Postoperative Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer: Adjuvant versus Early Salvage.

Results of three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) and early salvage radiotherapy (eSRT) of prostate carcinoma and a subsequent meta-analysis of the individual patient data from these RCTs were recently published. The results suggest that early eSRT is as effective and potentially less toxic than ART. Therefore, eSRT should be considered the standard of care. However, due to limitations in the RCTs, ART remains a valid treatment option in patients with the combination of high-risk features such as Gleason Score (GS) 8-10, positive surgical margins (R1) and pathological T-stage 3 or 4 (pT3/4). This article provides a critical appraisal of the RCTs and the rationale for recommendations adopted in the current national guidelines regarding patients with high-risk features after radical prostatectomy (RP): ART should be offered in case of pT3/pT4 and R1 and Gleason Score 8-10; ART can be offered in case of pT3/pT4 and R0 and Gleason Score 8-10 as well as in case of multifocal R1 (including pT2) and Gleason Score 8-10. In any case, the alternative treatment option of eSRT in case of rising PSA should be discussed with the patient

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer

Background Value-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment. Objective To develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value. Design, setting, and participants We convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set. Results and limitations We recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. Conclusions We have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care. Patient summary Measuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer

Systematic Review of Comorbidity and Competing-risks Assessments for Bladder Cancer Patients.

Context Radical cystectomy continues to be associated with a significant risk of morbidity and all-cause mortality (ACM). Practice pattern data demonstrating underuse of surgery for patients with muscle-invasive and high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BC) have been linked to the advanced age and higher comorbidity status of such patients, which suggests that rates of ACM as well as cancer-specific mortality should be incorporated into patient counseling and guideline recommendations. Objective To review the literature on risk assessment tools for preoperative comorbidity in BC that may aid in treatment decision-making. Evidence acquisition A systematic search was conducted using Ovid and Medline according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify studies between 1970 and 2017 reporting on comorbidity risk assessment (CRA) tools for BC. Prospective and retrospective studies were included. Evidence synthesis There are no published randomized control trials comparing CRA tools for BC. Patients undergoing radical cystectomy with combined high-risk comorbidity and performance scores may face up to a sevenfold greater risk of other-cause mortality compared to those with low scores. The Charlson Comorbidity Index is one of the most widely studied indices for 90-d perioperative mortality and overall and cancer-specific survival, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of up to 0.810. Prospective studies of CRA tools for BC have consistently shown that patients with higher comorbidity have worse outcomes. While not specific for BC, comorbidity indices provide useful assessment of competing risks. Competing-risks assessment tools are lacking, with limited studies assessing the impact of these tools on treatment decision-making by patients and providers. We provide the impetus for incorporation of comorbidity risks into practice guidelines when discussing treatment options with patients. Conclusions CRA tools should be incorporated into preoperative treatment counseling and the assessment of postoperative outcomes. While retrospective evidence supports the use of CRA tools for BC, further comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of these tools and identifying the patients most likely to benefit from a treatment according to competing-risks assessment are needed. Patient summary In this review we explored the clinical evidence for comorbidity risk assessment tools in bladder cancer. We found evidence to support incorporation of comorbidity risks into practice guidelines when discussing treatment options with patients

Defining a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for men with localized prostate cancer

AbstractBackgroundValue-based health care has been proposed as a unifying force to drive improved outcomes and cost containment.ObjectiveTo develop a standard set of multidimensional patient-centered health outcomes for tracking, comparing, and improving localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment value.Design, setting, and participantsWe convened an international working group of patients, registry experts, urologists, and radiation oncologists to review existing data and practices.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe group defined a recommended standard set representing who should be tracked, what should be measured and at what time points, and what data are necessary to make meaningful comparisons. Using a modified Delphi method over a series of teleconferences, the group reached consensus for the Standard Set.Results and limitationsWe recommend that the Standard Set apply to men with newly diagnosed localized PCa treated with active surveillance, surgery, radiation, or other methods. The Standard Set includes acute toxicities occurring within 6 mo of treatment as well as patient-reported outcomes tracked regularly out to 10 yr. Patient-reported domains of urinary incontinence and irritation, bowel symptoms, sexual symptoms, and hormonal symptoms are included, and the recommended measurement tool is the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form. Disease control outcomes include overall, cause-specific, metastasis-free, and biochemical relapse-free survival. Baseline clinical, pathologic, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons.ConclusionsWe have defined a simple, easily implemented set of outcomes that we believe should be measured in all men with localized PCa as a crucial first step in improving the value of care.Patient summaryMeasuring, reporting, and comparing identical outcomes across treatments and treatment centers will provide patients and providers with information to make informed treatment decisions. We defined a set of outcomes that we recommend being tracked for every man being treated for localized prostate cancer