Tag Archive for: #PCSM

You are here: / #PCSM

Posts

Article of the month: Mortality after radical prostatectomy in a matched contemporary cohort in Sweden compared to the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 study

/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. 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.

 

Mortality after radical prostatectomy in a matched contemporary cohort in Sweden compared to the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG‐4) study

Walter Cazzaniga*†‡, Hans Garmo§¶, David Robinson**, Lars Holmberg‡, Anna Bill-Axelson‡ and Pär Stattin‡
 
 
*Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, †University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy, ‡Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, §Regional Cancer Centre Uppsala Örebro, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden, Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, King’s College London, London, UK, and **Department of Urology, Ryhov Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden
 

 

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate if results in terms of absolute risk in mature randomised trials are relevant for contemporary decision‐making. To do so, we compared the outcome for men in the radical prostatectomy (RP) arm of the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study number 4 (SPCG‐4) randomised trial with matched men treated in a contemporary era before and after compensation for the grade migration and grade inflation that have occurred since the 1980s.

Patients and Methods

A propensity score‐matched analysis of prostate cancer mortality and all‐cause mortality in the SPCG‐4 and matched men in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden treated in 1998–2006 was conducted. Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer mortality and all‐cause mortality was calculated. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a matching on original Gleason Grade Groups (GGG) and second, matching with GGG increased one unit for men in the NPCR.

 
Figure 1: Cumulative incidence of prostate cancer mortality (PCM) and all‐cause mortality (ACM) in the SPCG‐4 and the NPCR of Sweden. FU, follow‐up after date of diagnosis or primary treatment. A and B based on original GGG. C and D based on upgraded GGG classification in the NPCR with an increase of one grade in GGG.

Results

Matched men in the NPCR treated in 2005–2006 had half the risk of prostate cancer mortality compared to men in the SPCG‐4 (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19–1.14). In analysis of men matched on an upgraded GGG in the NPCR, this difference was mitigated (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36–1.47).

Conclusion

Outcomes after RP for men in the SPCG‐4 cannot be directly applied to men in the current era, mainly due to grade inflation and grade migration. However, by compensating for changes in grading, similar outcomes after RP were seen in the SPCG‐4 and NPCR. In order to compare historical trials with current treatments, data on temporal changes in detection, diagnostics, and treatment have to be accounted for.

Read more Articles of the week

Editorial: Are historical studies relevant in the setting of grade migration?

/by

While randomized controlled trials are the ‘gold standard’ for comparative effectiveness research, it is important that they be taken in context of their limitations. This is especially true in surgical trials for prostate cancer. For one, factors such as blinding and allocation concealment are often impossible in surgery, and surgeon skill may have a large impact [1]. What is more, it can take over a decade before interventions yield detectable differences in prostate cancer survival. Consequently, shifts in diagnosis and management may make historical clinical trial findings less useful for contemporary patients. For example, the landmark Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study number 4 (SPCG‐4) showed a survival benefit for men treated with radical prostatectomy rather than observation during the 1989–1999 time period [2] but management in the study differed from contemporary practice as, in the 1990s, strict ‘active surveillance’ protocols did not exist.

In addition to shifts in management, men diagnosed with prostate cancer today differ from those diagnosed in previous decades. This was shown by Dalela et al. [3] who compared registry‐based data from the USA with data on patients enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation (PIVOT) trial, and found significant differences between the two cohorts.

In a similar vein, Cazzaniga et al. [4] designed an elegant study to assess the generalizability of the SPCG‐4 to contemporary cohorts of men with prostate cancer. They focused on histological grading and compared the natural history of men in the SPCG‐4 study to men in similar grade categories diagnosed approximately one decade later in Sweden.

The contemporary cohort was made up of men with localized prostate cancer drawn from the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR). Men in the NPCR diagnosed in 2005–2006 had lower prostate cancer‐specific and all‐cause mortality compared to men with similar grade cancer in the SPCG‐4 (hazard ratios 0.46, 95% CI 0.19–1.14, and 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.95, respectively). While some of the observed differences in survival may have been attributable to improved treatments, Cazzaniga et al. hypothesized that grade migration was to blame.

As expected, the authors found a shift in Gleason grading, with a decrease in Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1 disease, corresponding to a historical score of Gleason 3 + 3 = 6, and a concurrent increase in GGG2 and GGG3 disease, corresponding to historical scores of 3 + 4 = 7 and 4 + 3 = 7, respectively. Importantly, these differences in prostate cancer‐specific and all‐cause mortality were mitigated after compensating for grade migration by increasing GGG by one for the NPCR group; in other words, men in the SPCG‐4 treated in the 1990s had similar prostate cancer‐specific and all‐cause mortality to men in a later period with a one‐unit higher GGG.

Grade migration has been a gradual process, which was hastened by the major 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology revision that recategorized some Gleason patterns from 3 to 4. Changes in 2014 further refined these, and the concept of grade groups was introduced by Epstein two years later. Older cases of Gleason score 6 cancer include histological patterns, such as cribriform and poorly formed glands, which today would be considered Gleason pattern 4.

Grade migration was also demonstrated by Danneman et al. [5] who analysed the Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies from the NPCR in Sweden for the period 1998–2011. There was an increasing incidence of low‐risk cancer (cT1 20% in 1998 to 51% in 2011) and a concurrent decrease in high‐risk cancers (cT3 29% to 16%), reflecting earlier detection. With earlier diagnosis from screening, one would expect a shift towards lower grades at diagnosis, but they found the opposite. Among low‐risk tumours (stage cT1 and PSA 4–10 ng/mL) the proportion of Gleason score 7–10 increased from 16% to 40%. Among high‐risk tumours (stage cT3 and PSA 20–50 ng/mL) the proportion of Gleason 7–10 increased from 65% to 94%.

Gleason score reclassification was also addressed by Albertsen et al. [6], who had prostate biopsy slides for the period 1990 to 1992 re‐reviewed by an experienced pathologist in 2002–2004. They found an upward shift in Gleason grading, with 55% of the samples upgraded, 14% downgraded, and 31% unchanged. Comparing matched cohorts of historical vs contemporary patients with prostate cancer, one might erroneously infer better survival. This illusory change in prognosis is known as the ‘Will Rogers phenomenon’.

While randomized trials such as the SPCG‐4 represent one of the highest levels of clinical evidence, it is important to keep in mind that these trials have limitations. Given the interval changes in grading criteria for prostatic adenocarcinoma, predicting clinical outcomes based on historical cohorts is rarely as simple as it may seem. While the fundamental conclusions of the SPGC‐4 remain valid, the finding that Gleason grade did not modify the effect of prostatectomy on survival is now less certain. Physicians should therefore use caution when inferring prognosis based on those results.

Cazzaniga et al. should be congratulated for this important work which will help physicians better counsel patients making decisions based on trials like the SPCG‐4.

References

  1. Trinh QD, Cole AP, Dasgupta P. Weighing the evidence from surgical trials. BJU Int 2017; 119: 659–60
  2. Bill‐Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708–17
  3. Dalela D, Karabon P, Sammon J et al. Generalizability of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) results to contemporary North American men with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 511–4
  4. Cazzaniga W, Garmo H, Robinson D, Holmberg L, Bill‐Axelson A, Stattin P. Mortality after radical prostatectomy in a matched contemporary cohort in Sweden compared to the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 (SPCG‐4) study. BJU Int 2019; 123: 421–8
  5. Danneman D, Drevin L, Robinson D, Stattin P, Egevad LJ. Gleason inflation 1998–2011: a registry study of 97,168 men. BJU Int 2015; 115: 248–55
  6. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1248–53C

 

Article of the week: Adjuvant radiation with androgen‐deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy

/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.

Adjuvant radiation with androgen‐deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases after radical prostatectomy: identifying men who benefit

Mohit Gupta*, Hiten D. Patel*, Zeyad R. Schwen*, Phuoc T. Tran*† and Alan W. Partin*

 

*Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, and †Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences and Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To perform a comparative analysis of three current management strategies for patients with lymph node metastases (LNM; pN1) following radical prostatectomy (RP): observation, androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + ADT.

Patients and Methods

Patients with LNM after RP were identified using the National Cancer Database (2004–2013). Exclusion criteria included any use of radiation therapy or ADT before RP, clinical M1 disease, or incomplete follow‐up data. Patients were categorised according to postoperative management strategy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Kaplan–Meier curves and adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were employed. Sub‐analyses further evaluated patient risk stratification and time to receipt of adjuvant therapy.

Results

A total of 8 074 patients met the inclusion criteria. Postoperatively, 4 489 (55.6%) received observation, 2 065 (25.6%) ADT, and 1 520 (18.8%) ADT + EBRT. The mean (median; interquartile range) follow‐up was 52.3 (48.0; 28.5–73.5) months. Patients receiving ADT or ADT + EBRT had higher pathological Gleason scores, T‐stage, positive surgical margin rates, and nodal burden. Adjusted multivariable Cox models showed improved OS for ADT + EBRT vs observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.94; P = 0.008) and vs ADT (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.93; P = 0.007). There was no difference in OS for ADT vs observation (HR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87–1.18; P = 0.88). Findings were similar when restricting adjuvant cohorts for timing of adjuvant therapy. There was no difference in OS between groups for up to 2 549 (31.6%) patients lacking any of the following adverse features: ≥pT3b disease, Gleason score ≥9, three or more positive nodes, or positive surgical margin.

Conclusions

For patients with LNM after RP, the use of adjuvant ADT + EBRT improved OS in the majority of patients, especially those with adverse pathological features. Conversely, adjuvant therapy did not confer significant OS benefit in up to 30% of patients without high‐risk features, who may be managed with observation and forego the morbidity associated with immediate ADT or radiation.

Read more Articles of the week

Editorial: Postoperative radiation and hormonal therapy for men with node‐positive prostate cancer: a new standard?

/by

The best management strategy for men with pathologically node‐positive (pN+) prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been debated for decades [1]. In the 1990s, the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group (RTOG) initiated the RTOG 9608 trial to test the impact of radiotherapy (RT) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) in this setting. However, due to the rise in PSA screening and the practice of treating high‐risk prostate cancer with primary RT, the incidence of pN+ disease fell. Consequently, the trial closed due to poor accrual and the question faded in prominence. Today, both trends have reversed. PSA screening is less common and men with high‐risk prostate cancer are more frequently opting for RP. As such, physicians increasingly face the dilemma of pN+ disease. Guidelines provide little assistance, as they support everything from observation to multimodal treatment with RT and ADT. Patients and providers want to know, is there a standard treatment for all patients, and if not, how should one choose between such disparate options?

To answer these questions, one must start with the little randomised data that exist in this setting. The seminal trial by Messing et al. [1] randomised men with pN+ prostate cancer to ADT or observation with initiation of ADT after the development of symptomatic progression or distant metastases. ADT clearly improved overall survival and prostate cancer‐specific survival. However, critics noted the relatively poor outcomes in the observation group and the small sample size. Later, retrospective studies called the benefit of immediate ADT into question [2].

Against this backdrop, it is interesting that Gupta et al. [3] found the most common management approach in the USA National Cancer Database (NCDB) was observation rather than immediate ADT. Despite the randomised data, the cumulative side‐effects from lifelong ADT in a cohort of patients with no disease‐related symptoms and a median survival of well over 10 years are unappealing. Ultimately, many men do not appear to be willing to endure the diminished quality of life in exchange for a small improvement in quantity of life.

In contrast to the non‐curative nature of ADT, the possibility exists that the combination of postoperative RT and ADT could provide durable disease control, perhaps even without lifelong ADT. The data reported by Gupta et al. [3] in this edition of the BJUI provide support for this paradigm. These data add to a growing body of literature [4] that tells a consistent story with two common themes: (i) postoperative RT with ADT appears to be associated with improved survival in men with pN+ prostate cancer, and (ii) RT appears to convey the largest benefit to men with certain high‐risk pathological features. Should this body of literature lead us to eschew the old standard and advise observation for low‐risk men and RT with ADT for men at higher risk?

Before a new standard is declared, the limitations of retrospective population‐based research must be addressed. The authors performed a sophisticated analysis to reduce the impact of selection bias. However, due to the limitation of the available data, the authors were not able to account for possibly the most important variable: the postoperative PSA. One study showed that men with pN+ disease with a persistent PSA had an 8‐year clinical recurrence rate of 69% vs 12% for those with undetectable PSA [5].

It is likely that men with persistent PSA in the NCDB would have received immediate ADT with or without RT rather than observation. As such, one must be cautious of the similar survival between the observation and ADT group, especially in light of contradictory randomised data. That being said, it is reasonable for some men to conclude that the side‐effects of ADT outweigh the potential benefit, especially those with low‐risk features such as an undetectable postoperative PSA, low Gleason score, and limited lymph node involvement.

As RT with ADT appears superior to either observation or ADT alone, should more men receive RT? Probably. Of the men with high‐risk features, only 22% actually received postoperative RT. Should postoperative RT now be considered the standard for all men? Probably not. Whilst it appears that some men may indeed benefit from RT, the possibility of selection bias driving this result is real. Even if there is a true effect, identifying which patients harbour residual local disease, but do not already have subclinical distant metastatic disease is challenging. RT for all would lead to unnecessary side‐effects for men that would not benefit from the treatment. Ultimately, a randomised trial will be required to establish the benefit of RT and to define subgroups of men that may or may not benefit. Until then, we will continue to rely on excellent work like the accompanying paper from Gupta et al. [3] to identify men who may benefit from postoperative RT and ADT.

References

  1. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node‐positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1781–8
  2. Wong YN, Freedland S, Egleston B, Hudes G, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K. Role of androgen deprivation therapy for node‐positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 100–5
  3. Gupta M, Patel HD, Schwen ZR, Tran PT, Partin AW. Adjuvant radiation with androgen deprivation therapy for men with lymph node metastases following radical prostatectomy: identifying men who benefit. BJU Int 2019; 123: 252–60
  4. Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N et al. Impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on survival of patients with node‐positive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3939–47
  5. Bianchi L, Nini A, Bianchi M et al. The role of prostate‐specific antigen persistence after radical prostatectomy for the prediction of clinical progression and cancer‐specific mortality in node‐positive prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 1142–8

 

Article of the week: Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating ADT

/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, and a video produced by the authors. 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.

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

Dennis R. Taaffe*†‡, Daniel A. Galvão*†, Nigel Spry*§¶, David Joseph***, Suzanne K. Chambers*††‡‡§§, Robert A. Gardiner*¶¶***, Dickon Hayne†††‡‡‡, Prue Cormie§§§, David H.K. Shum††¶¶¶and Robert U. Newton*†‡****

 

*Exercise Medicine Research Institute, †School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, ‡School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, §Genesis CancerCare, Joondalup, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, **Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, ††Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, ‡‡Centre for Research in Cancer, Cancer Council, Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, §§Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, ¶¶Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, ***University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, †††UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, ‡‡‡Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, §§§Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, ¶¶¶Neuropsychology and Applied Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, and ****Institute of Human Performance, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

 

Read the full article

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.

Read more Articles of the week

 

Editorial: Daily exercise is daily medicine

/by

Memes such as #10000steps, #Fit4LIFE and Apple’s new #CloseYourRings demonstrate the mantra ‘exercise is medicine’, a cornerstone of modern medical advice. Taaffe et al. [1] in this issue of the BJUI discuss the value of exercise medicine – Immediate vs delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition.

Moving from anecdotal observation about exercise to actionable evidence has seen considerable progress recently. In the last 20 years, the biological rationale for the benefits of exercise through mechanisms of physiological adaptation has become better understood [2]. Benefits, comparable to some biopharma breakthroughs, have been demonstrated in cardiovascular, neurobiological and psychological health and disease. This is now equally true in oncology [3]. Researchers at the University of Glasgow in Scotland wanted to seek out out if glycerol could hydrate also as creatine and what would happen if they combined both ingredients. What they found was pretty astonishing! 24 participants were ran through a series of experiments over 7 days where they ingested either creatine or glycerol and where they ingested both glycerol plus creatine at an equivalent time. The researchers discovered the participants who took glycerol and creatine had almost 40% more fluid weight than the participants who only took creatine and nearly 50% more fluid than those that only took glycerol. Some people wonder if this fluid increase will have a “soft” look and therefore the answer is absolute not because the water increase from glycerol is usually within the blood. To be more precise it increases the quantity of plasma in your body. So if you would like to urge that hardcore, skin-tearing pump, combine them both in your pre-workout, shop stairmaster machines.

Since the stoma serves as a channel for the feces to be eliminated in the body, it is vital to maintain skin integrity surrounding it. Stoma skin barrier is being placed to the stoma to keep the ostomy bag kept in place. An ostomy bag is being connected to the barrier to collect body waste. Generally, ostomy procedure is being performed for greater efficiency during waste elimination. Most of these supplies are given as one package when you purchase it in pharmacies or medical stores.

In cancer surgery, it is intuitive that physical activity/exercise increases cardio‐respiratory fitness and the body’s adaption to physiological stress, hence reducing mortality and morbidity in the perioperative period. Buy Athletic Sports Tape Today for the best result in exercise and comfortable exercise.  Less obvious is how this phenomenon offers benefit to quality of life, morbidity, and survival. Recent understanding in biology helps link exercise and systemic fitness to cellular metabolism, immunological response, and mutagenesis. Discoveries in previously overlooked epigenetic, immunological, metabolic, and cell growth pathways; and more research, are leading to the inception of the new fields of metabolic oncology and exercise oncology [4]. There is a growing resource of therapeutic candidates in trials targeting novel metabolic pathways, induced also in exercise, improving cellular metabolic fitness to reduce the Warburg effect and immunosuppressive lactate in the tumour microenvironment [5]. Whether you’re a beginner or a seasoned lifter, there’s a workout plan for your goals. 

Several notable studies have looked at genetics, quantified cardio‐pulmonary measures of fitness, exercise pre‐habilitation/enhanced recovery, and survivorship programmes across many cancers including oesophageal, colorectal, and prostate cancer. The data suggest that exercise improves outcomes after surgery, quality of life, hospital admissions, progression‐free survival, and overall survival [6].

Prostate cancer is a special case often treated with androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), yet androgens are an essential factor in maintaining bone mineral density; muscle mass, as well as motivation to exercise/exercise capacity; and sexual health. Hormone chemotherapy compromises the key role of androgens in maintaining musculoskeletal health and fitness at a systemic and cellular level. This poses hazards. Aside from the longer term hope of targeted therapies to maintain exercise capacity with all of its biological adaptations, perhaps we can reduce some of the deleterious effects of ADT with exercise interventions. Together with behavioural, nutritional and pharmacological treatment pathways, we aim to augment the positive effect exercise brings to patients with prostate cancer, and patients with cancer more generally.

As our scientific understanding increases, it is clear that personalised, prescribed exercise pre‐habilitation is likely to become a ‘gold standard’ in oncology care. Many treatments may increase survival, but at a cost of quality of life; physical activity may not only extend life but may also enhance its quality. Pre‐habilitation warrants serious further study if it is to become widely adopted in practice. It is not simply about telling patients to keep active. As per the Silver and Baima [7] definition, it is ‘a process on the cancer continuum of care that occurs between the time of cancer diagnosis and the beginning of acute treatment, includes physical and psychological assessments that establish a baseline function level, identifies impairments, and provides targeted interventions that improve a patient’s health to reduce the incidence and the severity of current and future impairments’.

References

  1. Taaffe D, Galvão D, Spry N et al. Immediate versus delayed exercise in men initiating androgen deprivation: effects on bone density and soft tissue composition. BJU Int 2019; 123: 261–9
  2. Hojman P, Gehl J, Christensen JF, Pedersen BK. Molecular mechanisms linking exercise to cancer prevention and treatment. Cell Metab 2017; 27: 10–21
  3. Cormie P, Zopf EM, Zhang X, Schmitz KH. The impact of exercise and cancer: systematic review of the impact of exercise on cancer mortality, recurrence and treatment related side effects. Epidemiol Rev 2017; 39: 71–92
  4. Kinnaird A, Michelakis ED. Metabolic modulation of cancer: a new frontier with great translational potential. J Mol Med 2015; 93: 127–42
  5. Vander Heiden MG. Targeting cancer metabolism: a therapeutic window opens. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 671–84
  6. Thomas RJ, Holm M, Al‐Adhami A. Physical activity after cancer: an evidence review of the international literature. Br J Med Pract 2014; 7: 16–22
  7. Silver JK, Baima J. Cancer prehabilitation: an opportunity to decrease treatment‐related morbidity, increase cancer treatment options, and improve physical and psychological health outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 92: 715–27

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

Read the full article

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]

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.