban and rural areas, respectively, and 3556 (18.6%), 13 623 (71.1%) and 1983 (10.3%) patients were enrolled from academic centers, non‐academic hospitals and urological clinics, respectively. The risks of progression, cancer‐specific mortality and all‐cause mortality were comparable between urban and rural areas in propensity‐score matched analysis. Risks of progression, cancer‐specific mortality and all‐cause mortality in urological clinics were higher than those in academic centers in propensity‐score matched analysis. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Japan facility type, but not geographical regions, might affect the prognosis of prostate cancer patients receiving primary androgen deprivation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]