End-fire versus side-fire:a randomized controlled study of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for prostate cancer detection

Objectives: To compare prostate cancer detection rates between end-fire and side-fire ultrasound guided prostate biopsy techniques. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed in patients who underwent prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to the end-fire or side fire biopsy groups and underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The overall prostate cancer detection rate was compared between the two probe configurations. Trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov with identifier: NCT00851292. Results: A total of 730 patients were included and randomized, 371 patients underwent prostate biopsy with side-fire probe and 359 patients with the end-fire probe. Prostate cancer detection rates were 52.4% in the end fire group and 45.6% in the side fire group (p = .066). Conclusions: No significant difference was found in detection rate of prostate cancer between the end-fire and side-fire probe in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy, neither for detection rate of prostate cancer in the apex

Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator:a prospective impact study

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series). Level of Evidence 2a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients. OBJECTIVES: • To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance. • To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011. • The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy. • Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤ 20 mm cancer tissue, ≥ 40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤ 3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise. • After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety. RESULTS: • Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%). • The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS (n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage (n= 19). • Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply. CONCLUSIONS: • AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead. • Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa

A urine based genomic assay to triage patients with hematuria for cystoscopy

Purpose: Current clinical guidelines recommend cystoscopy in patients who present with hematuria to rule out a bladder tumor. We evaluated whether our previously developed urine assay was able to triage patients with hematuria for cystoscopy in a large prospective cohort. Materials and Methods: A urine sample was collected before cystoscopy and mutation/methylation status of 6 genes was determined on cellular DNA. The existing diagnostic model was validated on this cohort. Logistic regression was applied to investigate other potential variables. The primary end point was the model performance as indicated by the AUC. Secondary end points were sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value. Clinical usefulness was determined by the net benefit approach. Results: In 838 patients biomarker status could be determined for all genes. Urothelial cancer was observed in 112 patients (98 of 457 in the gross and 14 of 381 in the microscopic hematuria group). Validation of the existing model resulted in an AUC of 0.93. Logistic regression analysis identified type of hematuria as a significant additional variable. Adding type of hematuria resulted in an AUC of 0.95 (96% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 99% negative predictive value). The assay identified all upper tract tumors not visible by cystoscopy (in 6). Net benefit analysis showed that the urine assay should be preferred over current clinical practice. Implementing the urine assay as a triage tool could lead to a 53% reduction in cystoscopies. Conclusions: The urine assay detected urothelial cancer with a very high accuracy and can be used to triage patients presenting with hematuria for cystoscopy

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