Context

Although prostate cancer (PCa) screening reduces the incidence of advanced disease and mortality, trade-offs include overdiagnosis and resultant overtreatment.

Objective

To review primary data on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Evidence acquisition

Electronic searches were conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2013 for original articles on PCa overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Supplemental articles were identified through hand searches.

Evidence synthesis

The lead-time and excess-incidence approaches are the main ways used to estimate overdiagnosis in epidemiological studies, with estimates varying widely. The estimated number of PCa cases needed to be diagnosed to save a life has ranged from 48 down to 5 with increasing follow-up. In clinical studies, generally lower rates of overdiagnosis have been reported based on the frequency of low-grade minimal tumors at radical prostatectomy (1.7-46.8%). Autopsy studies have reported PCa in 18.5-38.5%, although not all are low grade or low volume. Factors influencing overdiagnosis include the study population, screening protocol, and background incidence, limiting generalizability between settings. Reported rates of overtreatment vary widely in the literature, although contemporary international studies suggest increasing use of conservative management.

Conclusions

Epidemiological, clinical, and autopsy studies have been used to examine PCa overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging widely from 1.7% to 67%. Correspondingly, estimates of overtreatment vary widely based on patient features and may be declining internationally. Careful patient selection for screening and reducing overtreatment are important to preserve the benefits and reduce the downstream harms of prostate-specific antigen testing. Because all of these estimates are extremely population and context specific, this must be considered when using these data to inform policy.

Patient summary

Screening reduces spread and death from prostate cancer (PCa) but overdiagnoses some low-risk tumors that may not have caused harm. Because treatment has potential side effects, it is critical that not all patients with PCa receive aggressive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests provide estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance. However, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in their decision-making. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favourable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We purposively sampled to include patients who received biopsy-based genomic testing as part of clinical care. The interview guide focused on experiences with genomic testing during patients decision-making for prostate cancer management and understanding of genomic test results. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content analysis to analyse data. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) mean age was 68 years (range 51-79). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 prostate cancer. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. Participants had some misconceptions about the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with their physicians explanations, others felt that communication was limited and lacked sufficient detail. CONCLUSION: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, despite gaps in understanding about test results. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counselling in order to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Objective

To evaluate the longitudinal association between plant-based diet index (PDI) score and incident erectile dysfunction (ED).

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective analysis of 21 942 men aged 40 to 75 years who were enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. ED was assessed with questionnaires every 4 years starting in 2000. Dietary data were collected via validated food frequency questionnaires completed every 4 years and were used to calculate total PDI scores, as well as healthy (hPDI) and unhealthy (uPDI) subscores. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) for incident ED. All models were stratified by age (<60, 60 to <70, ≥70 years).

Results

Among men aged 60 to <70 years, hPDI was inversely associated with incident ED. Those in the highest quintile of hPDI in that age group had an 18% lower risk of ED (HR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.91; P-trend <0.001) compared to those in the lowest quintile. Conversely, uPDI was positively associated with ED in men aged <60 years (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.60; P-trend = 0.02).

Conclusions

Encouraging a healthy plant-based diet may be an environmentally sustainable intervention for men interested in maintaining erectile function.

Context

Given the highly variable behavior and clinical course of prostate cancer (PCa) and the multiple available treatment options, a personalized approach to oncologic risk stratification is important. Novel genetic approaches offer additional information to improve clinical decision making.

Objective

To review the use of genomic biomarkers in the prognostication of PCa outcome and prediction of therapeutic response.

Evidence acquisition

Systematic literature review focused on human clinical studies reporting outcome measures with external validation. The literature search included all Medline, Embase, and Scopus articles from inception through July 2014.

Evidence synthesis

An improved understanding of the genetic basis of prostate carcinogenesis has produced an increasing number of potential prognostic and predictive tools, such as transmembrane protease, serine2:v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2:ERG) gene fusion status, loss of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene, and gene expression signatures utilizing messenger RNA from tumor tissue. Several commercially available gene panels with external validation are now available, although most have yet to be widely used. The most studied commercially available gene panels, Prolaris, Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and Decipher, may be used to estimate disease outcome in addition to clinical parameters or clinical nomograms. ConfirmMDx is an epigenetic test used to predict the results of repeat prostate biopsy after an initial negative biopsy. Additional future strategies include using genetic information from circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood to guide treatment decisions at the initial diagnosis and at subsequent decision points.

Conclusions

Major advances have been made in our understanding of PCa biology in recent years. Our field is currently exploring the early stages of a personalized approach to augment traditional clinical decision making using commercially available genomic tools. A more comprehensive appreciation of value, limitations, and cost is important.

Patient summary

We summarized current advances in genomic testing in prostate cancer with a special focus on the estimation of disease outcome. Several commercial tests are currently available, but further understanding is needed to appreciate the potential benefits and limitations of these novel tests.

CONTEXT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated rapid changes in medical practice. Many of these changes may add value to care, creating opportunities going forward. OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-informed, expert-derived review of genitourinary cancer care moving forward following the initial COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A collaborative narrative review was conducted using literature published through May 2020 (PubMed), which comprised three main topics: reduced in-person interactions arguing for increasing virtual and image-based care, optimisation of the delivery of care, and the effect of COVID-19 in health care facilities on decision-making by patients and their families. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Patterns of care will evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine, virtual care, and telemonitoring will increase and could offer broader access to multidisciplinary expertise without increasing costs. Comprehensive and integrative telehealth solutions will be necessary, and should consider patients mental health and access differences due to socioeconomic status. Investigations and treatments will need to maximise efficiency and minimise health care interactions. Solutions such as one stop clinics, day case surgery, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and oral or less frequent drug dosing will be preferred. The pandemic necessitated a triage of those patients whose treatment should be expedited, delayed, or avoided, and may persist with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in circulation. Patients whose demographic characteristics are at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19 may re-evaluate the benefit of intervention for less aggressive cancers. Clinical research will need to accommodate virtual care and trial participation. Research dissemination and medical education will increasingly utilise virtual platforms, limiting in-person professional engagement; ensure data dissemination; and aim to enhance patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic will have lasting effects on the delivery of health care. These changes offer opportunities to improve access, delivery, and the value of care for patients with genitourinary cancers but raise concerns that physicians and health administrators must consider in order to ensure equitable access to care. PATIENT SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the care provided to many patients with genitourinary cancers. This has necessitated a transition to telemedicine, changes in threshold or delays in many treatments, and an opportunity to reimagine patient care to maintain safety and improve value moving forward.

Various conflicting guidelines and recommendations about prostate cancer screening and early detection have left both clinicians and their patients quite confused. At the Prostate Cancer World Congress held in Melbourne in August 2013, a multidisciplinary group of the world's leading experts in this area gathered together and generated this set of consensus statements to bring some clarity to this confusion. The five consensus statements provide clear guidance for clinicians counselling their patients about the early detection of prostate cancer.

Objective

To characterise the use of social media among members of the American Urological Association (AUA), as the use of social media in medicine has greatly expanded in recent years.

Subjects and methods

In December 2012 to January 2013, the AUA e-mailed a survey with 34 questions on social media use to 2000 randomly selected urologists and 2047 resident/fellow members. Additional data was collected from Symplur analytics on social media use surrounding the AUA Annual Meeting in May 2013.

Results

In all, 382 (9.4%) surveys were completed, indicating 74% of responders had an online social media account. The most commonly used social media platforms were Facebook (93%), followed in descending order by LinkedIn (46%), Twitter (36%) and Google+ (26%). Being aged <40 years was an important predictor of social media use (83% vs 56%), with greater uptake among residents/fellows compared with attendings (86% vs 66%). Only 28% of respondents used social media partly or entirely for professional purposes. During the 2013 AUA Annual Meeting, there were >5000 tweets from >600 distinct contributors.

Conclusion

As of early 2013, among respondents to an e-mail survey, most urologists and urology trainees used some form of social media, and its use in urology conferences has greatly expanded.

The use of social media continues to increase in health care and academia. Health care practice, particularly the oncologic field, is constantly changing because of new knowledge, evidence-based research, clinical trials, and government policies. Therefore, oncology trainees and professionals continue to strive to stay up-to-date with practice guidelines, research, and skills. Although social media as an educational and professional development tool is no longer completely new to medicine and has been embraced, it is still under-researched in terms of various outcomes. Social media plays several key roles in professional development and academic advancement. We reviewed the literature to evaluate how social media can be used for professional development and academic promotion of oncology professionals.

Objective

To examine the use of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a continuous variable in multivariable risk assessment for aggressive prostate cancer in a large multicentre US study.

Materials and methods

The study population included 728 men, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 2-10 ng/mL and a negative digital rectal examination, enrolled in a prospective, multi-site early detection trial. The primary endpoint was aggressive prostate cancer, defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7. First, we evaluated whether the addition of PHI improves the performance of currently available risk calculators (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [PCPT] and European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC] risk calculators). We also designed and internally validated a new PHI-based multivariable predictive model, and created a nomogram.

Results

Of 728 men undergoing biopsy, 118 (16.2%) had aggressive prostate cancer. The PHI predicted the risk of aggressive prostate cancer across the spectrum of values. Adding PHI significantly improved the predictive accuracy of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators for aggressive disease. A new model was created using age, previous biopsy, prostate volume, PSA and PHI, with an area under the curve of 0.746. The bootstrap-corrected model showed good calibration with observed risk for aggressive prostate cancer and had net benefit on decision-curve analysis.

Conclusion

Using PHI as part of multivariable risk assessment leads to a significant improvement in the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, potentially reducing harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis.