Estimating the impact of randomised control trial results on clinical practice: results from a survey and modelling study of androgen deprivation therapy plus radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer

Background Recent trials have shown that the addition of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival among men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Objective To examine the potential impact of these trials on changes in clinical practice and life-years saved. Design, setting, and participants A model was developed to examine the impact of changes in clinical practice in the UK. A survey of clinicians who treat men with prostate cancer in the UK and Canada was performed. Measurements Outcomes of interest were the proportion of patients treated with different approaches and the predicted number of life-years saved due to changes in clinical practice. Survey data were cross-tabulated and Pearson's χ2 tests were applied. Results and limitations The survey was completed by 193 clinicians (105 from the UK, 80 from Canada), of whom 70% were clinical/radiation oncologists, 8% were medical oncologists, and 15% were urologists. UK respondents were more likely to report a change in practice in response to the results (44% UK vs 21% Canada). Canadians were more likely to have already been using ADT plus radiotherapy (77% Canada vs 56% UK). The increase in the proportion of patients in the UK treated with ADT + EBRT could result in around 3730–5177 extra life-years at 15 yr from a cohort of 7930 men diagnosed in a single calendar year, compared to if all had been treated with ADT alone. Conclusions Trial findings have changed clinical practice, meaning that men with locally advanced prostate cancer are likely to survive longer. Patient summary Doctors in the UK have changed practice in response to evidence on the superiority of hormone therapy plus radiotherapy to hormone therapy alone. These changes will improve the survival of men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Further reductions in the use of hormone therapy alone could further improve survival

A Canadian approach to the regionalization of testis cancer: A review

At the Canadian Testis Cancer Workshop, the rationale and feasibility of regionalization of testis cancer care were discussed. The two-day workshop involved urologists, medical and radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, physician’s assistants, residents and fellows, and nurses, as well as patients and patient advocacy groups. This review summarizes the discussion and recommendations of one of the central topics of the workshop — the centralization of testis cancer in Canada. It was acknowledged that non-guideline-concordant care in testis cancer occurs frequently, in the range of 18–30%. The National Health Service in the U.K. stipulates various testis cancer care modalities be delivered through supra-regional network. All cases are reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting and aspects of care can be delivered locally through the network. In Germany, no such network exists, but an insurance-supported online second opinion network was developed that currently achieves expert case review in over 30% of cases. There are clear benefits to regionalization in terms of survival, treatment morbidity, and cost. There was agreement at the workshop that a structured pathway for diagnosis and treatment of testis cancer patients is required. Regionalization may be challenging in Canada because of geography; independent administration of healthcare by each province; physicians fearing loss of autonomy and revenue; patient unwillingness to travel long distances from home; and the inability of the larger centers to handle the ensuing increase in volume. We feel the first step is to identify the key performance indicators and quality metrics to track the quality of care received. After identifying these metrics, implementation of a “networks of excellence” model, similar to that seen in sarcoma care in Ontario, could be effective, coupled with increased use of health technology, such as virtual clinics and telemedicine

Image guided dose escalated prostate radiotherapy: still room to improve

Abstract Background Prostate radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation has been reported to result in improved biochemical control at the cost of greater late toxicity. We report on the application of 79.8 Gy in 42 fractions of prostate image guided RT (IGRT). The primary objective was to assess 5-year biochemical control and potential prognostic factors by the Phoenix definition. Secondary endpoints included acute and late toxicity by the Radiotherapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scoring scales. Methods From October/2001 and June/2003, 259 men were treated with at least 2-years follow-up. 59 patients had low, 163 intermediate and 37 high risk disease. 43 had adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT), mostly for high- or multiple risk factor intermediate-risk disease (n = 25). They received either 3-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT, n = 226) or intensity modulated RT (IMRT) including daily on-line IGRT with intraprostatic fiducial markers. Results Median follow-up was 67.8 months (range 24.4-84.7). There was no severe (grade 3-4) acute toxicity, and grade 2 acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was unusual (10.1%). The 5-year incidence of grade 2-3 late GI and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 13.7% and 12.1%, with corresponding grade 3 figures of 3.5% and 2.0% respectively. HT had an association with an increased risk of grade 2-3 late GI toxicity (11% v 21%, p = 0.018). Using the Phoenix definition for biochemical failure, the 5 year-bNED is 88.4%, 76.5% and 77.9% for low, intermediate and high risk patients respectively. On univariate analysis, T-category and Gleason grade correlated with Phoenix bNED (p = 0.006 and 0.039 respectively). Hormonal therapy was not a significant prognostic factor on uni- or multi-variate analysis. Men with positive prostate biopsies following RT had a lower chance of bNED at 5 years (34.4% v 64.3%; p = 0.147). Conclusion IGRT to 79.8 Gy results in favourable rates of late toxicity compared with published non-IGRT treated cohorts. Future avenues of investigation for toxicity reduction include IMRT, margin reduction, and dose modulation targeted to sites of disease burden. Further work is required to maximize efficacy beyond that achieved through radiation dose escalation alone

Correction: Image guided dose escalated prostate radiotherapy: still room to improve

<p>Abstract</p> <p>We regret to report that a proofreading error caused an incorrect legend and description of the contents of table 6 to appear in our original publication of this work. The correct description of table 6 is: Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for 5-year nadir + 2 biochemical outcome for men presenting with intermediate risk factors.</p