Tag Archive for: Article of the Week

You are here: / Article of the Week

Posts

Video: Hypogonadism and testosterone-enhancing therapy on alkaline phosphatase and BMD

/by

The effect of hypogonadism and testosterone-enhancing therapy on alkaline phosphatase and bone mineral density

Ali A. Dabaja, Campbell F. Bryson, Peter N. Schlegel and Darius A. Paduch

 

Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship of testosterone-enhancing therapy on alkaline phosphatase (AP) in relation to bone mineral density (BMD) in hypogonadal men.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 140 men with testosterone levels of <350 ng/dL undergoing testosterone-enhancing therapy and followed for 2 years. Follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, free testosterone, total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, calcium, AP, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were analysed. A subgroup of 36 men with one DEXA scan before and one DEXA 2 years after initiating treatment was performed.

RESULTS

Analysis of the relationship between testosterone and AP at initiation of therapy using stiff linear splines suggested that bone turnover occurs at total testosterone levels of <250 ng/dL. In men with testosterone levels of <250 ng/dL, there was a negative correlation between testosterone and AP (R2 = −0.347, P < 0.001), and no correlation when testosterone levels were between 250 and 350 ng/dL. In the subgroup analysis, the mean (sd) testosterone level was 264 (103) ng/dL initially and 701 (245), 539 (292), and 338 (189) ng/dL at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. AP decreased from a mean (sd) of 87 (38) U/L to 57 (12) U/L (P = 0.015), 60 (17) U/L (P < 0.001), and 55 (10) U/L (P = 0.03) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. The BMD increased by a mean (sd) of 20 (39)% (P = 0.003) on DEXA.

CONCLUSION

In hypogonadal men, the decrease in AP is associated with an increase in BMD on DEXA testing. This result suggests the use of AP as a marker of response to therapy.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Month: Is there an anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome with enzalutamide?

/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the 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 accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is 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.

Is there an anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome with enzalutamide?

Alejo Rodriguez-Vida1, Diletta Bianchini2, Mieke Van Hemelrijck3, Simon Hughes1, Zafar Malik4, Thomas Powles5, Amit Bahl6, Sarah Rudman1, Heather Payne7, Johann de Bono2 and Simon Chowdhury1,*

1 Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, UK, 2 Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK, 3 King’s College London, Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, London, UK, 4 Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Bebington, UK, 5 St. Bartholomew’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, 6 University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK, 7 University College Hospital, London, UK

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To examine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after enzalutamide discontinuation to assess whether an antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome (AAWS) exists with enzalutamide.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 30 consecutive patients with metastatic prostate cancer who were treated with enzalutamide after docetaxel. Post-discontinuation PSA results were available for all patients and were determined at 2-weekly intervals until starting further anticancer systemic therapy. PSA withdrawal response was defined as a PSA decline by ≥50% from the last on-treatment PSA, with a confirmed decrease ≥3 weeks later. Patient characteristics were evaluated in relation to the AAWS using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median (range) patient age was 70.5 (56–86) years and the median (range) follow-up was 9.0 (0.5–16) months. The most common metastatic sites were the bone (86.7%) and lymph nodes (66.7%). Most patients (70%) had previously received abiraterone and 12 patients (40%) had also received cabazitaxel. The median (range) treatment duration with enzalutamide was 3.68 (1.12–21.39) months. PSA levels after enzalutamide withdrawal were monitored for a median (range) time of 35 (10–120) days. Only one patient (3.3%) had a confirmed PSA response ≥50% after enzalutamide discontinuation. One patient (3.3%) had a confirmed PSA response of between 30 and 50% and another patient (3.3%) had an unconfirmed PSA response of between 30 and 50%. The median overall survival was 15.5 months (95% CI 8.1–24.7). None of the factors analysed in the univariate analysis were significant predictors of PSA decline after enzalutamide discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study provides the first evidence that enzalutamide may have an AAWS in a minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm the existence of an enzalutamide AAWS and to assess its relevance in prostate cancer management.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Enzalutamide withdrawal syndrome: is there a rationale?

/by

Enzalutamide is a second generation non-steroidal antiandrogen (AA), which significantly improved overall  survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after docetaxel (AFFIRM study), and OS and radiographic PFS before chemotherapy (PREVAIL study) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) [1].

Being a potent androgen receptor (AR) antagonist, an enzalutamide withdrawal syndrome (EWS) appeared unlikely [2,3]. In contrast with this position, and considering the well-known AR structural alterations in CRPC, very recent preclinical and clinical data support the possibility of the existence of an EWS after the discontinuation of this drug, in a castration-resistant setting.

In patients with mCRPC progressing on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), the AAWS, due to the interruption of first generation AAs (flutamide, bicalutamide, nilutamide, cyproterone acetate and megestrol acetate), often pursues as a further hormonal manipulation, although no level one studies supported its efficacy. AAWS leads to a PSA reduction in 15–30% of patients, with concomitant symptomatic relief and radiographic responses in some cases, without impacting on survival [1]. The molecular mechanisms of the AAWS are still unclear. One of the possible mechanisms responsible for the AAWS is the mutation of the AR. In vitro models showed that bicalutamide may switch from antagonist to agonist in LNCaP-cxD cell lines, due to an additional AR mutation in codon 741 during bicalutamide treatment [4]. Similarly, preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated that initially enzalutamide exerts its AR antagonist activity, but during the treatment enzalutamide potently induces an AR mutation, leading to the mutant ARF876L, which confers agonism to enzalutamide, and resistance to enzalutamide therapy [1]. In the clinical setting, the first evidence of possible EWS has begun to appear. Phillips [5] observed EWS in one patient, 40 days after enzalutamide discontinuation. Rodriguez-Vida et al. [1] showed EWS in three of 30 (10%) patients with mCRPC after the drug cessation, although none of the 17 factors examined were statistically significant predictors of PSA decline after enzalutamide interruption. Considering the clinical characteristics of the three patients showing EWS, interestingly all of them were aged <70 years, had Gleason score ≥7, had bone and/or lymph node metastases without visceral sites of disease, and had had previous treatments with bicalutamide and docetaxel. In all three patients, EWS seems to have no correlation with: prostate cancer staging at diagnosis (M0 vs M1), PSA value before enzalutamide, PSA decline on enzalutamide treatment, LHRH analogues and enzalutamide therapy duration. Similarly to bicalutamide WS, in all three patients no symptomatic improvement was recorded during EWS.
Focusing on patient 1, interestingly he displayed initially a PSA response during enzalutamide and later a further PSA decline plus radiological response after enzalutamide interruption (i.e. EWS), showing a sensitivity either to initial enzalutamide antagonism and to subsequent agonism, and exhibiting an EWS not preceded by a bicalutamide WS. This supports previous data concerning different AR mutations for the two different AAs, without subsequent clinical correlations between the two different AAWSs. A LHRH analogue duration treatment (5 months) shorter than a subsequent enzalutamide duration therapy (21.4 months) suggests different tumoral cells sensitivity to different ADTs, in different stages (hormone naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer), likely related to several AR structural alterations collected along the disease. Intriguingly, patient 3 discontinued enzalutamide after only 1.2 months, maybe due to primary resistance [6]; nevertheless, he showed a PSA
response after enzalutamide interruption, suggesting that EWS, characterised by the switch from enzalutamide antagonism to agonism, could occur even in prostate cancer patients primary resistant to this drug. Limitations of the two first clinical reports related to EWS include a restricted sample size, a reduced number of EWS events and a short duration of follow-up after enzalutamide discontinuation. Furthermore, preclinical studies on EWS and published data concerning AAWS described more frequently early stage mCRPC, while the two papers considered heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC, in whom EWS incidence could be reduced due to several previous treatments, which probably produced various AR alterations.

In conclusion, the preclinical models have demonstrated one possible plausible mechanism responsible for EWS and enzalutamide resistance. First clinical reports suggest the possibility of EWS in a minority of patients after enzalutamide discontinuation in mCRPC. Further studies are needed to confirm and detail the EWS, before translating these data into clinical practice.

Read the full article

Alessandra Mosca
Medical Oncology, ‘Maggiore della Carità’ University Hospital, Novara, Italy

References

1 Rodriguez-Vida A, Bianchini D, Van Hemelrijck M et al. Is there an antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome with enzalutamide? BJU Int 2015; 115: 373–80

2 von Klot CA, Kramer MW, Böker A et al. Is there an anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome for Enzalutamide? World J Urol 2014; 32: 1171–6

3 von Klot CA, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS. No androgen withdrawal syndrome for enzalutamide: a report of disease dynamics in the postchemotherapy setting. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 258–9

4 Hara T, Miyazaki J, Araki H, Yamaoka M, Kanzaki N, Kusaka M. Novel mutations of androgen receptor: a possible mechanism of bicalutamide withdrawal syndrome. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 149–53

5 Phillips R. An enzalutamide antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. Nat Rev Urol 2014; 11: 366

6 Efstathiou E, Titus M, Wen S et al. Molecular characterization of Enzalutamide-treated bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 53–60

 

Article of the Week: Testosterone Therapy and Cancer Risk

/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the 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 accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is 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.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Michael Eisenberg discussing his paper. 

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

Testosterone Therapy and Cancer Risk

Michael L. Eisenberg*†, Shufeng Li*‡, Paul Betts§, Danielle Herder, Dolores J. Lamb¶ and Larry I. Lipshultz

 

Departments of *Urology, †Obstetrics/Gynecology and ‡Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, §Cancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Cancer Registry, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX, and Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To determine if testosterone therapy (TT) status modifies a man’s risk of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Urology clinic hormone database was queried for all men with a serum testosterone level and charts examined to determine TT status. Patient records were linked to the Texas Cancer Registry to determine the incidence of cancer. Men accrued time at risk from the date of initiating TT or the first office visit for men not on TT. Standardised incidence rates and time to event analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In all, 247 men were on TT and 211 did not use testosterone. In all, 47 men developed cancer, 27 (12.8%) were not on TT and 20 (8.1%) on TT. There was no significant difference in the risk of cancer incidence based on TT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–1.9; P = 1.8). There was no difference in prostate cancer risk based on TT status (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.54–2.50).

CONCLUSION

There was no change in cancer risk overall, or prostate cancer risk specifically, for men aged >40 years using long-term TT.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Malignant medication? Testosterone and cancer

/by

Testosterone therapy (TTh) in men with hypogonadism is becoming more commonplace among urologists, endocrinologists and even primary practitioners. While the definition of hypogonadism remains a moving target, the literature reflects very clear benefits of TTh in appropriately selected patients. As with any drug, the adverse effect profile helps to dictate the risk:benefit ratio and, over the past several years, numerous, primarily retrospective, analyses have provided mixed insights into the impact of TTh on cardiovascular disease and cancer, specifically prostate cancer.

Eisenberg et al. [1] take a step back from the focus on prostate cancer and evaluate the impact of TTh on general cancer incidence in a cohort of men treated in a single, large-volume andrology practice over 20 years. The authors found no difference in either overall cancer incidence or in the prostate cancer incidence in men on TTh in comparison with men not on TTh. This finding is significant as it supports the hypothesis that testosterone does not harmfully affect either hormonally responsive (prostate cancer) or non-hormonally responsive malignancies. Interestingly, the authors also observe a lower rate of all cancers in men on testosterone therapy. While not statistically significant, this finding is consistent with that of at least one other study focused on prostate cancer, in which men with high-risk prostate cancer receiving exogenous testosterone had a lower recurrence rate than a matched control group [2]. If borne out in future studies, a protective relationship between TTh and cancer would indeed reflect a novel benefit of treatment.

Nevertheless, at this time the jury remains out on a definitive assessment of the effects of TTh on both cancer as well as cardiovascular disease, and will probably continue to do so until controlled, prospective studies are completed. Numerous, mostly retrospective studies have examined the effects of endogenous testosterone and of the administration of exogenous testosterone, primarily on prostate cancer. While the details of these studies are beyond the scope of the present editorial, their findings have varied with regard to whether testosterone does or does not have effects on cancer incidence, biopsy findings, grade, recurrence rates and margin status, preventing a clear perspective on the effects of testosterone on cancer. Similarly, studies evaluating the impact of TTh on cardiovascular disease have also widely varied in their conclusions [3, 4]. Several recent large retrospective studies have found a detrimental relationship between TTh and cardiovascular disease in specific male populations, but have come under withering criticism from the community, with significant doubts cast regarding the veracity of their findings [5, 6].

The growing popularity of TTh has subjected it to a level of scrutiny applied to few other medications, resulting in a slew of peer-reviewed publications of varying quality and conclusions. In the effort to safeguard patients, investigators have hurriedly carried out retrospective data evaluation, which, by design, limits compensation for confounding factors and unfortunately results in an overall murky understanding of long-term adverse events related to TTh. Nevertheless, the clinical benefits of TTh are clear, and many patients are satisfied with the results of treatment. While physicians should remain the stewards of patient care, informed consent and a patient’s acceptance of both the known as well as the unknown risks of testosterone treatment should continue to be an integral part of the initiation and continuation of TTh, until additional high-quality data from clinical trials become available in the coming years.

Read the full article
Alexander W. Pastuszak
Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

 

References

 

1 Eisenberg ML, Li S, Betts P et al. Testosterone therapy and cancer risk. BJU Int 2015; 115: 317–21

 

2 Pastuszak AW, Pearlman AM, Lai WS et al. Testosterone replacement therapy in patients with prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2013; 190: 639–44

 

3 Basaria S, Coviello AD, Travison TG et al. Adverse events associated with testosterone administration. NEnglJMed2010; 363: 109–22

 

4 Shores MM, Smith NL, Forsberg CW et al. Testosterone treatment and mortality in men with low testosterone levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97: 2050–8

 

5 Vigen R, O’Donnell CI, Baron AE et al. Association of testosterone therapy with mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in men with low testosterone levels. JAMA 2013; 310: 1829–36

 

6 Finkle WD, Greenland S, Ridgeway GK et al. Increased risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction following testosterone therapy prescription in men. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e85805

 

Video: Does TT status modify a man’s risk of cancer?

/by

Testosterone Therapy and Cancer Risk

Michael L. Eisenberg*†, Shufeng Li*‡, Paul Betts§, Danielle Herder, Dolores J. Lamb¶ and Larry I. Lipshultz

 

Departments of *Urology, †Obstetrics/Gynecology and ‡Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, §Cancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Cancer Registry, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX, and Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To determine if testosterone therapy (TT) status modifies a man’s risk of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Urology clinic hormone database was queried for all men with a serum testosterone level and charts examined to determine TT status. Patient records were linked to the Texas Cancer Registry to determine the incidence of cancer. Men accrued time at risk from the date of initiating TT or the first office visit for men not on TT. Standardised incidence rates and time to event analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In all, 247 men were on TT and 211 did not use testosterone. In all, 47 men developed cancer, 27 (12.8%) were not on TT and 20 (8.1%) on TT. There was no significant difference in the risk of cancer incidence based on TT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–1.9; P = 1.8). There was no difference in prostate cancer risk based on TT status (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.54–2.50).

CONCLUSION

There was no change in cancer risk overall, or prostate cancer risk specifically, for men aged >40 years using long-term TT.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Month: Indications for Intervention During Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the 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 accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is 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.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Max Kates discussing his paper. 

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

Indications for Intervention During Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of the Johns Hopkins and PRIAS Protocols

Max Kates, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Bruce J. Trock, Zhaoyong Feng, H. Ballentine Carter and Alan W. Partin
James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA
Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To analyse how patients enrolled in our biopsy based surveillance programme would fare under the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol, which uses PSA kinetics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since 1995, 1125 men with very-low-risk prostate cancer have enrolled in the AS programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH), which is based on monitoring with annual biopsy. The PRIAS protocol uses a combination of periodic biopsies (in years 1, 4, and 7) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) to trigger intervention. Patients enrolled in the JHH AS programme were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate how the use of the PRIAS protocol would alter the timing and use of curative intervention.

RESULTS

Over a median of 2.1 years of follow up, 38% of men in the JHH AS programme had biopsy reclassification. Of those, 62% were detected at biopsy intervals corresponding to the PRIAS criteria, while 16% were detected between scheduled PRIAS biopsies, resulting in a median delay in detection of 1.9 years. Of the 202 men with >5 years of follow-up, 11% in the JHH programme were found to have biopsy reclassification after it would have been identified in the PRIAS protocol, resulting in a median delay of 4.7 years to reclassification. In all, 12% of patients who would have undergone immediate intervention under PRIAS due to abnormal PSA kinetics would never have undergone reclassification on the JHH protocol and thus would not have undergone definitive intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

There are clear differences between PSA kinetics-based AS programmes and biopsy based programmes. Further studies should address whether and how the differences in timing of intervention impact subsequent disease progression and prostate cancer mortality.

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: How active should active surveillance be?

/1 Comment/by

 Many investigators, including those from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance project (PRIAS), have provided meaningful data to strongly support the increasing use of active surveillance (AS) across the world. There are a multitude of strategies to minimise excessive rates of prostate cancer over detection and overtreatment. After the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the single best is AS for appropriately selected men.

 For decades, the concept of not treating a prostate cancer in otherwise healthy men, even if low-grade and low-volume was typically considered nihilistic and heretical, particularly in the USA. Thankfully, data have largely made this line of thinking anachronistic. The era of sensibly applied AS is upon us, and single-institution series with intermediate-term follow-up are excellent, with exceedingly low rates of metastasis or cancer-related death. However, we await longer-term (>10 years) outcomes from the contemporary PSA screening era.

 The ‘success’ of AS is largely dependent on the entry criteria, follow-up strategies, and indications for curative intervention. Highly restrictive inclusion criteria, rigorous biopsy based follow-up and strict definitions of reclassification triggering treatment have produced superb outcomes. Critics appropriately argue these criteria exclude a significant proportion of men with a low rate of requiring treatment or having metastases, if allowed on AS. Conversely, other programmes with looser entry criteria, more lax follow-up, and relaxed indications for intervention will be more inclusive and have lower rates of immediate or delayed intervention but must be counterbalanced against the expected higher rate of metastases or death.

 The current study [1] evaluates two different AS follow-up strategies from JHU and PRIAS. In general, JHU uses annual biopsies with progression defined as a new PSA density >0.15 ng/mL/mL or increasing tumour volume or grade beyond a certain threshold, while PRIAS recommends less frequent biopsies (years 1, 4, and 7) while relying on serological (PSA doubling time, PSADT) alongside histological indicators for defining progression and recommending treatment.

 Not surprisingly, different strategies lead to varying expected outcomes. Among the JHU patients, 38% were reclassified at a median of 2.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the reclassified would have been identified at the PRIAS year 1 or triennial biopsies with 16% identified between PRIAS biopsies at a median delay of 1.9 years. The unanswerable but incredibly important question is whether this delay is essentially a non-issue, perhaps a favourable attribute (more AS time without compromising cure rates), or clinically disastrous (patients no longer curable).

 PRIAS relies heavily on PSA kinetics, which can be a double-edged sword. Among men in the JHU programme with >5 years follow-up, 11% would have delayed reclassification compared with PRIAS at a median time of 4.7 years. Additionally, 12% would have undergone intervention due to PRIAS-defined PSADT but not progressed based on the JHU protocol. It is convenient and perhaps intuitive that PSA kinetics should predict progression and meaningful clinical events for men on AS; however, the data from multiple studies have simply not supported this concept [2, 3].

 The JHU programme has restrictive entry rules compared with most other programmes, a rigorous biopsy based follow-up protocol, and strict criteria to treat, which is exactly why no metastasis or death have been reported among 769 men, some with up to 15 years follow-up[4]. Guidelines are needed but should not be overly prescriptive or rigid. For example, a surveillance biopsy showing a single core of Gleason 6 encompassing 60% of the total core or three cores of Gleason 6 with total cancer length of 3 mm would lead to a recommendation of treatment according to published JHU criteria. Many of us would not be phased with these biopsy reports and comfortably recommend ongoing AS.

 Data from AS series are very encouraging but it is highly likely we can do even better. For example, 10-year cancer-specific survival is 97% in the Sunnybrook AS experience and all five cancer-related deaths occurred in patients that would not meet most contemporary AS entry criteria [5, 6]. I am hopeful and confident that emerging data incorporating MRI imaging, serum biomarkers (e.g. prostate health index), or tissue-based biomarkers (e.g. Prolaris, Oncotype Dx) will provide us with a more comprehensive understanding of these men’s cancer such that tailored, evidence-based recommendations can be even more accurate.

 There is much yet to be learned about AS and this study [1] adds to our knowledge. Surveillance for prostate cancer is definitely active, but it is also dynamic and evolving.

Read the full article
Scott Eggener
Associate Professor of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

 

References

 

1 Kates M, Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Carter HB, Partin AW. Indications for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer:
a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocols. BJU Int 2015; 115: 216–22

 

2 Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1656–60

 

3 Fall K, Garmo H, Andrén O et al. Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. JNatlCancerInst2007; 99: 526–32

 

4 Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2185–90

 

5 Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126–31

 

6 Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol 2010; 184: 131–5

 

Video: Indications for Intervention During Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of the Johns Hopkins and PRIAS Protocols

/by

Indications for Intervention During Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of the Johns Hopkins and PRIAS Protocols

Max Kates, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Bruce J. Trock, Zhaoyong Feng, H. Ballentine Carter and Alan W. Partin
James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA
Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To analyse how patients enrolled in our biopsy based surveillance programme would fare under the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol, which uses PSA kinetics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since 1995, 1125 men with very-low-risk prostate cancer have enrolled in the AS programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH), which is based on monitoring with annual biopsy. The PRIAS protocol uses a combination of periodic biopsies (in years 1, 4, and 7) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) to trigger intervention. Patients enrolled in the JHH AS programme were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate how the use of the PRIAS protocol would alter the timing and use of curative intervention.

RESULTS

Over a median of 2.1 years of follow up, 38% of men in the JHH AS programme had biopsy reclassification. Of those, 62% were detected at biopsy intervals corresponding to the PRIAS criteria, while 16% were detected between scheduled PRIAS biopsies, resulting in a median delay in detection of 1.9 years. Of the 202 men with >5 years of follow-up, 11% in the JHH programme were found to have biopsy reclassification after it would have been identified in the PRIAS protocol, resulting in a median delay of 4.7 years to reclassification. In all, 12% of patients who would have undergone immediate intervention under PRIAS due to abnormal PSA kinetics would never have undergone reclassification on the JHH protocol and thus would not have undergone definitive intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

There are clear differences between PSA kinetics-based AS programmes and biopsy based programmes. Further studies should address whether and how the differences in timing of intervention impact subsequent disease progression and prostate cancer mortality.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Conventional laparoscopic surgery – more pain, no gain!

/by

Advances in surgical technology have revolutionized the way surgery is performed today. Conventional laparoscopic surgery dominated the surgical paradigm for several decades, until robot-assisted surgery created the next giant leap. In the pressent article, Elhage et al. [1] compare and correlate physical stress and surgical performances among three modes of a standardized surgical step. Their study shows the obvious physical strain and technical limitations faced while performing conventional laparoscopic surgery, subsequently leading to compromised surgical outcomes. The physical impact of conventional laparoscopic surgery has been well documented through surgeon feedback as well as ergonomic assessment [2, 3]. Various studies have reported that higher physical stress, associated with ergonomic limitations, is experienced when performing conventional laparoscopy compared to the comfort and ease of robot-assisted surgery, as highlighted in the present study. Increased workload has also been associated with performance errors, with a steep learning curve needed to achieve surgical excellence during conventional laparoscopy [4].

Currently, the use of robot-assisted surgery is on the rise, as an alternative to both open and conventional laparoscopic surgery across the developed world, despite its obvious economic limitations. Better ergonomics during robot-assisted surgery will increase the comfort of the surgeon, but the future of surgery may easily be linked to the improvements experienced by all of us in the automobile industry. Developments, from manual gear-clutch control to automatic speed control and the luxury of adaptive cruise control today, make us safe drivers with minimal physical stress. The concept of adaptive cruise control, which adjusts the speed of a vehicle in relation to its surroundings, sounds similar to the leap from manual camera control during conventional laparoscopy to console-based control during camera navigation in robot-assisted surgery. With advances in the speed and size of computers, pneumatic-based joint mechanics and mindfulness meditation on the horizon, it will not be long before surgeons will sit back and watch the marvel of the machine. Surgeons just need to learn to hold on to their seats!

Read the full article
Syed J. Raza*, Khurshid A. Guru† and Robert P. Huben†
*Fellow, †Endowed Professor of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology and A.T.L.A.S (Applied Technology Laboratory for Advanced Surgery) Program, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA

 

References

 

1 Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P. An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison among robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 2015; 115: 274–281

2 Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM. The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

J Robotic Surg 2012; 6: 65–723 Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K, Meyer JP, Felblinger J, Hubert J. Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9:142–147

4 Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc 2010; 5: 267–271

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.