A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Patient-reported 'ever had' and 'current' long term physical symptoms following prostate cancer treatments

OBJECTIVE: To document prostate cancer patient reported 'ever experienced' and 'current' prevalence of disease specific physical symptoms stratified by primary treatment received.
PATIENTS: 3,348 prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, postal survey of 6,559 survivors diagnosed 2-15 years ago with primary, invasive PCa (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (impotence/urinary incontinence/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced 'ever' and at questionnaire completion ("current"). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one 'current' physical symptom ('ever':90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment; overall 57% reported current impotence; this was highest following radical prostatectomy (RP)76% followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT); 64%. Urinary incontinence (overall 'current' 16%) was highest following RP ('current'28%, 'ever'70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no 'current' symptoms; 43% reported 'current' impotence and 8% 'current' incontinence. 'Current' hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
CONCLUSION: Symptoms following prostate cancer are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.

Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

PURPOSE: Men are living longer with prostate cancer. In a two-country study, we investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis.

METHODS: Postal questionnaires were administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. HRQoL was measured using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. HRQoL, functional and symptom scores were compared by primary treatment(s) using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: Fifty-four percent responded (n = 3348). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical factors, global HRQoL varied significantly by primary treatment (p < 0.001); compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), survivors who received androgen deprivation therapy alone (ADT; p < 0.001) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without concurrent ADT (p = 0.001) had significantly lower global HRQoL. The global HRQoL of men who received brachytherapy (p = 0.157), EBRT with concurrent ADT (p = 0.940) or active surveillance/watchful waiting (p = 0.388) was not significantly different from men treated with RP. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in general (fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, financial difficulties) and disease-specific symptoms (sexual, urinary, bowel, ADT) by primary treatment. Fatigue and insomnia scores were high for survivors in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors' long-term HRQoL varied with primary treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: Population-based information regarding statistically and clinically significant treatment effects on long-term global HRQoL, symptom burden and functionality should be provided during treatment decision-making. Screening for symptoms and utilising interventions during long-term follow-up may improve survivors' HRQoL.

Tumor-derived CXCL8 signaling augments stroma-derived CCL2-promoted proliferation and CXCL12-mediated invasion of PTEN-deficient prostate cancer cells

Impaired PTEN function is a genetic hallmark of aggressive prostate cancers (CaP) and is associated with increased CXCL8 expression and signaling. The current aim was to further characterize biological responses and mechanisms underpinning CXCL8-promoted progression of PTEN-depleted prostate cancer, focusing on characterizing the potential interplay between CXCL8 and other disease-promoting chemokines resident within the prostate tumor microenvironment. Autocrine CXCL8-stimulation (i) increased expression of CXCR1 and CXCR2 in PTEN-deficient CaP cells suggesting a self-potentiating signaling axis and (ii) induced expression of CXCR4 and CCR2 in PTEN-wild-type and PTEN-depleted CaP cells. In contrast, paracrine CXCL8 signaling induced expression and secretion of the chemokines CCL2 and CXCL12 from prostate stromal WPMY-1 fibroblasts and monocytic macrophage-like THP-1 cells. In vitro studies demonstrated functional co-operation of tumor-derived CXCL8 with stromal-derived chemokines. CXCL12-induced migration of PC3 cells and CCL2-induced proliferation of prostate cancer cells were dependent upon intrinsic CXCL8 signaling within the prostate cancer cells. For example, in co-culture experiments, CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling but not CCL2/CCR2 signaling supported fibroblast-mediated migration of PC3 cells while CXCL12/CXCR4 and CCL2/CCR2 signaling underpinned monocyte-enhanced migration of PC3 cells. Combined inhibition of both CXCL8 and CXCL12 signaling was more effective in inhibiting fibroblast-promoted cell motility while repression of CXCL8 attenuated CCL2-promoted proliferation of prostate cancer cells. We conclude that tumor-derived CXCL8 signaling from PTEN-deficient tumor cells increases the sensitivity and responsiveness of CaP cells to stromal chemokines by concurrently upregulating receptor expression in cancer cells and inducing stromal chemokine synthesis. Combined chemokine targeting may be required to inhibit their multi-faceted actions in promoting the invasion and proliferation of aggressive CaP.

Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

PURPOSE: We report the percentage of patients on active surveillance who had disease pathologically upgraded and factors that predict for upgrading on surveillance biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in our active surveillance database with at least 1 repeat prostate biopsy were included. Histological upgrading was defined as any increase in primary or secondary Gleason grade on repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine baseline and dynamic factors associated with Gleason upgrading. This information was used to develop a nomogram to predict for upgrading or treatment in patients electing for active surveillance.

RESULTS: Of 862 patients in our cohort 592 had 2 or more biopsies. Median followup was 6.4 years. Of the patients 20% were intermediate risk, 0.3% were high risk and all others were low risk. During active surveillance 31.3% of cases were upgraded. On multivariate analysis clinical stage T2, higher prostate specific antigen and higher percentage of cores involved with disease at the time of diagnosis predicted for upgrading. A total of 27 cases (15% of those upgraded) were Gleason 8 or higher at upgrading, and 62% of all 114 upgraded cases went on to have active treatment. The nomogram incorporated clinical stage, age, prostate specific antigen, core positivity and Gleason score. The concordance index was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large re-biopsy cohort with medium-term followup, most cases have not been pathologically upgraded to date. A model predicting for upgrading or radical treatment was developed which could be useful in counseling patients considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large Active Surveillance Cohort of Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Long-term follow-up has been lacking. In this study, we report the long-term outcome of a large active surveillance protocol in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective single-arm cohort study carried out at a single academic health sciences center, 993 men with favorable- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were managed with an initial expectant approach. Intervention was offered for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progression. Main outcome measures were overall and disease-specific survival, rate of treatment, and PSA failure rate in the treated patients.

RESULTS: Among the 819 survivors, the median follow-up time from the first biopsy is 6.4 years (range, 0.2 to 19.8 years). One hundred forty-nine (15%) of 993 patients died, and 844 patients are alive (censored rate, 85.0%). There were 15 deaths (1.5%) from prostate cancer. The 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. An additional 13 patients (1.3%) developed metastatic disease and are alive with confirmed metastases (n = 9) or have died of other causes (n = 4). At 5, 10, and 15 years, 75.7%, 63.5%, and 55.0% of patients remained untreated and on surveillance. The cumulative hazard ratio for nonprostate-to-prostate cancer mortality was 9.2:1.

CONCLUSION: Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer is feasible and seems safe in the 15-year time frame. In our cohort, 2.8% of patients have developed metastatic disease, and 1.5% have died of prostate cancer. This mortality rate is consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients managed with initial definitive intervention.

Sector analysis provides additional spatial information on the permanent prostate brachytherapy learning curve

PURPOSE: To evaluate the permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) learning curve using postimplant multisector dosimetric analysis and to assess the correlation between sector -specific dosimetry and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS AND METHODS: First 200 patients treated with (125)I PPB monotherapy (145 Gy) at a single institution were assessed. Postimplant dosimetry (PID) using CT was evaluated for whole prostate (global) and 12 sectors, assessing minimum dose to 90% of prostate (D90) and dose to 0.1 cm(3) of rectum (D0.1cc). Global and sector PID results were evaluated to investigate changes in D90 with case number. Urinary and bowel PROMs were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire. The correlation between global and individual sector PID and urinary/bowel PROMs was also evaluated.

RESULTS: Linear regression confirmed a significant improvement in global D90 with case number (r(2) = 0.20; p = 0.001) at a rate of 0.11 Gy/case. Postimplant D90 of base sectors increased at a rate of 0.11-0.15 Gy/case (p = 0.0001) and matched global improvement. The regression lines of midgland and apex sectors were significantly different from global D90 (p = 0.01). Posterior midgland sectors showed a significant reduction in D90 with case number at a rate of 0.13-0.19 Gy/case (p = 0.01). Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with rectal D0.1cc dose but not bowel PROMs. Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with urinary International Prostate Symptom Score change, which was not apparent when global D90 alone was considered.

CONCLUSIONS: Sector analysis provided increased spatial information regarding the PPB learning curve. Furthermore, sector analysis correlated with urinary PROMs and rectal dose.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.