Archive for category: Article of the Week

You are here: / Article of the Week

Video: Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation

/by

Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition

Abstract

Objectives

To examine whether it is more efficacious to commence exercise medicine in men with prostate cancer at the onset of androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) rather than later on during treatment to preserve bone and soft‐tissue composition, as ADT results in adverse effects including: reduced bone mineral density (BMD), loss of muscle mass, and increased fat mass (FM).

Patients and methods

In all, 104 patients with prostate cancer, aged 48–84 years initiating ADT, were randomised to immediate exercise (IMEX, n = 54) or delayed exercise (DEL, n = 50) conditions. The former consisted of 6 months of supervised resistance/aerobic/impact exercise and the latter comprised 6 months of usual care followed by 6 months of the identical exercise programme. Regional and whole body BMD, lean mass (LM), whole body FM and trunk FM, and appendicular skeletal muscle (ASM) were assessed by dual X‐ray absorptiometry, and muscle density by peripheral quantitative computed tomography at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months.

Results

There was a significant time effect (P < 0.001) for whole body, spine and hip BMD with a progressive loss in the IMEX and DEL groups, although lumbar spine BMD was largely preserved in the IMEX group at 6 months compared with the DEL group (−0.4% vs −1.6%). LM, ASM, and muscle density were preserved in the IMEX group at 6 months, declined in the DEL group at 6 months (−1.4% to −2.5%) and then recovered at 12 months after training. FM and trunk FM increased (P < 0.001) over the 12‐month period in the IMEX (7.8% and 4.5%, respectively) and DEL groups (6.5% and 4.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Commencing exercise at the onset of ADT preserves lumbar spine BMD, muscle mass, and muscle density. To avoid treatment‐related adverse musculoskeletal effects, exercise medicine should be prescribed and commenced at the onset of ADT.

View more videos

 

Residents’ podcast: Implementation of mpMRI technology for evaluation of PCa in the clinic

/by

Giulia Lane M.D. is a Fellow in Neuro-urology and Pelvic Reconstruction in the Department of Urology at the University of Michigan; Kyle Johnson is a Urology Resident in the same department.

In this podcast they discuss the following BJUI Article of the Month:

Implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging technology for evaluation of patients with suspicion for prostate cancer in the clinical practice setting

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the impact of implementing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion technology on biopsy and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates in men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa in the clinical practice setting.

Patients and Methods

We performed a review of 1 808 consecutive men referred for elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level between 2011 and 2014. The study population was divided into two groups based on whether MRI was used as a risk stratification tool. Univariable and multivariable analyses of biopsy rates and overall and clinically significant PCa detection rates between groups were performed.

Results

The MRI and PSA‐only groups consisted of 1 020 and 788 patients, respectively. A total of 465 patients (45.6%) in the MRI group and 442 (56.1%) in the PSA‐only group underwent biopsy, corresponding to an 18.7% decrease in the proportion of patients receiving biopsy in the MRI group (P < 0.001). Overall PCa (56.8% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (47.3% vs 31.0%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in the MRI vs the PSA‐only group. In logistic regression analyses, the odds of overall PCa detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–2.35; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.48–2.80; P < 0.001) were higher in the MRI than in the PSA‐only group after adjusting for clinically relevant PCa variables.

Conclusion

Among men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa, addition of MRI increases detection of clinically significant cancers while reducing prostate biopsy rates when implemented in a clinical practice setting.

Read the full article

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

 

Article of the month: Implementation of multiparametric MRI technology for evaluation of PCa in the clinic

/by

Every month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community, and a podcast produced by our current Resident Podcasters. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging technology for evaluation of patients with suspicion for prostate cancer in the clinical practice setting

Paras H. Shah*, Vinay R. Patel†, Daniel M. Moreira‡, Arvin K. George§, Manaf Alom*, Zachary Kozel, Vidhu Joshi*, Eran Ben-Levi**, Robert Villani**, Oksana Yaskiv††, Louis R. Kavoussi, Manish Vira, Carl O. Olsson‡‡ and Ardeshir R. Rastinehad†

 

*Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, †Department of Urology, Icahn Smith Institute for Urology, Northwell Health, New York, NY, ‡Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, §Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Department of Urology, Smith Institute for Urology, Northwell Health, **Department of Radiology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, ††Department of Pathology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, and ‡‡Integrated Medical Professionals, Melville, NY, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the impact of implementing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion technology on biopsy and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates in men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa in the clinical practice setting.

Patients and Methods

We performed a review of 1 808 consecutive men referred for elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level between 2011 and 2014. The study population was divided into two groups based on whether MRI was used as a risk stratification tool. Univariable and multivariable analyses of biopsy rates and overall and clinically significant PCa detection rates between groups were performed.

Results

The MRI and PSA‐only groups consisted of 1 020 and 788 patients, respectively. A total of 465 patients (45.6%) in the MRI group and 442 (56.1%) in the PSA‐only group underwent biopsy, corresponding to an 18.7% decrease in the proportion of patients receiving biopsy in the MRI group (P < 0.001). Overall PCa (56.8% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (47.3% vs 31.0%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in the MRI vs the PSA‐only group. In logistic regression analyses, the odds of overall PCa detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–2.35; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.48–2.80; P < 0.001) were higher in the MRI than in the PSA‐only group after adjusting for clinically relevant PCa variables.

Conclusion

Among men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa, addition of MRI increases detection of clinically significant cancers while reducing prostate biopsy rates when implemented in a clinical practice setting.

Read more Articles of the week

 

Editorial: Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: do clinical trial findings reflect real‐world practice?

/by

‘First, do no harm’; with this in mind, researchers in urology strive to minimize the burden of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. A promising tool in this arena is multiparametric (mp)MRI, which has been shown in a large‐scale randomized clinical trial to enhance the ability of prostate biopsy to detect clinically significant prostate cancer [1]. The extent to which findings from an idealized trial protocol extend to ‘real‐world’ clinical practice, however, remains largely unknown.

In this issue of BJUI, Shah et al. [2] aimed to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the impact of mpMRI‐guided biopsy on the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer in two large academic centres. The authors studied men with an elevated PSA presenting over a 3‐year span (2011–2014); 1020 men underwent mpMRI and 788 did not. Those in the MRI group had higher detection rates of both overall and clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as any Gleason score ≥7 on fusion or standard 12‐core TRUS biopsies, Gleason 6 with a lesion volume >0.5 cm3 volume on MRI, or Gleason 6 with >2 cores positive and/or >50% of any core involved with cancer on biopsy according to Epstein’s criteria, as well as a lower detection rate of clinically insignificant cancer.

The study provides timely implications for both patients and physicians, providing further insight into how findings from clinical trials [1,3] compare with real‐life practice. In fairness, the bulk of patients and clinicians do not follow strict study protocols for both decision‐making and interpretation of results, but rather assess very individual situations. A recent study by Bukavina et al. [4] showed that urologists and radiation oncologists largely perceive mpMRI guidance for targeted biopsies as valuable tools to improve prostate cancer stratification, but only a quarter of respondents reported implementation into their own clinical practice. This underlines some of the challenges of widespread implementation of mpMRI despite strong belief in its value.

Another strength of the study by Shah et al. is the exclusion of men who underwent mpMRI after negative biopsy in the PSA‐only group. This allows the isolation of the impact of mpMRI on downstream biopsy outcomes. A previous study that investigated targeted vs non‐targeted biopsies enrolled a cohort of men who all underwent mpMRI [5], which precludes any assessment of how mpMRI may impact the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Shah et al. [2] also astutely tracked detection rates of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. Since the process of diagnosing prostate cancer is not without morbidity, it is crucial to understand the extent to which mpMRI can prevent the diagnosis of clinically indolent cancers.

Important questions regarding the challenges of widespread implementation of mpMRI for prostate cancer detection remain unanswered by the study of Shah et al. The study participants were gathered from large academic centres with readily available equipment, infrastructure and physician expertise to maximize favourable detection outcomes; however, these results may not be representative of the community setting. Additionally, >20% of men who did not undergo mpMRI did not do so because of a lack of insurance approval. This may reflect socio‐economic differences between the groups and also relates to the high costs of mpMRI that make routine implementation difficult [6]. Lastly, the presented findings mostly apply to positive mpMRI scans; the number of underdiagnosed men with negative scans may only be speculated upon, given the lack of follow‐up data in this population. It remains fundamentally important to improve the management of men with elevated PSA levels and negative findings on MRI.

Nonetheless, the present study demonstrates that research findings find their way into clinical practice. In essence, we are doing well, but we can do better.

by Marieke J. Krimphove, Sean A. Fletcher and Quoc‐Dien Trinh

 

References

  1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI‐targeted or standard biopsy for prostate‐cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767–77
  2. Shah PH, Patel VR, Moreira DM et al. Implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging technology for evaluation of patients with suspicion for prostate cancer in the clinical practice setting. BJU Int 2019; 123: 239–45
  3. Ahmed HU, El‐Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‐parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–22
  4. Bukavina L, Tilburt JC, Konety B et al. Perceptions of prostate MRI and fusion biopsy of radiation oncologists and urologists for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from a national survey. Eur Urol Focus 2018; [Epub ahead of print]
  5. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR‐guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 22–9
  6. Kim SJ, Vickers AJ, Hu JC. Challenges in adopting level 1 evidence for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for prostate cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2018; [Epub ahead of print]

 

Article of the week: WATER II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes

/1 Comment/by

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

WATER II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes

Mihir Desai*, Mo Bidair†, Naeem Bhojani‡, Andrew Trainer§, Andrew Arther§, Eugene Kramolowsky, Leo Doumanian*, Dean Elterman**, Ronald P. Kaufman Jr.††, James Lingeman‡‡, Amy Krambeck‡‡, Gregg Eure§§, Gopal Badlani¶¶, Mark Plante***, Edward Uchio†††, Greg Gin†††, Larry Goldenberg‡‡‡, Ryan Paterson‡‡‡, Alan So‡‡‡, Mitch Humphreys§§§, Claus Roehrborn¶¶¶, Steven Kaplan****, Jay Motola**** and Kevin C. Zorn‡

 

*Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, †San Diego Clinical Trials, San Diego, CA, USA, ‡University of Montreal Hospital Centre, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada, §Adult Paediatric Urology and Urogynecology, P.C., Omaha, NE, Virginia Urology, Richmond, VA, USA, **University Health Network University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, ††Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, ‡‡Indiana University Health Physicians, Indianapolis, IN, §§Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA, ¶¶Wake Forest School of Medicine,Winston-Salem, NC, ***University of Vermont Medical Centre, Burlington, VT, †††VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA, ‡‡‡University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, §§§Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, ¶¶¶Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Centre, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX and ****Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To present early safety and feasibility data from a multicentre prospective study (WATER II) of aquablation in the treatment of symptomatic men with large‐volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

Between September and December 2017, 101 men with moderate‐to‐severe BPH symptoms and prostate volume of 80–150 mL underwent aquablation in a prospective multicentre international clinical trial. Baseline demographics and standardized postoperative management variables were carefully recorded in a central independently monitored database. Surgeons answered analogue scale questionnaires on intra‐operative technical factors and postoperative management. Adverse events up to 1 month were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee.

Results

The mean (range) prostate volume was 107 (80–150) mL. The mean (range) operating time was 37 (15–97) min and aquablation resection time was 8 (3–15) min. Adequate adenoma resection was achieved with a single pass in 34 patients and with additional passes in 67 patients (mean 1.8 treatment passes), all in a single operating session. Haemostasis was achieved using either a Foley balloon catheter placed in the bladder under traction (n = 98, mean duration 18 h) or direct tamponade using a balloon inflated in the prostate fossa (n = 3, mean duration 15 h). No patient required electrocautery for haemostasis at the time of the primary procedure. The mean length of stay after the procedure was 1.6 days (range same day to 6 days). The Clavien–Dindo grade ≥2 event rate observed at 1 month was 29.7%. Bleeding complications were recorded in 10 patients (9.9%) during the index procedure hospitalization prior to discharge, and included six (5.9%) peri‐operative transfusions.

Conclusions

Aquablation is feasible and safe in treating men with large prostates (80–150 mL). The 6‐month efficacy data are being accrued and will be presented in future publications (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03123250).

Read more Articles of the week

 

Editorial: Aquablating urological skills

/by

Waterjet Ablation Therapy for Endoscopic Resection of prostate tissue (WATER) II (80–150 mL) procedural outcomes by Desai et al. [1] in this issue of the BJUI, reports the results of a robotically controlled cavitating procedure in a multicentre prospective trial that may have wider implications than relief of prostatic hyperplasia causing obstruction.

Management of the large prostate (>80 mL) is often a challenge for many practicing Urologists and requires practice, constant development, and improvement in endoscopic skills. As a result, many differing approaches have been developed and honed, modifying and improving varied skills in the urologist’s armamentarium to equip them to tackle the large prostate. The traditional TURP is recommended only for prostates of 35–80 mL (European Association of Urology [EAU] guidelines 2015). Whilst there are some Urologists who have developed their TURP skills to tackle larger prostates [2], for most other urologists, other procedures have had to be developed to address the very large prostate (>80 mL). As the authors of the paper report, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) have evolved to enable treatment of the larger prostates endoscopically, but have limited penetrance due to the relatively significant learning curve and fellowship training requirements. Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) has good results but significant potential complications [3]. Robot‐assisted simple prostatectomy is being evaluated as another option [4], but requires an expensive robot and extensive training to develop the skill‐set required to perform the procedure. Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) also requires extensive training and experience.

The authors [1] report impressive results of aquablation in these usually challenging large prostates. The mean operative time (OT) was 37 min, which is quick for a large prostate. The average length of stay was 1.6 days. The transfusion rate (TR) was 5.9%, which is higher than HoLEP (0–4%) [4], but is lower than OSP, PVP and LSP. It is important to note that the study involved 16 different sites (13 American and three Canadian) and showed that similar results were achieved across all sites irrespective of the experience of the operator, highlighting the very low learning curve for this procedure. Although this was only a single‐arm study with no control group, the authors have endeavoured to provide a comparison of OT, mean hospital stay and TR between aquablation and other procedures (OSP, PVP, HoLEP and LSP; table 5) based on published literature. Complication rates, operative and hospital metrics of aquablation appear to compare favourably with the current accepted means of managing the large prostate.

The use of balloon tamponade for haemostasis appears to hark back to the days of hanging a saline bag attached to an Indwelling Catheter (IDC) off the end of the bed after a monopolar TURP. Bladder traction was maintained for an average of 18 h. The authors report that fulguration was available to the surgeons in this trial, but none chose to use it as they felt that balloon tamponade was an effective haemostatic mechanism. Fulguration was preferentially avoided based on the WATER trial [5], where it was noted that anejaculation rates were twice as large in the aquablation with fulguration compared to the aquablation without fulguration group (16% vs 7%). The company (PROCEPT BioRobotics, Redwood City, CA, USA) even developed a novel catheter tensioning device (CTD) to assist with controlling the tension on the balloon tamponade demonstrating the old adage that ‘Necessity is the mother of Invention’. It would be interesting to see an objective assessment of discomfort from the balloon tamponade in future studies.

The results of this safety and feasibility trial suggest that aquablation is a quick procedure (37 min) for managing very large prostates. The complication rate is comparable to current endoscopic techniques (HoLEP and PVP) and appears superior to more invasive techniques (LSP and OSP). This study only reported perioperative measures and safety outcomes. No functional outcome or effectiveness measures were reported. The initial WATER trial [5] hints at possible effectiveness, but we will have to wait to see the results from this particular cohort of patients with large prostates (WATER II).

The short learning curve hints at a possible future. If the functional results from this cohort of large prostates treated by the aquablation robot compare favourably to current techniques, the patient with the very large prostate will no longer be only treatable by a few surgeons with an advanced and particular skill set.

Is this truly a quick, safe, effective procedure with no learning curve for large prostates? A randomised controlled trial of longer duration to assess functional outcomes, durability and complications may determine if the aquablation robot eventually renders the current surgical skill sets redundant.

 

References

  1. Desai M, Bidair M, Bhojani N et al. Aquablation Procedural Outcomes for BPH in Large Prostates (80–150cc): Initial Experience. (WATER II {80‐150 ml} procedural outcomes). BJU Int 2019; 123: 106–12
  2. Persu C, Georgescu D, Arabagiu I, Cauni V, Moldoveanu C, Geavlete P. TURP for BPH. How large is too large? J Med Life 2010; 15: 376–80
  3. Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 2007; 177: 1419–22
  4. Pokorny M, Novara G, Geurts N et al. Robot‐assisted simple prostatectomy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic enlargement: surgical technique and outcomes in a high‐volume robotic centre. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 451–7
  5. Gilling PJ, Barber NJ, Bidair M et al. WATER: a double‐blind, randomized, controlled trial of aquablation® vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic enlargement. J Urol 2018; 5: 1252–61

 

Article of the week: Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: ‘real‐world’ consideration of results from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

/by

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. There is also a video produced by the authors describing the ‘real-world’ findings.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: ‘real‐world’ consideration of results from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

Edmund Chionga, Declan G. Murphyb,c, Hideyuki Akazad, Nicholas C. Buchane,f, Byung Ha Chungg, Ravindran Kanesvaranh, Makarand Khochikari, Jason Letranj, Bannakij Lojanapiwatk, Chi-fai Ngl, Teng Ongm, Yeong-Shiau Pun, Marniza Saado, Kathryn Schubachq, Levent Türkeris, Rainy Umbast, Vu Le Chuyenu, Scott Williamsv,r, Ding-Wei Yew, ANZUP Cancer Trials Groupx and Ian D. Davisy,z,r

 

aDepartment of Urology, National University Hospital, National University Health System Singapore, hDivision of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore, bDivision of Cancer Surgery, vDivision of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Melbourne, yMonash University, zEastern Health, Melbourne, cSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University Melbourne, Parkville, qAustralian New Zealand Urology Nurses (ANZUNS), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, rANZUP Cancer Trials Group, xLifehouse, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, Australia, dStrategic Investigation on Comprehensive Cancer Network, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, eCanterbury Urology Research Trust, fCanterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand, gDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, iSiddhi Vinayak Ganapati Cancer Hospital, Miraj, India, jSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines, kDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, lDepartment of Surgery, SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, wDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China, mDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, oDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, nDepartment of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, sDepartment of Urology, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey, tDepartment of Urology, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, and uDepartment of Urology, Binh dan Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

The Asia Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2018) brought together 20 experts from 15 APAC countries to discuss the real‐world application of consensus statements from the second APCCC held in St Gallen in 2017 (APCCC 2017).

Findings

Differences in genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet and culture are all likely to influence the management of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region when compared with the rest of the world. When considering the strong APCCC 2017 recommendation for the use of upfront docetaxel in metastatic castration‐naïve prostate cancer, the panel noted possible increased toxicity in Asian men receiving docetaxel, which would affect this recommendation in the APAC region. Although androgen receptor‐targeting agents appear to be well tolerated in Asian men with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer, access to these drugs is very limited for financial reasons across the region. The meeting highlighted that cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies are key factors influencing therapeutic decision‐making in the APAC region. Whilst lower cost/older treatments and technologies may be an option, issues of culture and patient or physician preference mean, these may not always be acceptable. Although generic products can reduce cost in some countries, costs may still be prohibitive for lower‐income patients or communities. The panellists noted the opportunity for a coordinated approach across the APAC region to address issues of access and cost. Developments in technologies and treatments are presenting new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Differences in genetics and epidemiology affect the side‐effect profiles of some drugs and influence prescribing.

Box 1: Management of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region: real‐world challenges in implementing the St Gallen APCCC recommendations.

  1. Differences in toxicity: safety data for docetaxel are not fully established in Asian men and concerns about the toxicity profile and risk of neutropaenia may influence prescribing.
  2. Disparities in access to imaging technology: variable access to imaging technology may limit prescribing according to precise definitions.
  3. Disparities in access and cost of treatment: availability and cost of treatments are the most significant factor influencing prescribing decisions in the region; lower‐cost alternatives are not always culturally acceptable, and informed choice is important.
  4. Variability in MDT approaches: the importance of multidisciplinary input to treatment recommendations is understood but MDTs are a challenge in some APAC countries; virtual MDT participation should be encouraged.
  5. Variability in demographics: genetics and epidemiology in Asian men with prostate cancer may result in different treatment responses; collaborative registry studies and trials in APAC populations are likely to be valuable.

Conclusions

As the field continues to evolve, collaboration across the APAC region will be important to facilitate relevant research and collection and appraisal of data relevant to APAC populations. In the meantime, the APAC APCCC 2018 meeting highlighted the critical importance of a multidisciplinary team‐based approach to treatment planning and care, delivery of best‐practice care by clinicians with appropriate expertise, and the importance of patient information and support for informed patient choice.

Read more Articles of the week

 

Editorial: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus on a regional level – what can we learn?

/by

In this issue of BJUI Chiong et al [1] present the results of the Asia Pacific (APAC) Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2018, during which the implications of the APCCC 2017 findings were discussed in the context of the APAC region. For background, it is important to understand the concept of the original APCCC and why it was initiated [1,2,3].

The consensus conference aims to target areas of controversy in the clinical management of advanced prostate cancer where evidence is either limited or lacking or where interpretation of evidence is controversial. The expert consensus aims to complement existing clinical practice guidelines that are mostly based on high‐level evidence. The APCCC’s most prominent aim is knowledge translation, in the sense of improving care of men with advanced prostate cancer worldwide who are treated outside of centres of excellence. During the original APCCC in St Gallen, where 61 prostate cancer experts and scientists were assembled, the majority of the consensus questions were discussed; these had been prepared prior to the conference under the idealistic assumption that all diagnostic procedures and treatments (including expertise in their interpretation and application) mentioned were readily available. These assumptions have been specifically chosen, because availability of systemic treatment options for advanced prostate cancer, access to next‐generation imaging (whole‐body MRI and positron‐emission tomography [PET]) and expertise in molecular techniques and interpretation of results vary widely across the world. The original global APCCC did not generally address regional or country‐specific situations, but APCCC 2017 did have a special session and also voting questions for treatment options in countries with limited resources. Importantly, consensus recommendations may even inform and influence regulatory authorities, for example, if a specific treatment is considered to be the best option by the majority of experts and availability in a certain country is lacking.

The APAC APCCC 2018 consisted of 20 experts (mostly urologists) from 15 countries and discussed the findings and voting results of five of the 10 APCCC 2017 topics. Whether or not Turkey should be considered an APAC country is unclear. The most relevant observations were as set out below:

  • There is huge variation in access to drugs used for treatment of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region. Australia and Hong Kong have access to almost all treatment options (notably cabazitaxel is not mentioned) compared with countries such as Vietnam or the Philippines, where there is limited availability of many compounds. Regarding imaging technologies (standard CT is not mentioned), there seems to be wide availability of next‐generation imaging such as whole‐body MRI and choline‐ or PSMA‐PET technologies; however, these imaging methods are often not reimbursed.
  • Pharmaco‐ethnic issues have so far not been considered by the original APCCC and the APAC report clearly highlights the need to address such issues. The higher toxicity of docetaxel in Asian men may influence treatment recommendations, especially in situations such as low‐volume metastatic castration‐naïve prostate cancer, where the role of early addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy is less clear.
  • The authors of the APAC meeting state that ketoconazole and bicalutamide are still widely used despite the proven superiority of enzalutamide vs bicalutamide. A possible reason for this is the lack of reimbursement in some APAC countries.
  • There is an obvious need for clinical trials in the APAC region because of variations in genetics, genomics, epidemiology and pharmaco‐ethnicity. Such trials may answer questions about toxicity/tolerability and also optimal use of resources in the context of economic limitations.

In summary, the APAC APCCC 2018 is an excellent example of how the global APCCC findings should be discussed and integrated on a regional or even country‐specific level. The authors are therefore to be congratulated for their efforts and for writing up the discussions. The next APCCC  (2019; apccc.org) will take up a number of points raised by the APAC meeting, namely, more panel experts from APAC countries and pharmaco‐ethnic topics.

References

  1. Edmund C, Declan GM, Hideyuki A et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: ‘real‐world’ consideration of results from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017. BJU Int 2019; 123: 22–34
  2. Gillessen S, Omlin A, Attard G et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 1589–604
  3. Gillessen S, Attard G, Beer TM et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: the report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 178–211

 

 

Video: APAC APCCC 2018

/1 Comment/by

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer in the Asia Pacific region: ‘real‐world’ consideration of results from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

The Asia Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2018) brought together 20 experts from 15 APAC countries to discuss the real‐world application of consensus statements from the second APCCC held in St Gallen in 2017 (APCCC 2017).

Findings

Differences in genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet and culture are all likely to influence the management of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region when compared with the rest of the world. When considering the strong APCCC 2017 recommendation for the use of upfront docetaxel in metastatic castration‐naïve prostate cancer, the panel noted possible increased toxicity in Asian men receiving docetaxel, which would affect this recommendation in the APAC region. Although androgen receptor‐targeting agents appear to be well tolerated in Asian men with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer, access to these drugs is very limited for financial reasons across the region. The meeting highlighted that cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies are key factors influencing therapeutic decision‐making in the APAC region. Whilst lower cost/older treatments and technologies may be an option, issues of culture and patient or physician preference mean, these may not always be acceptable. Although generic products can reduce cost in some countries, costs may still be prohibitive for lower‐income patients or communities. The panellists noted the opportunity for a coordinated approach across the APAC region to address issues of access and cost. Developments in technologies and treatments are presenting new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Differences in genetics and epidemiology affect the side‐effect profiles of some drugs and influence prescribing.

 

Conclusions

As the field continues to evolve, collaboration across the APAC region will be important to facilitate relevant research and collection and appraisal of data relevant to APAC populations. In the meantime, the APAC APCCC 2018 meeting highlighted the critical importance of a multidisciplinary team‐based approach to treatment planning and care, delivery of best‐practice care by clinicians with appropriate expertise, and the importance of patient information and support for informed patient choice.

View more videos

Article of the week: RS‐RARP vs standard RARP: it’s time for critical appraisal

/by

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there are two accompanying editorials written by prominent members of the urological community. These are intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. There is also a podcast by one of our Resident Podcasters describing the article.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Retzius‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RS‐RARP) vs standard RARP: it’s time for critical appraisal

Thomas Stonier*, Nick Simson*, John Davis† and Ben Challacombe‡

 

*Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, ‡Urology Centre, Guy ’s Hospital, London, UK and †Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article

Since robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) started to be regularly performed in 2001, the procedure has typically followed the original retropubic approach, with incremental technical improvements in an attempt to improve outcomes. These include the running Van‐Velthoven anastomosis, posterior reconstruction or ‘Rocco stitch’, and cold ligation of the Santorini plexus/dorsal vein to maximise urethral length. In 2010, Bocciardi’s team in Milan proposed a novel posterior or ‘Retzius‐sparing’ RARP (RS‐RARP), mirroring the classic open perineal approach. This allows avoidance of supporting structures, such as the puboprostatic ligaments, endopelvic fascia, and Santorini plexus, preserving the normal anatomy as much as possible and limiting damage that may contribute to improved postoperative continence and erectile function. There has been much heralding of the excellent functional outcomes in both the medical and the lay press, but as yet no focus or real mention of any potential downsides of this new technique.

Read more Articles of the week

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.