Search

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.

In randomized clinical trials, the androgen-receptor inhibitor enzalutamide has demonstrated efficacy and safety in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study captured efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients in a real-world European setting. PREMISE (NCT0249574) was a European, long-term, prospective, observational study in mCRPC patients prescribed enzalutamide as part of standard clinical practice. Patients were categorized based on prior docetaxel and/or abiraterone use. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), defined as time from enzalutamide initiation to permanent treatment discontinuation for any reason. Secondary endpoints included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, time to PSA progression, time to disease progression and safety. PROs included EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Overall, 1732 men were enrolled. Median TTF with enzalutamide was 12.9 months in the chemotherapy- and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 1) and 8.4 months in the postchemotherapy and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 2). Clinical outcomes based on secondary endpoints also varied between cohorts. Cohorts 1 and 2 showed small improvements in health-related quality of life and pain status. The proportions of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 51.0% and 62.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; enzalutamide-related TEAEs were similar in both cohorts. The most frequent TEAE across cohorts was fatigue. These data from unselected mCRPC patients in European, real-world, clinical-practice settings confirmed the benefits of enzalutamide previously shown in clinical trial outcomes, with safety results consistent with enzalutamide's known safety profile. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:150 issue:5 pages:837-846 ispartof: location:United States status: published

The public reporting of patient outcomes is crucial for quality improvement and informing patient choice. However, outcome reporting in radiotherapy, despite being a major component of cancer control, is extremely sparse globally. Public reporting has many challenges, including difficulties in defining meaningful measures of treatment quality, limitations in data infrastructure, and fragmented health insurance schemes. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA), done in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), shows that it is feasible to develop outcome indicators for radiotherapy treatment, including patient-reported outcomes. The NPCA provides a transparent mechanism for comparing the performance of all NHS providers, with results accessible to patients, providers, and policy makers. Using the NPCA as a case study, we discuss the development of a radiotherapy-outcomes reporting programme, its impact and future potential, and the challenges and opportunities to develop this approach across other tumour types and in different health systems.

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.

Objectives: To assess the safety and clinical impact of a novel, kit-based formulation of 68Ga‐THP PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) when used to guide the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited in to one of: Group A: high-risk untreated prostate cancer; Gleason score >4+3, or PSA >20 ng/mL or clinical stage >T2c. Group B: biochemical recurrence (BCR) and eligible for salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy with two consecutive rises in prostate specific antigen (PSA) with a three month interval in between reads and final PSA >0.1 ng/mL or a PSA level >0.5 ng/mL. Group C: BCR with radical curative radiotherapy or brachytherapy at least three months prior to enrolment, and an increase in PSA level >2.0 ng/mL above the nadir level after radiotherapy or brachytherapy. Patients underwent evaluation with PET/CT 60 minutes following intravenous administration of 160±30 MBq of 68Ga-THP PSMA. Safety was assessed by means including vital signs, cardiovascular profile, serum haematology, biochemistry, urinalysis, PSA, and Adverse Events (AEs). A change in management was reported when the predefined clinical management of the patient altered as a result of 68Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT findings. Results: Forty-nine patients were evaluated with PET/CT; 20 in Group A, 21 in Group B and 8 in Group C. No patients experienced serious AEs discontinued the study due to AEs, or died during the study. Two patients had Treatment Emergent AEs attributed to 68Ga-THP-PSMA (pruritus in one patient and intravenous catheter site rash in another). Management change secondary to PET/CT occurred in 42.9% of all patients; 30% in Group A, 42.9% in Group B and 75% in Group C. Conclusion:68Ga-THP PSMA was safe to use with no serious AE and no AE resulting in withdrawal from the study. 68Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT changed the management of patients in 42.9% of the study population, comparable to studies using other PSMA tracers. These data form the basis of a planned Phase III study of 68Ga-THP PSMA in patients with prostate cancer.

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.

Organisational surveys are a critical process to assess the configuration and availability of services within health care systems. Cancer service organizational surveys enable understanding of variation in structure, processes and outcomes of cancer care according to the availability of facilities and their geographical organisation. This is critical for evaluating the delivery of cancer care services across a specified region. Furthermore, the organisational survey provides essential information about patient support services which can be used to inform patients where particular allied health services are available. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) is an audit of all prostate cancer services in England and Wales. The NPCA encompasses all prostate cancer diagnostics, treatments (including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy) and allied services. The NPCA conducted an organisational survey in 2021 via an online questionnaire sent to the prostate cancer clinical leads within each of the 138 NHS providers and we had a response rate of 93 %. There are many challenges to conducting an organisational survey and gaining a high completion rate is still difficult. The challenges that the NPCA faced included accuracy, completion, duplicates and discrepancies in responses. From this experience, we have developed some suggestions for the practical delivery and development of future organisational surveys. It was thanks to the use of many of these strategies, and the engagement of clinicians with the NPCA, that we were able to achieve such a high response rate. Despite these challenges, the importance of organisational surveys of cancer services is demonstrated by the better understanding of structure, processes and outcomes of cancer care according to the accessibility of facilities and their geographical organisation. This is essential for evaluating and improving the delivery of cancer care services across a region.

Radiolabelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based PET-CT has been shown in numerous studies to be superior to conventional imaging in the detection of nodal or distant metastatic lesions.

To develop and validate a coding framework to identify interventions for upper tract obstructive uropathy (UTOU) in men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) using administrative hospital data to assess clinical outcomes. There are no population-based studies on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of this complication.Patients newly diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and March 2019 were identified in the English cancer registry. A coding framework based on procedure (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures fourth edition) and diagnostic (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition) codes was developed and validated. Subsequent clinical outcomes were determined using Hospital Episodes Statistics to determine the utility of the intervention.A total of 77 010 patients newly diagnosed with locally advanced, and 30 083 patients with metastatic PCa were identified. Of these, 1951 (1.8%) patients underwent an intervention for UTOU according to our coding framework: 830 (42.5%) had locally advanced disease and 1121 (57.5%) had metastatic disease. In all, 844 (43.3%) had a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), 473 (24.2%) had a PCN with antegrade stent, and 634 (32.5%) had a retrograde stent. The mean follow-up was 43.2 months. The cumulative incidence of the use of these interventions at 1, 3, and 5 years was 2.5%, 3.6% and 4.2% in men with metastases compared to 0.5%, 0.9% and 1.4% in men with locally advanced disease.A new coding framework, developed to identify procedures for UTOU was applied in the largest study to date of UTOU in men with primary locally advanced and metastatic PCa. Results demonstrated that 2% of men with locally advanced PCa and 4% of men with metastatic PCa require an intervention to resolve UTOU within 5 years of their PCa diagnosis.

Background\ud \ud Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete.\ud \ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8–10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1–7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference −2·4% [95% CI −4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening.\ud \ud \ud \ud Interpretation\ud \ud Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis.\ud \ud \ud \ud Funding\ud \ud Cancer Research UK.

Purpose\ud\udEarly and accurate localization of lesions in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer may guide salvage therapy decisions. The present study, 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in biochemicAL reCurrence Of Prostate caNcer (FALCON; NCT02578940), aimed to evaluate the effect of 18F-fluciclovine on management of men with BCR of prostate cancer.\udMethods and Materials\ud\udMen with a first episode of BCR after curative-intent primary therapy were enrolled at 6 UK sites. Patients underwent 18F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) according to standardized procedures. Clinicians documented management plans before and after scanning, recording changes to treatment modality as major and changes within a modality as other. The primary outcome measure was record of a revised management plan postscan. Secondary endpoints were evaluation of optimal prostate specific antigen (PSA) threshold for detection, salvage treatment outcome assessment based on 18F-fluciclovine-involvement, and safety.\udResults\ud\ud18F-Fluciclovine was well tolerated in the 104 scanned patients (median PSA = 0.79 ng/mL). Lesions were detected in 58 out of 104 (56%) patients. Detection was broadly proportional to PSA level; ≤1 ng/mL, 1 out of 3 of scans were positive, and 93% scans were positive at PSA >2.0 ng/mL. Sixty-six (64%) patients had a postscan management change (80% after a positive result). Major changes (43 out of 66; 65%) were salvage or systemic therapy to watchful waiting (16 out of 66; 24%); salvage therapy to systemic therapy (16 out of 66; 24%); and alternative changes to treatment modality (11 out of 66, 17%). The remaining 23 out of 66 (35%) management changes were modifications of the prescan plan: most (22 out of 66; 33%) were adjustments to planned brachytherapy/radiation therapy to include a 18F-fluciclovine-guided boost. Where 18F-fluciclovine guided salvage therapy, the PSA response rate was higher than when 18F-fluciclovine was not involved (15 out of 17 [88%] vs 28 out of 39 [72%]).\udConclusions\ud\ud18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT located recurrence in the majority of men with BCR, frequently resulting in major management plan changes. Incorporating 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT into treatment planning may optimize targeting of recurrence sites and avoid futile salvage therapy.

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.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term. RESULTS: We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

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.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83–97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45–92%), 94% (95% CI 86–98%), and 65% (95% CI 38–86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88–98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7–35%), 80% (95% CI 73–87%), and 46% (95% CI 19–75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18–36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54–75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life.

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...

Background Cancer stage can be missing in national cancer registry records. We explored whether missing prostate cancer stage can be imputed using specific clinical assumptions. Methods Prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2013 were identified in English cancer registry data and linked to administrative hospital and mortality data (n = 139,807). Missing staging items were imputed based on specific assumptions: men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage have no distant metastases (M0); low/intermediate-risk men with missing N- and/or M-stage have no nodal disease (N0) or metastases; and high-risk men with missing M-stage have no metastases. We tested these clinical assumptions by comparing 4-year survival in men with the same recorded and imputed cancer stage. Multi-variable Cox regression was used to test the validity of the clinical assumptions and multiple imputation. Results Survival was similar for men with recorded N-stage but missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (89.5% vs 89.6%); for low/intermediate-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0 (92.0% vs 93.1%); and for low/intermediate-risk men with missing N-stage and corresponding men with N0 (90.9% vs 93.7%). However, survival was different for high-risk men with missing M-stage and corresponding men with M0. Imputation based on clinical imputation performs as well as statistical multiple imputation. Conclusion Specific clinical assumptions can be used to impute missing information on nodal involvement and distant metastases in some patients with prostate cancer.

Aim To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. Methods An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG). Results Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers. Conclusions The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.

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.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the accuracy and completeness of surgeon-reported radical prostatectomy outcome data across a national health system by comparison with a national dataset gathered independently from clinicians directly involved in patient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data submitted by surgeons to the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit for all men undergoing radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2016 were assessed by cross linkage to the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Specific data items collected in both databases were selected for comparison analysis. Data completeness and agreement were assessed by percentages and Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS Data from 4707 men in the BAUS and NPCA databases were matched for comparison. Compared with the NPCA, dataset completeness was higher in the BAUS dataset for type of nerve-sparing procedure (92% vs 42%) and postoperative margin status (89% vs 48%) but lower for readmission (87% vs 100%) and Charlson score (80% vs 100%). For all other variables assessed completeness was comparable. Agreement and data reliability were high for most variables. However, despite good agreement, the inter-cohort reliability was poor for readmission, M stage and Charlson score (κ < 0.30). CONCLUSIONS For the first time in urology we show that surgeon-reported data from the BAUS radical prostatectomy audit can reliably be used to benchmark peri-operative radical prostatectomy outcomes. For comorbidity data, to assist with risk analysis, and longer-term outcomes, NPCA routinely collected data provide a more comprehensive source.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer. METHODS A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative. RESULTS 19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P = .01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P < .001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT). CONCLUSION The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation.

Aim To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group. Results All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease. Conclusion All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.

Objectives\ud To establish current uro‐oncology practice in the management of sexual dysfunction (SD) following radiotherapy (RT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat prostate cancer. To identify differences in approach to the management of SD according to disease stage.\ud \ud Subjects and methods\ud A 14‐question mixed methods survey was designed to assess the current UK practice. Closed‐ and open‐ended questions were used to quantify results while allowing participants to expand on answers. The survey was distributed to members of the British Uro‐Oncology Group at the 2019 annual meeting.\ud \ud Results\ud Surveys were completed by 63 uro‐oncologists attending the annual meeting of the British Uro‐Oncology Group (response rate 66%). The major issue highlighted was a difference in approach to managing SD according to disease stage. More than half of the participants (56%) said ‘advanced stage of disease’ was a barrier to discussing SD. Clinicians were less likely to discuss SD, take baseline assessments, refer to a specialist clinic or offer rehabilitation when dealing with patients with advanced disease. Only a minority said that the management of SD was primarily their responsibility (11%). Nearly all clinicians (92%) had access to SD clinics; however, the majority of clinicians did not routinely refer patients.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud This study shows that men with advanced prostate cancer need better support in managing SD. Patients receiving long‐term ADT are less likely to be offered any kind of help or intervention. Specific guidance on managing SD in this cohort may result in improvements in sexual function, emotional well‐being, quality of life, mental health and confidence.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is one of the main treatments for prostate cancer. Short-term ADT of between 6 months and 3 years is often used in combination with radiotherapy to treat localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. Permanent or intermittent ADT is used to treat metastatic disease. Hot flushes affect 44-80% of men undergoing ADT for prostate cancer, with around 27% saying they are the most distressing side effect.1 A recent UK survey found 30.7% of men treated with ADT reported moderate or major problems with hot flushes.2 Low testosterone levels are thought to cause dysfunction in thermoregulation in the hypothalamus, resulting in peripheral vasodilatation.3 Symptoms include a feeling of warmth, flushing of the skin, perspiration, chills, anxiety and palpitations. A variety of treatments have been evaluated and there is evidence of efficacy for several of them, however they all have additional side effect profiles. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and European Association of Urology recommend offering medroxyprogesterone or cyproterone acetate.4-5 NICE has said there is currently a lack of evidence to support the use of complementary therapies. Addressing the side-effects of cancer treatment is one of the top ten Living with and Beyond Cancer research priorities established by the National Cancer Research Institute. However, there is little evidence on the standard of care that UK clinicians offer to men suffering with hot flushes.

Our objectives were to assess the safety and clinical impact of a novel, kit-based formulation of (68)Ga-tris(hydroxypyridinone) ((68)Ga-THP) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for PET/CT in guiding the management of patients with prostate cancer. Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited to group A (high-risk untreated prostate cancer; Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > 20 ng/mL or clinical stage > T2c), group B (biochemical recurrence and eligible for salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy with 2 consecutive rises in PSA with a 3-mo interval between reads and a final PSA level > 0.1 ng/mL or a PSA level ≥ 0.5 ng/mL), or group C (biochemical recurrence with radical curative radiotherapy or brachytherapy at least 3 mo before enrollment, and an increase in PSA level > 2.0 ng/mL above the nadir level after radiotherapy or brachytherapy). Patients underwent evaluation with PET/CT 60 min after intravenous administration of 160 ± 30 MBq of (68)Ga-THP PSMA. Safety was assessed through vital signs, cardiovascular profile, serum hematology, biochemistry, urinalysis, PSA, and adverse events (AEs). A change in management was reported when the predefined clinical management of the patient was altered as a result of the (68)Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT findings. Results: Forty-nine patients were evaluated with PET/CT: 20 in group A, 21 in group B, and 8 in group C. No patients experienced serious AEs, discontinued the study because of AEs, or died during the study. Two patients had treatment-emergent AEs attributed to (68)Ga-THP PSMA (pruritus in one patient and a rash at the intravenous catheter site in another). A management change secondary to the PET/CT findings occurred in 42.9% of all patients: 30% in group A, 42.9% in group B, and 75% in group C. Conclusion: (68)Ga-THP PSMA was safe to use, with no serious AEs and no AEs resulting in withdrawal from the study. (68)Ga-THP PSMA PET/CT changed the management of 42.9% of the study population, comparable to studies using other PSMA tracers. These data form the basis of a planned phase III study of (68)Ga-THP PSMA in patients with prostate cancer.