Prostate Cancer Disparities in Risk Group at Presentation and Access to Treatment for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders: A Study With Disaggregated Ethnic Groups

PURPOSE: We identified (1) differences in localized prostate cancer (PCa) risk group at presentation and (2) disparities in access to initial treatment for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) men with PCa after controlling for sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We assessed all patients in the National Cancer Database with localized PCa with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease who identified as Thai, White, Asian Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Laotian, Pakistani, Kampuchean, and Hmong. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CI of (1) presenting at progressively higher risk group and (2) receiving treatment or active surveillance with intermediate- or high-risk disease, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 980,889 men (median age 66 years), all AANHPI subgroups with the exception of Thai (AOR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21], P > .05), Asian Indian (AOR = 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.25], P > .05), and Pakistani (AOR = 1.34 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.83], P > .05) men had greater odds of presenting at a progressively higher PCa risk group compared with White patients (Chinese AOR = 1.18 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.25], P < .001; Japanese AOR = 1.36 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.47], P < .001; Filipino AOR = 1.37 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.46], P < .001; Korean AOR = 1.32 [95% CI, 1.18 to 1.48], P < .001; Vietnamese AOR = 1.20 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.35], P = .002; Laotian AOR = 1.60 [95% CI, 1.08 to 2.36], P = .018; Hmong AOR = 4.07 [95% CI, 1.54 to 10.81], P = .005; Kampuchean AOR = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.34], P = .036; Asian Indian or Pakistani AOR = 1.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.24], P < .001; Native Hawaiians AOR = 1.58 [95% CI, 1.38 to 1.80], P < .001; and Pacific Islanders AOR = 1.58 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.82], P < .001). Additionally, Japanese Americans (AOR = 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.97], P = .013) were more likely to receive treatment compared with White patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there are differences in PCa risk group at presentation by race or ethnicity among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups and that there exist disparities in treatment patterns. Although AANHPI are often studied as a homogenous group, heterogeneity upon subgroup disaggregation underscores the importance of further study to assess and address barriers to PCa care

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19

Purpose: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. Methods and Materials: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. Results: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. Conclusions: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic

Economic Returns to Investment in AIDS Treatment in Low and Middle Income Countries

Since the early 2000s, aid organizations and developing country governments have invested heavily in AIDS treatment. By 2010, more than five million people began receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) – yet each year, 2.7 million people are becoming newly infected and another two million are dying without ever having received treatment. As the need for treatment grows without commensurate increase in the amount of available resources, it is critical to assess the health and economic gains being realized from increasingly large investments in ART. This study estimates total program costs and compares them with selected economic benefits of ART, for the current cohort of patients whose treatment is cofinanced by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At end 2011, 3.5 million patients in low and middle income countries will be receiving ART through treatment programs cofinanced by the Global Fund. Using 2009 ART prices and program costs, we estimate that the discounted resource needs required for maintaining this cohort are $14.2 billion for the period 2011–2020. This investment is expected to save 18.5 million life-years and return$12 to $34 billion through increased labor productivity, averted orphan care, and deferred medical treatment for opportunistic infections and end-of-life care. Under alternative assumptions regarding the labor productivity effects of HIV infection, AIDS disease, and ART, the monetary benefits range from 81 percent to 287 percent of program costs over the same period. These results suggest that, in addition to the large health gains generated, the economic benefits of treatment will substantially offset, and likely exceed, program costs within 10 years of investment

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.

BACKGROUND: Innovations 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. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before 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 ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: These 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 SUMMARY: The 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

Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Nearly five decades following its conception, the Gleason grading system remains a cornerstone in the prognostication and management of patients with prostate cancer. In the past few years, a debate has been growing whether Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer is a clinically significant disease. Clinical, molecular and genetic research is addressing the question whether well characterized Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease has the ability to affect the morbidity and quality of life of an individual in whom it is diagnosed. The consequences of treatment of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease are considerable; few men get through their treatments without sustaining some harm. Further modification of the classification of prostate cancer and dropping the label cancer for Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease might be warranted