Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions Research Articles

MRI-Guided Targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsies as Prognostic Indicators for Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions.

The standard procedure for the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma involves the collection of 10-12 systematic biopsies (SBx) from both lobes. MRI-guided targeted biopsies (TBx) from suspicious foci increase the detection rates of clinically significant (cs) PCa. We investigated the extent to which the results of the TBx predicted the tumor board treatment decisions. SBx and TBx were acquired from 150 patients. Risk stratifications and recommendations for interventional therapy (prostatectomy and radiotherapy) or active surveillance were established by interdisciplinary tumor boards. We analyzed how often TBx alone were enough to correctly classify the tumors as well as to indicate interventional therapy and how often the findings of SBx were crucial for therapy decisions. A total of 28/39 (72%) favorable risk tumors were detected in TBx, of which 11/26 (42%) very-low-risk tumors were not detected and 8/13 (62%) low-risk tumors were undergraded. A total of 36/44 (82%) intermediate-risk PCa were present in TBx, of which 4 (9%) were underdiagnosed as a favorable risk tumor. A total of 12/13 (92%) high-risk carcinomas were detected and correctly grouped in TBx. The majority of csPCa were identified by the sampling of TBx alone. The tumor size was underestimated in a proportion of ISUP grade 1 tumors. Systematic biopsy sampling is therefore indicated for the next AS follow-up in these cases.

Explainable ML models for a deeper insight on treatment decision for localized prostate cancer

Although there are several decision aids for the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limitations in the consistency and certainty of the information provided. We aimed to better understand the treatment decision process and develop a decision-predicting model considering oncologic, demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors. Men newly diagnosed with localized PCa between 2010 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting database were included (n = 255,837). We designed two prediction models: (1) Active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW), radical prostatectomy (RP), and radiation therapy (RT) decision prediction in the entire cohort. (2) Prediction of AS/WW decisions in the low-risk cohort. The discrimination of the model was evaluated using the multiclass area under the curve (AUC). A plausible Shapley additive explanations value was used to explain the model’s prediction results. Oncological variables affected the RP decisions most, whereas RT was highly affected by geographic factors. The dependence plot depicted the feature interactions in reaching a treatment decision. The decision predicting model achieved an overall multiclass AUC of 0.77, whereas 0.74 was confirmed for the low-risk model. Using a large population-based real-world database, we unraveled the complex decision-making process and visualized nonlinear feature interactions in localized PCa.

Engaging disparities in prostate cancer: Piloting an interactive, virtual workshop to educate providers on shared decision-making for underserved populations

ObjectiveShared decision-making (SDM) is an approach to patient-centered care that is strongly recommended when counseling patients for screening and treatment of prostate cancer. However, providers report lack of comfort with SDM and particularly in disparate populations. We report our experience designing and piloting an online workshop to educate practicing urologists on SDM in diverse populations. Our objective was to create a valued interactive SDM workshop to help urologists learn to lead SDM discussions with men form underserved populations. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that urologists would agree or strongly agree that we met our learning objectives on postcourse survey. Materials and methodsWith the support of the American Urologic Association, we developed a case-based workshop with interactive role-playing to demonstrate and teach integration of SDM into clinical care. Cases were centered around screening and treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer in diverse patients. Brief surveys were used to track success with learning objectives and urologists’ satisfaction with the workshop. ResultsThe session included 14 participants from 6 countries. A postworkshop survey indicated that 100% of respondents (8 of 8) "strongly agreed" that the activity met learning objectives, and 100% rated the session as "good" (1), "very good" (1), or "excellent" (6). Participants’ knowledge also improved on shared decision-making concepts and the knowledge was maintained one month after the workshop. ConclusionWe successfully created and piloted an interactive online workshop to improve urologists’ comfort using shared decision-making in caring for diverse patient populations. The course met its objectives and participant feedback for the course was positive. Sharing this process and framework for development of this intervention may inform future workshops that can be applied to medical students, residents, and providers.

A prospective evaluation of patient perspectives and financial considerations during prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

In universal healthcare systems, patients may still encounter financial obstacles from cancer treatments, potentially influencing treatment decision-making. We investigated the relationship between socioeconomic status and treatment decision-making as it pertains to patient values, preferences, and perceived barriers to care for localized prostate cancer. We conducted a prospective study of patients undergoing a prostate biopsy for the initial detection of prostate cancer. Sociodemographic variables were collected, with validated instruments used to determine health literacy levels. Patients were divided into two groups using self-reported income; those with a positive identification of prostate cancer underwent additional surveys to ascertain their knowledge of their diagnosis, treatment-related preferences, and socioeconomic barriers to care. Descriptive statistics were used. Of 160 patients, approximately one-third were classified as having low health literacy. Within the low-income group, education levels were lower (34.6% had less than high school education vs. 10.2% in the high-income group) and unemployment rates higher (75.0% unemployed vs. 38.9% in the high-income group). Low-income patients with prostate cancer placed greater importance on indirect out-of-pocket expenses related to treatment (78.3% vs. 33.3%, p=0.001), higher emphasis on treatment-related travel time (50% vs. 15.1%, p=0.004), and more often had difficulty paying for healthcare services in the past (30.9% vs. 9.1%, p=0.02). Patients with lower household incomes have unique treatment values and decision-making preferences. They may experience additional challenges and barriers to obtaining cancer care, at least partly related to indirect costs. These findings should be considered when framing prostate cancer treatment discussions and designing patient-facing health information.

Use of expectant management based on prostate cancer risk and health status: How far are we from a risk-adapted approach?

While active surveillance, a form of expectant management (EM), is preferred for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), some favor a more risk-adapted approach that recognizes patient preferences and condition-specific factors. However, previous research has shown non-patient-related factors often drive PCa treatment. In this context, we characterized trends in AS with respect to disease risk and health status. Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified men 66 years and older diagnosed with localized low- and intermediate-risk PCa from 2008 to 2017 and examined receipt of EM, defined as the absence of treatment (i.e., surgery, cryotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapies) within 1 year of diagnosis. We performed bivariable analysis to compare trends in use for EM vs. treatment, stratified by disease risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3, 3+4, 4+3; PSA<10, 10-20) and health status (i.e., NCI Comorbidity Index (NCI), frailty, life expectancy). We then ran a multivariable logistic regression model to examine determinants of EM. Within this cohort, 26,364 (38%) were categorized as low-risk (i.e., Gleason 3+3 and PSA<10) and 43,520 (62%) as intermediate-risk (i.e., all others). Over the study period, use of EM significantly increased across all risk groups, except for Gleason 4+3 (P = 0.662), as well across all health status groups. However, linear trends did not differ significantly between frail vs. nonfrail patients for both those categorized as low-risk (P = 0.446) and intermediate-risk (P = 0.208). Trends also did not differ between NCI 0 vs. 1 vs. >1 for low-risk PCa (P = 0.395). In the multivariable models, EM was associated with increasing age and being frail for men with both low- and intermediate risk disease. Conversely, EM selection was negatively associated with higher comorbidity score. EM increased significantly over time for patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk disease, with the most notable differences based on age and Gleason score. In contrast, trends in uptake of EM did not differ substantively by health status, suggesting that physicians may not be effectively incorporating patient health into PCa treatment decisions. Additional work is needed to develop interventions that recognize health status as an essential component of a risk-adapted approach.

A Qualitative Study of Men's Experiences Using Navigate: A Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Aid.

The Navigate decision aid Web site was created to help Australian men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC) make an informed decision about their treatment.Navigate was helpful in supporting men's ongoing treatment decision making for LPC.Men's treatment decision making for LPC was greatly influenced by perceived authority and trust in their clinician.Trustworthiness, timing of access, and the clinician's role in empowering men to use available decision aids are crucial.

Early findings from the GARUDA trial: The impact of a genetic signature of late radiation toxicity on prostate cancer treatment decision making.

5089 Background: GARUDA (Germline DNA-Based Radiosensitivity Biomarker Influence on Toxicity Following Prostate Radiotherapy) was a single center phase II prospective study evaluating the impact of sharing results from a germline genetic signature (PROSTOX) characterizing patients as having a low or high risk of developing late &gt; 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity from stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on decision making and toxicity. The goal of this early analysis was first to see if this information changed treatment choice, and second to see if patients categorized as genetically “low-risk” would have less late GU toxicity than those categorized as genetically “high-risk.” Methods: PROSTOX is a test of germline mutations run in the MiraDx CLIA-certified laboratory. Results were reported to the ordering physician and their patient for joint decision-making before proceeding with treatment selection. To be enrolled on the study patients could choose SBRT or moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy (MHFRT) for treatment of their prostate cancer. 279 men were screened for the GARUDA study between November 2020 and May of 2022. 71 withdrew for a variety of reasons, primarily choosing another location for treatment or form of treatment. 208 patients remained on the protocol and are included in this exploratory analysis. Statistical comparisons of stratified proportions are based on Gaussian approximations to Binomial probabilities. Results: The average age for the cohort was 72.12 with the majority being non-Hispanic and Caucasian. Overall, 85.15% (177) of patients were classified as low-risk and 14.9% of patients (31) were classified as high-risk for late grade &gt; 2 GU toxicity by PROSTOX. There was not a significant difference in predicted toxicity risk by age (72.45 vs 70.2), ethnicity or race. Regarding treatment choice based on toxicity score, in patients determined to be low-risk, 1.2% chose MHFRT, and 98.8% chose MRI- or CT-guided SBRT. In patients who were classified as high-risk, 44.8% chose MHFRT, and 55.2% chose MRI- or CT-guided SBRT. The difference in treatment choice was significant (p &lt; 0.001). In an early analysis of physician scored late &gt; 2 GU toxicity in patients with &gt; 18 months of follow-up (n = 57), 8.8% of patients had toxicity - 4.8% of those predicted to be low-risk, and 27.3% of those predicted to be high-risk (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, predicting toxicity risk with PROSTOX significantly impacted patient and physician radiation treatment choice in localized prostate cancer. Early results also suggest that these changed treatment decisions lowered overall toxicity, which remained significantly different between patients classified as low-risk and high-risk. Analysis is ongoing to include patient reported outcomes and toxicity rates depending on treatment choice for those identified as high-risk. Clinical trial information: NCT04624256 .

Nondestructive 3D pathology with analysis of nuclear features for prostate cancer risk assessment.

Prostate cancer treatment decisions rely heavily on subjective visual interpretation [assigning Gleason patterns or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade groups] of limited numbers of two-dimensional (2D) histology sections. Under this paradigm, interobserver variance is high, with ISUP grades not correlating well with outcome for individual patients, and this contributes to the over- and undertreatment of patients. Recent studies have demonstrated improved prognostication of prostate cancer outcomes based on computational analyses of glands and nuclei within 2D whole slide images. Our group has also shown that the computational analysis of three-dimensional (3D) glandular features, extracted from 3D pathology datasets of whole intact biopsies, can allow for improved recurrence prediction compared to corresponding 2D features. Here we seek to expand on these prior studies by exploring the prognostic value of 3D shape-based nuclear features in prostate cancer (e.g. nuclear size, sphericity). 3D pathology datasets were generated using open-top light-sheet (OTLS) microscopy of 102 cancer-containing biopsies extracted ex vivo from the prostatectomy specimens of 46 patients. A deep learning-based workflow was developed for 3D nuclear segmentation within the glandular epithelium versus stromal regions of the biopsies. 3D shape-based nuclear features were extracted, and a nested cross-validation scheme was used to train a supervised machine classifier based on 5-year biochemical recurrence (BCR) outcomes. Nuclear features of the glandular epithelium were found to be more prognostic than stromal cell nuclear features (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.72 versus 0.63). 3D shape-based nuclear features of the glandular epithelium were also more strongly associated with the risk of BCR than analogous 2D features (AUC = 0.72 versus 0.62). The results of this preliminary investigation suggest that 3D shape-based nuclear features are associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness and could be of value for the development of decision-support tools. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Real-World Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results From an International Study.

There is limited real-world evidence on how increasing use of treatment intensification in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has influenced treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The study objective was to evaluate the impact of novel hormonal therapy (NHT) and docetaxel use in mCSPC on first-line treatment patterns among patients with mCRPC in 5 European countries and the United States (US). Physician-reported data on patients with mCRPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Program were descriptively analyzed. A total of 215 physicians provided data on 722 patients with mCRPC. Across 5 European countries and the US, 65% and 75% of patients, respectively, received NHT, and 28% and 9% of patients, respectively, received taxane chemotherapy as first-line mCRPC treatment. In Europe, patients who had received NHT in mCSPC (n = 76) mostly received taxane chemotherapy in mCRPC (55%). Patients who had received taxane chemotherapy, or who did not receive taxane chemotherapy or NHT in mCSPC (n = 98 and 434, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (62% and 73%, respectively). In the US, patients who had received NHT, taxane chemotherapy, or neither in mCSPC (n = 32, 12, and 72, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (53%, 83%, and 83%, respectively). Two patients in Europe were rechallenged with the same NHT. These findings suggest that physicians consider mCSPC treatment history when making first-line treatment decisions in mCRPC. Further studies are needed to better understand optimal treatment sequencing, especially as new treatments emerge.

MP19-11 RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN VALUATION OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT DECISION MAKING

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP19-11 RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN VALUATION OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT DECISION MAKING John M. Masterson, Michael Luu, Rebecca Gale, Brennan Spiegel, Stephen J. Freedland, and Timothy J. Daskivich John M. MastersonJohn M. Masterson More articles by this author , Michael LuuMichael Luu More articles by this author , Rebecca GaleRebecca Gale More articles by this author , Brennan SpiegelBrennan Spiegel More articles by this author , Stephen J. FreedlandStephen J. Freedland More articles by this author , and Timothy J. DaskivichTimothy J. Daskivich More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003244.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Given the indolent nature of prostate cancer (PC), life expectancy (LE) is essential in triage between aggressive local therapy and conservative management for all tumor risk subtypes. Black men are more likely to be overtreated for low-risk PC. We sought to investigate racial or ethnic disparities in how Black and Hispanic men value LE in PC treatment decision making. METHODS: We used targeted crowdsourcing to query a group of men reflecting sociodemographics of a typical US PC population. Subjects completed a conjoint analysis exercise in which they iteratively chose between aggressive treatment vs conservative management across varying levels of 4 tradeoffs: tumor risk; risk of erectile dysfunction; risk of incontinence; and risk of irritative urinary symptoms. Subjects were asked to consider their LE when making decisions, which was calculated using the Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index. Multinomial conditional logistic regression compared the odds of choosing aggressive vs conservative treatment across LEs ranging from 0 to 20 years by racial and ethnic subgroups. We calculated the interaction between LE and race/ethnicity in predicting treatment choice overall and across levels of tumor risk. RESULTS: Of 2,046 men, 435 (22%) were Black and 230 (11%) were Hispanic. Across all men, the odds of aggressive treatment choice increased by 17% for every 5 years of additional LE (OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.12-1.22), with men more likely to choose aggressive treatment at LE of >13 years and non-aggressive treatment at LE of £10 years. However, among Black men, LE was not associated with treatment choice (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.90–1.05) (Figure 1A). Black men were more likely to choose aggressive treatment overall, regardless of LE or tumor risk. Among Hispanic men, LE was associated with treatment choice, akin to the non-Hispanic population (OR 1.14, 95%CI 1.02–1.27) (Figure 1B). While Hispanic men were more likely to choose aggressive treatment overall, their choices differed by both LE and tumor risk. Healthy literacy was equivalent by race/ ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Black men did not take LE into account when making treatment decisions, in stark contrast to other races and ethnicities. Culturally sensitive approaches to communication of competing risks of mortality may be needed to improve decision making in these men. Source of Funding: © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e269 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information John M. Masterson More articles by this author Michael Luu More articles by this author Rebecca Gale More articles by this author Brennan Spiegel More articles by this author Stephen J. Freedland More articles by this author Timothy J. Daskivich More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Determining the impact of genomic classifier testing on patient-reported quality of life after prostatectomy: Results from the G-MINOR randomized trial.

345 Background: Decipher is a tissue-based genomic classifier (GC) developed and validated in the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) setting to help guide adjuvant treatment decisions for prostate cancer (PCa). We conducted the first prospective, randomized trial assessing the impact of GC testing on adjuvant therapy use. Here, we determine the impact of GC testing on patient reported (PRO) quality of life outcomes (QoL) in men at high-risk of post-RP recurrence. Methods: The G-MINOR trial is a prospective, unblinded, randomized trial which enrolled 356 patients from 12 centers in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Patients were enrolled between Aug 2016-July 2018. Eligible patients had undergone RP within 9 months of enrollment, had pT3-4 disease and/or positive surgical margins, and a post-RP PSA &lt;0.1ng/mL. Patients were assigned to either the GC or usual-care (UC) group using cluster-crossover block randomization assignments. Evaluable patients (338) were followed for at least 18 months. PROs were obtained using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) survey at baseline (before RP), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after RP. Results: A total of 226/338 evaluable men (67%) had PRO data for this analysis (116 UC arm/110 GC arm). Median age was 65 years. Of the 226 men included in the PRO analysis, a total of 23 (9 UC arm/14 GC arm) had adjuvant treatment (p = 0.22). At 12 months follow-up, those in the GC arm had no significant change in adjusted mean difference in domain score from baseline compared to those in the UC arm for urinary irritative (UIR) function (1.0, 95% CI [-2.9– 4.9], p=0.6), urinary incontinence (UI) (0.8, 95% CI [-5.1– 6.7], p=0.8), or sexual function (SF) (0.5, 95% CI [-6.9– 7.9], p=0.9). This remained true at 24 months for all three domains [UIR; (2.3, 95% CI [-2.1– 6.6], p=0.3)], [UI; (-0.3, 95% CI [-7.3– 6.7], p=0.9)], [SF; (1.5, 95% CI [-6.8– 9.7], p=0.7)]. Conclusions: In the first ever randomized trial testing the clinical utility of a GC test in localized PCa, longitudinal patient reported QOL outcomes were not significantly different between men who underwent risk stratification with or without Decipher. Clinical trial information: NCT02783950 .

A Novel Modality Enables New Evidence-Based Individual Risk Stratification That Can Potentially Lead to Decisive Management and Treatment Decisions in Prostate Cancer.

A key step in providing management/treatment options to men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) is categorizing the risk in terms of the presence of benign, low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk disease. Our novel modality brings new evidence, based on the long-known hallmark characteristic of PCa-decreased zinc (Zn), which is the most direct metabolic sign of malignancy and its aggressiveness. To date, this approach has not been adopted for clinical use for a number of reasons that are described in this article, and which have been addressed by our approach. Zn has to be measured on fresh samples, prior to fixating in formalin; therefore, samples have to be scanned during the biopsy session. As Zn depletion occurs in the glands where the tumors develop, estimation of the glands' levels in the scanned tissue, along with their compactness, are essential for accurate diagnosis. Combined with the Zn depletion, this facilitates a reliable assessment of disease aggressiveness. Data gathered in the clinical study described here indicate that, in addition to improving the biopsy quality by real-time interactive guidance, a malignancy score can now be established for the entire prostate, allowing higher granularity personalized risk stratification and more decisive treatment decisions for all PCa patients.

Abstract B051: A qualitative exploration of prostate cancer treatment and survivorship advice from employed prostate cancer survivors

Abstract Introduction: Prostate cancer is the most common and second most deadly non-skin cancer among American men. Prostate cancer outcomes are especially detrimental for African-American men. While prostate cancer treatment can prolong life, it can also produce debilitating results that can impact men’s ability to perform some jobs/work-related tasks, cause decisional regret, and affect their overall quality of life. Objective: To improve prostate cancer treatment decision-making and survivorship experiences of actively employed prostate cancer survivors, we asked survivors with jobs to provide advice for men facing prostate cancer treatment and their families/friends, employers/co-workers, and healthcare providers. Methods: African-American and White prostate cancer survivors were recruited primarily from support groups and two southeastern cancer centers: Inclusion criteria included having (1) had a prostatectomy or radiation therapy less than 36 months ago, (2) worked for pay within one month prior to treatment, and (3) expected at time of treatment initiation to be working 6 months later. Survivors were engaged in 60-to-90-minute in-depth interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a content analysis approach to ascertain prominent themes within and between races. Results: Forty-five prostate cancer survivors (44% black and 55% white) had a mean age of 61. Over half of men from either racial group had a bachelor’s degree. Approximately 63% and 47% from both racial groups had undergone a prostatectomy or radiation therapy, respectively. Prominent themes related to advice for prostate cancer survivors included the importance of: conducting thorough research on treatment options and gaining awareness of the treatment side effects; identifying survivors or survivor support groups; and informing family, employers, and others about support needs. Advice for family and friends emphasized the significance of providing instrumental and emotional support to survivors. Employer and co-worker advice most often related to providing work-related accommodations/support (e.g., additional time or adapted work tasks) and avoiding stigmatizing treatment of the survivor. Most advice for healthcare providers focused on presenting survivors with honest, thorough, and plain-language communication about treatment options and side effects. No major differences existed in themes by race. Conclusion: Overarching needs of employed prostate cancer survivors commonly relate to the need for detailed information about their treatment process and their desire for social support from family/friends, employers/co-workers, and healthcare providers. The most vital concern for survivors is understanding how, and to what extent, side effects can affect them personally and professionally. Future research should determine what strategies might be effective for preparing these stakeholder groups to support employed prostate cancer survivors. Citation Format: Otis L. Owens, Joanne Sandberg, Andy Mayfield, Emily Dressler, Melyssa Foust. A qualitative exploration of prostate cancer treatment and survivorship advice from employed prostate cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr B051.

Management of Patients with Recurrent and Metachronous Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer in the Era of PSMA PET.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) scans have higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting lymph nodes or metastatic disease relative to conventional imaging in prostate cancer staging. Since its FDA approval and incorporation into treatment guidelines, the use of PSMA PET has increased in patients undergoing initial staging, those with recurrence after initial definitive treatment, and patients with metastatic disease. Although the early detection of metastatic lesions is changing disease management, it is unclear whether this impact on management translates into clinical benefit. This review will summarize evidence pertaining to the change in patient management due to PSMA PET use and will discuss the implications of PSMA PET on treatment decisions in prostate cancer, particularly in the settings of biochemical recurrence and metachronous oligometastatic disease.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BackgroundInnovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. ObjectiveTo present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participantsBefore the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisConsensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitationsThe voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. ConclusionsThese voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summaryThe Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Factors that influence treatment decisions: A qualitative study of racially and ethnically diverse patients with low- and very-low risk prostate cancer.

Factors that influence prostate cancer treatment decisions are complex, multifaceted, and personal, and may vary by race/ethnicity. Although research has been published to quantify factors involved in decision-making, these studies have been limited to primarily white, and to a lesser extent, Black patients, and quantitative studies are limited for discerning the cultural and contextual processes that shape decision-making. We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with a racially and ethnically diverse sample of patients diagnosed with low- and very-low risk prostate cancer who had undergone treatment for their prostate cancer. Interviews were transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed to identify themes salient for decision-making, with attention to sociocultural differences. We found racial and ethnic differences in three areas. First, we found differences in how socialized masculinity influenced patient's feelings about different treatment options. Second, we found that for some men, religion and spirituality alleviated anxiety associated with the active surveillance protocol. Finally, for racially and ethnically minoritized patients, we found descriptions of how historic and social experiences within the healthcare system influenced decision-making. Our study adds to the current literature by expounding on racial and ethnic differences in the multidimensional, nuanced factors related to decision-making. Our findings suggest that factors associated with prostate cancer decision-making can manifest differently across racial and ethnic groups, and provide some guidance for future research.

Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

BackgroundAlthough treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors.MethodsParticipants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.ResultsOf 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance.ConclusionsRisk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients’ stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making.Clinical trial registration: NCT01844999 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Validation of the prostate cancer comorbidity index in predicting cause-specific mortality in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Accurate prediction of competing risks of mortality remains a key component of prostate cancer treatment decision-making. We sought to validate the Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index (PCCI) score for predicting other-cause mortality (OCM) and cancer outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). We sampled 4857 men with prostate cancer treated with RP in the VA from 2000-2018. Risks of OCM, 90-day all-cause mortality (ACM), prostate cancer-specific mortality, metastasis, and biochemical recurrence by PCCI score were assessed using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression. We compared prediction of 90-day ACM between PCCI and the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, a validated predictor of short-term mortality. Over median follow-up of 6.7 years (IQR 3.7-10.3), there was a stepwise increase in risk of OCM with higher PCCI score, with hazards (95%CI) of 1.53 (1.14-2.04), 2.11 (1.55-2.88), 2.36 (1.68-3.31), 3.61 (2.61-4.98), and 4.99 (3.58-6.96) for PCCI 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9, and 10 + (vs. 0), respectively. Projected 10-year cumulative incidence of OCM was 8%, 12%, 16%, 19%, 26%, and 32% for scores of 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9, and 10+ , respectively. Men with PCCI 7+ had greater odds of 90-day ACM (OR 3.48, 95%CI 1.26-9.63) while men with higher ASA did not. Higher PCCI score was associated with worse cancer outcomes, with the highest categories driving the associations. The PCCI is a robust measure of short- and long-term OCM after RP, validated for use in clinical care and health services research focusing on surgical patient populations.

Relative Incidence of Emergency Department Visits After Treatment for Prostate Cancer With Radiation Therapy or Radical Prostatectomy

PurposeSide effect profiles play an important role in treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. Emergency department (ED) visits, which may be due to side effects from treatment, can be measured in real-world, structured, electronic health record (EHR) data. The goal of this study was to determine whether treatments for localized prostate cancer are associated with ED visits, as a measure of side effects, using EHR data. Methods and MaterialsWe used a self-controlled case series study design, including patients treated at an urban academic medical center with radiation therapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer between 2011 and 2020 who had visits documented for ≥6 months before and after treatment and ≥1 ED visit. We estimated relative incidences (RI) of ED visits, comparing incidence in the exposed and unexposed periods, with the exposed period being between start of treatment and 1 month after completion, and the unexposed period consisting of all other documented time. ResultsAmong men who had at least 1 ED visit and after adjusting for age, there were higher rates of ED visits after RP (RI, 20.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.4-27.0; P < .001), RT overall (RI, 2.4; CI, 1.7-3.4; P < .001), intensity modulated radiation therapy with high dose-rate brachytherapy (RI, 3.4; CI, 1.7-6.8; P < .001) or stereotactic body radiation therapy boost (RI, 7.1; CI, 3.4-14.8; P < .001), and high dose rate brachytherapy alone (RI, 16.3; CI, 7.2-36.9; P < .001) compared with unexposed time. The number needed to harm to result in an ED visit was less for RP (17; CI, 13-23) than RT overall (43; CI, 25-126), but varied by RT modality. ConclusionsIn summary, relative rates of ED visits vary by treatment type, suggesting differing severities of side effects. These data may aid in selecting treatments and demonstrate the feasibility of using the self-controlled case series study design on ED visits in real-world, structured EHR data to better understand side effects of treatment.

Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study

ObjectiveWe investigated how healthcare professionals (HPs) communicate personalized risks of treatment side-effects to patients with localized prostate cancer during consultations, and explored how these patients perceive and use such risks during treatment decision-making. MethodsPatient consultations with nurse practitioners and urologists discussing personalized risks of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients (n = 27) were then interviewed to explore their perceptions and use of personalized side-effect risks. ResultsHPs explained personalized risks by discussing risk factors, which was appreciated and recalled by patients. Personalized risks were typically communicated both numerically and verbally (70%). When using numbers, HPs always used percentages, but rarely used natural frequencies (14%). Uncertainty was disclosed in only 34% of consultations. One-third of patients used personalized risks in their treatment decision-making by either switching to another treatment or sticking to their initial preference. ConclusionsPatients value and use personalized side-effect risks during treatment decision-making. Clearly explaining the relationship between risk factors and personalized risk estimates may help patients understand and recall those.Practice implicationsHPs should not only give patients specific and precise numerical risk information, but should also put effort in explaining how the personalized side-effect risks are determined.