Treatment in the STAMPEDE era for castrate resistant prostate cancer in the UK: ongoing challenges and underappreciated clinical problems.

This study aimed to explore the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding the management of men with advanced prostate cancer with particular emphasis on treatment timing and sequencing; treatment adverse-effects and exercise a supportive therapy. Semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected group of healthcare professionals involved in prostate cancer care within the NHS, conducted over the phone or face to face. A total of 37 healthcare professionals participated in the interviews including urologists, clinical oncologists, medical oncologists, clinical nurse specialists, general practitioners, physiotherapists, exercise specialists, service managers, clinical commissioners and primary care physicians. The availability of newer treatments for advanced prostate cancer as well as results from the STAMPEDE and CHAARTED trials has resulted in new challenges for patients and HCPs. This includes the impact of an increased workload on oncologists, a potential lack of clinical continuity between urology and oncology and uncertainties regarding optimal selection, timing and sequencing of chemotherapy and second-line treatment. Fitness for treatment in advanced prostate cancer populations remains a significant barrier to accessing therapies for patients with a poor performance status. Among this, muscle wastage can significantly affect performance status and consequentially compromise cancer therapy. Exercise was regarded as a potential therapy to mitigate the adverse-effects of treatment including the prevention or reduction in muscle wastage. There is a lack of data guiding clinicians in this post STAMPEDE and CHAARTED era, work is needed to reassess and optimize the prostate cancer care pathway as it evolves. Exercise should be explored as a therapeutic option to mitigate the effects of long term ADT. Further study from a wider cohort of both prostate cancer care specialists and patients will aid in establishing a highly functioning pathway with optimal individualised care. Sustained exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation: the STAMINA programme (RP-DG-1213-10,010). REC Reference: 15/SW/0260 IRAS Project ID: 178340 Hospital ID: STH 18391 approved on 24/08/2015

Effects of a lifestyle intervention on endothelial function in men on long-term androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Background: Treatment of prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with metabolic changes that have been linked to an increase in cardiovascular risk. Methods: This randomised controlled trial investigated the effects of a 12-week lifestyle intervention that included supervised exercise training and dietary advice on markers of cardiovascular risk in 50 men on long-term ADT recruited to an on-going study investigating the effects of such a lifestyle intervention on quality of life. Participants were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. Cardiovascular outcomes included endothelial function (flow-mediated dilatation [FMD] of the brachial artery), blood pressure, body composition and serum lipids. Additional outcomes included treadmill walk time and exercise and dietary behaviours. Outcomes were assessed before randomisation [baseline], and 6, 12 and 24 weeks after randomisation. Results: At 12 weeks the difference in mean relative FMD was 2.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.3, p = 0.04) with an effect size of 0.60 (95% CI <0.01 to 1.18) favouring the intervention group. Improvements in skeletal muscle mass, treadmill walk time and exercise behaviour also occurred in the intervention group over that duration (p < 0.05). At 24 weeks, only the difference in treadmill walk time was maintained. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that lifestyle changes can improve endothelial function in men on long-term ADT for prostate cancer. The implications for cardiovascular health need further investigation in larger studies over longer duration

Systematic Review of Complications of Prostate Biopsy

AbstractContextProstate biopsy is commonly performed for cancer detection and management. The benefits and risks of prostate biopsy are germane to ongoing debates about prostate cancer screening and treatment.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of complications from prostate biopsy.Evidence acquisitionA literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase, supplemented with additional references. Articles were reviewed for data on the following complications: hematuria, rectal bleeding, hematospermia, infection, pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary retention, erectile dysfunction, and mortality.Evidence synthesisAfter biopsy, hematuria and hematospermia are common but typically mild and self-limiting. Severe rectal bleeding is uncommon. Despite antimicrobial prophylaxis, infectious complications are increasing over time and are the most common reason for hospitalization after biopsy. Pain may occur at several stages of prostate biopsy and can be mitigated by anesthetic agents and anxiety-reduction techniques. Up to 25% of men have transient LUTS after biopsy, and <2% have frank urinary retention, with slightly higher rates reported after transperineal template biopsy. Biopsy-related mortality is rare.ConclusionsPreparation for biopsy should include antimicrobial prophylaxis and pain management. Prostate biopsy is frequently associated with minor bleeding and urinary symptoms that usually do not require intervention. Infectious complications can be serious, requiring prompt management and continued work into preventative strategies

Interventions for promoting habitual exercise in people living with and beyond cancer

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Liibrary 2013, Issue 9. Despite good evidence for the health benefits of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer, understanding how to promote sustainable exercise behaviour change in sedentary cancer survivors, particularly over the long term, is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet current exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important for understanding the most effective strategies to ensure benefit in the patient population and identify research gaps. Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following secondary questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals and/or healthcare professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with better behavioural outcomes? What behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? Search methods: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We updated our 2013 Cochrane systematic review by updating the searches of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro up to May 2018. We also searched the grey literature, trial registries, wrote to leading experts in the field and searched reference lists of included studies and other related recent systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with usual care or 'waiting list' control in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. Data collection and analysis: In the update, review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that could not be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). We extracted data from all eligible papers with at least two members of the author team working independently (RT, LS and RG). We coded BCTs according to the CALO-RE taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. If statistical heterogeneity was noted, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation (SD) of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we narratively synthesised studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach with the GRADE profiler. Main results: We included 23 studies in this review, involving a total of 1372 participants (an addition of 10 studies, 724 participants from the original review); 227 full texts were screened in the update and 377 full texts were screened in the original review leaving 35 publications from a total of 23 unique studies included in the review. We planned to include all cancers, but only studies involving breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (i.e.150 minutes per week); or resistance exercise (i.e. strength training exercises at least two days per week). Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is still reported inconsistently. Eight studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an exercise prescription that met current guidelines. These studies all included a component of supervision: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 1 trials'. Six studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendations: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 2 trials.' A hierarchy of BCTs was developed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 trials, with programme goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour being amongst the most frequent BCTs. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in some of the included studies, interventions resulted in improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at eight to 12 weeks (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70; 604 participants, 10 studies; low-quality evidence) versus usual care. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72; 591 participants; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions: Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. We have found some improved understanding of how to encourage previously inactive cancer survivors to achieve international physical activity guidelines. Goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour, feature in interventions that meet recommendations targets and report adherence of 75% or more. However, long-term follow-up data are still limited, and the majority of studies are in white women with breast cancer. There are still a considerable number of published studies with numerous and varied issues related to high risk of bias and poor reporting standards. Additionally, the meta-analyses were often graded as consisting of low- to very low-certainty evidence. A very small number of serious adverse effects were reported amongst the studies, providing reassurance exercise is safe for this population. © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration

Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study

Objectives To measure the effect of the adverse events within 35 days of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy from the perspective of asymptomatic men having prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing; to assess early attitude to re-biopsy; to estimate healthcare resource use associated with adverse events due to biopsy; and to develop a classification scheme for reporting adverse events after prostate biopsy

Evaluation of a short RNA within Prostate Cancer Gene 3 in the predictive role for future cancer using non-malignant prostate biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Prostate Cancer 3 (PCA3) is a long non-coding RNA (ncRNA) upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa). We recently identified a short ncRNA expressed from intron 1 of PCA3. Here we test the ability of this ncRNA to predict the presence of cancer in men with a biopsy without PCa. METHODS: We selected men whose initial biopsy did not identify PCa and selected matched cohorts whose subsequent biopsies revealed PCa or benign tissue. We extracted RNA from the initial biopsy and measured PCA3-shRNA2, PCA3 and PSA (qRT-PCR). RESULTS: We identified 116 men with and 94 men without an eventual diagnosis of PCa in 2-5 biopsies (mean 26 months), collected from 2002-2008. The cohorts were similar for age, PSA and surveillance period. We detected PSA and PCA3-shRNA2 RNA in all samples, and PCA3 RNA in 90% of biopsies. The expression of PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 were correlated (Pearson's r = 0.37, p<0.01). There was upregulation of PCA3 (2.1-fold, t-test p = 0.02) and PCA3-shRNA2 (1.5-fold) in men with PCa on subsequent biopsy, although this was not significant for the latter RNA (p = 0.2). PCA3 was associated with the future detection of PCa (C-index 0.61, p = 0.01). This was not the case for PCA3-shRNA2 (C-index 0.55, p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 expression are detectable in historic biopsies and their expression is correlated suggesting co-expression. PCA3 expression was upregulated in men with PCa diagnosed at a future date, the same did not hold for PCA3-shRNA2. Futures studies should explore expression in urine and look at a time course between biopsy and PCa detection

Towards implementing exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway: development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to train community-based exercise professionals to support change in patient exercise behaviour (The STAMINA trial)

Abstract Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer should receive supervised exercise to manage the side-effects of treatment. However, these recommendations are rarely implemented into practice. Community-based exercise professionals (CBEPs) represent an important target group to deliver the recommendations nationally, yet their standard training does not address the core competencies required to work with clinical populations, highlighting a need for further professional training. This paper describes the development of a training package to support CBEPs to deliver NICE recommendations. Methods Development of the intervention was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. In step one, target behaviours, together with their barriers and facilitators were identified from a literature review and focus groups with CBEPs (n = 22) and men on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 26). Focus group outputs were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify theoretical constructs for change. In step two, behaviour change techniques and their mode of delivery were selected based on psychological theories and evidence to inform intervention content. In step three, the intervention was refined following delivery and subsequent feedback from intervention recipients and stakeholders. Results Six modifiable CBEPs target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations. Nine domains of the TDF were identified as key determinants of change, including: improving knowledge and skills and changing beliefs about consequences. To target the domains, we included 20 BCTs across 8 training modules and took a blended learning approach to accommodate different learning styles and preferences. Following test delivery to 11 CBEPs and feedback from 28 stakeholders, the training package was refined. Conclusion Established intervention development approaches provided a structured and transparent guide to intervention development. A training package for CBEPs was developed and should increase trust amongst patients and health care professionals when implementing exercise into prostate cancer care. Furthermore, if proven effective, the development and approach taken may provide a blueprint for replication in other clinical populations where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented