Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up:Results from the population-based PROFILES registry

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important

Real-world Outcomes of Sequential Androgen-receptor Targeting Therapies with or Without Interposed Life-prolonging Drugs in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer:Results from the Dutch Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND: Cross resistance between androgen-receptor targeting therapies (ARTs) (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone [ABI+P] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may affect responses to second ART (ART2). OBJECTIVE: To establish treatment duration and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response of ART2 in real-world mCRPC patients treated with or without other life-prolonging drugs (LPDs; ie, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, or radium-223) between ART1 and ART2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively registered in Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry (CAPRI). Patients treated with both ARTs were clustered into two subgroups: ART1>ART2 or ART1>LPD>ART2. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were ≥50% PSA response and treatment duration of ART2. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression after multiple imputations were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 273 patients were included with a median follow-up of 8.4 mo from ART2. Patients with ART1>ART2 were older and had favourable prognostic characteristics at ART2 baseline compared with patients with ART1>LPD>ART2. No differences between ART1>ART2 and ART1>LPD>ART2 were found in PSA response and treatment duration. Multivariate analysis suggested that PSA response of ART2 was less likely in patients with visceral metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.143, p=0.04) and more likely in patients with a relatively longer duration of androgen-deprivation treatment (OR 1.028, p=0.01) and with ABI + P before ENZ (OR 3.192, p=0.02). A major limitation of this study was missing data, a common problem in retrospective observational research. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of ART2 seems to be low, with a low PSA response rate and a short treatment duration irrespective of interposed chemotherapy or radium-223, especially in patients with short time on castration, visceral disease, and ENZ before ABI+P. PATIENT SUMMARY: We observed no differences in outcomes of patients treated with sequential abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (ABI+P) and enzalutamide (ENZ) with or without interposed chemotherapy or radium-223. In general, outcomes were lower than those in randomised trials, questioning the additional effect of second treatment with ABI+P or ENZ in daily practice

Real-world Outcomes of Sequential Androgen-receptor Targeting Therapies with or Without Interposed Life-prolonging Drugs in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

_Background:_ Cross resistance between androgen-receptor targeting therapies(ARTs) (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone [ABI + P] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) fortreatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may affectresponses to second ART (ART2). _Objective:_ To establish treatment duration and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)response of ART2 in real-world mCRPC patients treated with or without otherlife-prolonging drugs (LPDs; ie, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, or radium-223) betweenART1 and ART2. _Design, setting, and participants:_ Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients,diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively registered in Castra-tion-resistant Prostate Cancer Registry (CAPRI). Patients treated with both ARTswere clustered into two subgroups: ART1 > ART2 or ART1 > LPD > ART2

Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly – Results of a Single Center LRC only Series

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare outcome of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with ileal conduit in 22 elderly (≥75 years) versus 51 younger (500mL) did not differ between groups. Median total hospital stay was 12.0 versus 14.0 days for younger and elderly patients. Grade I-II 90-d complication rate was higher for elderly patients (68 versus 43%, p=0.05). Grade III-V 90-d complication rate was equal for both groups (23 versus 29%, p=0.557). 90-d mortality rate was higher for elderly patients (14 versus 4%, p=0.157). Median follow-up was 40.0 months for younger and 57.0 months for elderly patients. Estimated overall and cancer-specific survival at 5years. was 46% versus 35% and 64% versus 64% for younger and elderly patients respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that LRC is feasible in elderly patients, where a non-surgical treatment is usually favoured

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer:An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study

Background: Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. A recent study showed that RARC resulted in slightly fewer minor but slightly more major complications, although the difference was not statistically significant. Some differences were found in secondary outcomes favouring either RARC or ORC. RARC use is expected to increase in coming years, which fuels the debate about whether RARC provides value for money.Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC in bladder cancer. Design, setting, and participants: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a prospective multicentre comparative effectiveness study. We included 348 bladder cancer patients (ORC, n = 168; RARC, n = 180) from 19 Dutch hospitals. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Over 1 yr, we assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both healthcare and societal perspectives. We used single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method to assess missing data and uncertainty, and inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential bias. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of various parameters on the cost difference. Results and limitations: The mean healthcare cost per patient was €17 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] €15 791–€18 720) for ORC and €21 266 (95% CI €19 163–€23 650) for RARC. The mean societal cost per patient was €18 926 (95% CI €17 431–€22 642) for ORC and €24 896 (95% CI €21 925–€31 888) for RARC. On average, RARC patients gained 0.79 QALYs (95% CI 0.74–0.85) compared to 0.81 QALYs (95% CI 0.77–0.85) for ORC patients, resulting in a mean QALY difference of −0.02 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.02). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000, RARC was cost-effective in 0.6% and 0.2% of the replications for the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Conclusions: RARC shows no difference in terms of QALYs, but is more expensive than ORC. Hence, RARC does not seem to provide value for money in comparison to ORC. Patient summary: This study assessed the relation between costs and effects of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery for removal of the bladder in 348 Dutch patients with bladder cancer. We found that after 1 year, the two approaches were similarly effective according to a measure called quality-adjusted life years, but robot-assisted surgery was much more expensive. This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR5362 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5214).</p

Second-Line Cabazitaxel Treatment in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Compared to Standard of Care in CAPRI:Observational Study in the Netherlands

In the Dutch CAPRI registry, cabazitaxel treatment as the standard of care and in trials was analyzed. Patients treated with cabazitaxel in trials were fitter and showed outcomes comparable to registration trials. Conversely, those treated in daily practice showed features of more aggressive disease and worse outcome. This may be explained by a worse prognosis at cabazitaxel initiation

Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: A cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry

Background: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors' preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems. Material and methods: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences. Results: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse. Conclusions: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer:An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study

Background: Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. A recent study showed that RARC resulted in slightly fewer minor but slightly more major complications, although the difference was not statistically significant. Some differences were found in secondary outcomes favouring either RARC or ORC. RARC use is expected to increase in coming years, which fuels the debate about whether RARC provides value for money.Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC in bladder cancer. Design, setting, and participants: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a prospective multicentre comparative effectiveness study. We included 348 bladder cancer patients (ORC, n = 168; RARC, n = 180) from 19 Dutch hospitals. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Over 1 yr, we assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both healthcare and societal perspectives. We used single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method to assess missing data and uncertainty, and inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential bias. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of various parameters on the cost difference. Results and limitations: The mean healthcare cost per patient was €17 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] €15 791–€18 720) for ORC and €21 266 (95% CI €19 163–€23 650) for RARC. The mean societal cost per patient was €18 926 (95% CI €17 431–€22 642) for ORC and €24 896 (95% CI €21 925–€31 888) for RARC. On average, RARC patients gained 0.79 QALYs (95% CI 0.74–0.85) compared to 0.81 QALYs (95% CI 0.77–0.85) for ORC patients, resulting in a mean QALY difference of −0.02 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.02). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000, RARC was cost-effective in 0.6% and 0.2% of the replications for the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Conclusions: RARC shows no difference in terms of QALYs, but is more expensive than ORC. Hence, RARC does not seem to provide value for money in comparison to ORC. Patient summary: This study assessed the relation between costs and effects of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery for removal of the bladder in 348 Dutch patients with bladder cancer. We found that after 1 year, the two approaches were similarly effective according to a measure called quality-adjusted life years, but robot-assisted surgery was much more expensive. This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR5362 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5214).</p