Tackling overtreatment of prostate cancer

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87027/1/26106_ftp.pd

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer:A Mixed-method Systematic Review

Context: Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised. Objective: To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC. Evidence acquisition: We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified. Evidence synthesis: Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness). Conclusions: Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice. Patient summary: We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Estimating the harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening as used in common practice versus recommended good practice : A microsimulation screening analysis

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and concomitant treatment can be implemented in several ways. The authors investigated how the net benefit of PSA screening varies between common practice versus “good practice.”. METHODS: Microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) was used to evaluate the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) if 4 recommendations were followed: limited screening in older men, selective biopsy in men with elevated PSA, active surveillance for low-risk tumors, and treatment preferentially delivered at high-volume centers. Outcomes were compared with a base model in which annual screening started at ages 55 to 69 years and were simulated using data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. RESULTS: In terms of QALYs gained compared with no screening, for 1000 screened men who were followed over their lifetime, recommended good practice led to 73 life-years (LYs) and 74 QALYs gained compared with 73 LYs and 56 QALYs for the base model. In contrast, common practice led to 78 LYs gained but only 19 QALYs gained, for a greater than 75% relative reduction in QALYs gained from unadjusted LYs gained. The poor outcomes for common practice were influenced predominantly by the use of aggressive treatment for men with low-risk disease, and PSA testing in older men also strongly reduced potential QALY gains. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used PSA screening and treatment practices are associated with little net benefit. Following a few straightforward clinical recommendations, particularly greater use of active surveillance for low-risk disease and reducing screening in older men, would lead to an almost 4-fold increase in the net benefit of prostate cancer screening. Cancer 2016;122:3386–3393

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men). DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5 years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future

The prostate cancer conundrum revisited

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States declined by >40% between 1991 and 2005. The impact of changes in primary treatment and adjuvant and neoadjuvant hormone therapy on this decline is unknown. METHODS: The authors applied 3 independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history and disease detection under common assumptions about treatment patterns, treatment efficacy, and survival in the population. Primary treatment patterns were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry; data on the frequency of hormone therapy were obtained from the CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) database; and treatment efficacy was based on estimates from randomized trials and comparative effectiveness studies of treatment alternatives. The models projected prostate cancer mortality without prostate‐specific antigen screening and in the presence and absence of treatment benefit. The impact of primary treatment was expressed as a fraction of the difference between observed mortality and projected mortality in the absence of treatment benefit. RESULTS: The 3 models projected that changes in treatment explained 22% to 33% of the mortality decline by 2005. These contributions were accounted for mostly by surgery and radiation therapy, which increased in frequency until the 1990s, whereas hormone therapies contributed little to the mortality decline by 2005. Assuming that treatment benefit was less for older men, changes in treatment explained only 16% to 23% of the mortality decline by 2005. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in primary treatment explained a minority of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality. The remainder of the decline probably was because of other interventions, such as prostate‐specific antigen screening and advances in the treatment of recurrent and progressive disease. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. Three models of prostate cancer natural history are combined with data on patterns of primary treatment, including hormone therapies and trial‐based estimates of treatment efficacy. The results indicate that changes in these treatments explain 22% to 33% of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality between 1991 and 2005.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94469/1/27594_ftp.pd

PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer : rationale and design

Introduction Overtreatment of localised prostate cancer is substantial despite increased use of active surveillance. No randomised trials help define how to monitor patients or when to initiate treatment with curative intent. Methods and analysis A randomised, multicentre, intervention trial designed to evaluate the safety of an MRI-based active surveillance protocol, with standardised triggers for repeated biopsies and radical treatment. The aim is to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer. 2000 men will be randomly allocated to either surveillance according to current practice or to standardised triggers at centres in Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK. Men diagnosed in the past 12 months with prostate cancer, 0.2ng/mL/cc, any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 are eligible. Men with ISUP grade 2 in Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained in each participating country. Results for the primary and secondary outcome measures will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT02914873.Peer reviewe

Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging : A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS)

Background The current recommendation of using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) to diagnose prostate cancer misses clinically significant (CS) cancers. More sensitive biopsies (eg, template prostate mapping biopsy [TPMB]) are too resource intensive for routine use, and there is little evidence on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI). Objective To identify the most effective and cost-effective way of using these tests to detect CS prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants Cost-effectiveness modelling of health outcomes and costs of men referred to secondary care with a suspicion of prostate cancer prior to any biopsy in the UK National Health Service using information from the diagnostic Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Intervention Combinations of MPMRI, TRUSB, and TPMB, using different definitions and diagnostic cut-offs for CS cancer. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Strategies that detect the most CS cancers given testing costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) given long-term costs. Results and limitations The use of MPMRI first and then up to two MRI-targeted TRUSBs detects more CS cancers per pound spent than a strategy using TRUSB first (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.92–0.98] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.86–0.94]) and is cost effective (ICER = £7,076 [€8350/QALY gained]). The limitations stem from the evidence base in the accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy and the long-term outcomes of men with CS prostate cancer. Conclusions An MPMRI-first strategy is effective and cost effective for the diagnosis of CS prostate cancer. These findings are sensitive to the test costs, sensitivity of MRI-targeted TRUSB, and long-term outcomes of men with cancer, which warrant more empirical research. This analysis can inform the development of clinical guidelines. Patient summary We found that, under certain assumptions, the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging first and then up to two transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy is better than the current clinical standard and is good value for money. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy can detect more clinically significant prostate cancer and be cost effective compared with the use of imaging post-biopsy

ProCOC: The prostate cancer outcomes cohort study

BACKGROUND: Despite intensive research over the last several decades on prostate cancer, many questions particularly those concerning early diagnosis and the choice of optimal treatment for each individual patient, still remain unanswered. The goal of treating patients with localized prostate cancer is a curative one and includes minimizing adverse effects to preserve an adequate quality of life. Better understanding on how the quality of life is affected depending on the treatment modality would assist patients in deciding which treatment to choose; furthermore, the development of prognostic biomarkers that indicate the future course of the illness is a promising approach with potential and the focus of much attention. These questions can be addressed in the context of a cohort study. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multi-center cohort study within the canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We will include patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer independently of treatment finally chosen. We will acquire clinical data including quality of life and lifestyle, prostate tissue specimen as well as further biological samples (blood and urine) before, during and after treatment for setup of a bio-bank. Assessment of these data and samples in the follow up will be done during routine controls. Study duration will be at least ten years. Influence of treatment on morbidity and mortality, including changes in quality of life, will be identified and an evaluation of biomarkers will be performed. Further we intend to set up a bio-bank containing blood and urine samples providing research of various natures around prostate cancer in the future. DISCUSSION: We presume that this study will provide answers to pertinent questions concerning prognosis and outcomes of men with localised prostate cancer