METHODS: Study subjects included men with initial PSA between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/ml that have undergone 12-core TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2016. The prostate cancer detection rate was calculated, while potential factors associated with detection were investigated via univariable and multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 617 men from a multi-ethnic background encompassing Chinese (63.5%), Malay (23.1%) and Indian (13.3%) were studied. The overall cancer detection rate was 14.3% (88/617), which included cancers detected at biopsy 1 (first biopsy), biopsy 2 (second biopsy with previous negative biopsy) and biopsy ≥ 3 (third or more biopsies with prior negative biopsies). Indian men displayed higher detection rate (23.2%) and increased risk of prostate cancer development (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.03-3.32, p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established a multi-national, longitudinal, observational registry of patients with prostate cancer presenting to participating tertiary care hospitals in eight Asian countries. A total of 3636 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRL), non-metastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (M0), or metastatic prostate cancer (M1), were consecutively enrolled and are being followed-up for 5 years. Patient history, demographic and disease characteristics, treatment and treatment decisions, were collected at first prostate cancer diagnosis and at enrolment. Patient-reported quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Quality of Life-five Dimensions, five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Prostate Cancer questionnaires. In the present study, we report the first interim analysis of 2063 patients enrolled from study start (15 September 2015) until 18 May 2017.
RESULTS: Of the 2063 enrolled patients, 357 (17%), 378 (19%), and 1328 (64%) had HRL, M0 or M1 prostate cancer, respectively. The mean age at first diagnosis was similar in each group, 56% of all patients had extracapsular extension of their tumour, 28% had regional lymph node metastasis, and 53% had distant metastases. At enrolment, 62% of patients had at least one co-morbidity (mainly cardiovascular disease or diabetes), 91.8% of M1 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of <2 and the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue score was 74.6-79.6 across cohorts. Treatment of M1 patients was primarily with combined androgen blockade (58%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (either orchidectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) (32%). Decisions to start therapy were mainly driven by treatment guidelines and disease progression. Decision to discontinue therapy was most often due to disease progression (hormonal drug therapy) or completion of therapy (chemotherapy).
CONCLUSION: In the UFO registry of advanced prostate cancer in Asia, regional differences exist in prostate cancer treatment patterns that will be explored more deeply during the follow-up period; prospective follow-up is ongoing. The UFO registry will provide valuable descriptive data on current disease characteristics and treatment landscape amongst patients with prostate cancer in Asia.
DISCUSSION: Several treatment options are available for different stages of prostate cancer. Hormone therapy known as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the first line treatment used to treat advanced prostate cancer. Chemical castration by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists suppresses lutenizing hormone production, which in turn inhibits the production of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. This will prevent the growth of prostate cancer cells. However, ADT causes deleterious effects on bone health because the androgens are essential in preserving optimal bone health in men.
CONCLUSION: Various observational studies showed that long-term ADT for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer was associated with decreased bone mineral density, as well as altered body composition that might affect bone health. Considering the potential impact of osteoporotic fracture, interventions to mitigate these skeletal adverse effects should be considered by physicians when initiating ADT on their patients.
METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV.
RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.
OBJECTIVE: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p = 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).
CONCLUSIONS: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.
PATIENT SUMMARY: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight specimens of needle prostate biopsy and its subsequent radical prostatectomy were retrospectively studied. The GSs of the needle biopsy were compared with the corresponding prostatectomy specimens. The percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups was calculated and correlated with the pathological staging.
RESULTS: More than half (60%) of GS 6 needle biopsy cases (PGG 1) were upgraded in the prostatectomy specimen, while the majority (80%) of the GS7 needle biopsy groups (PGG 2 and 3) remain unchanged. Cohen's Kappa shows fair agreement in the Gleason scoring between needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.324 (95% CI, 6.94 to 7.29), p <0.0005 and in the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups and their corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.399 (95% CI 34.2 - 49.2), p<0.0005. A significant relationship was seen between the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy with the pT and pN stage of its radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008 and p=0.001 respectively).
CONCLUSION: A higher percentage of GP4 in GS7 tumour is associated with worse tumour behaviour, therefore it is crucial for clinicians to realise this in deciding the optimal treatment.
CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old Japanese man presented with lower abdominal pain. Computed tomography revealed a prostatic mass; furthermore, prostate core needle biopsy revealed proliferating bland spindle cells, without necrosis or prominent mitoses. Tumour cells were positive for CD34 and progesterone receptor on immunohistochemical analysis; thus, a prostatic stromal tumour of uncertain malignant potential was initially suspected. However, as the tumour cells showed positive immunoreactivity for STAT6, the final diagnosis was an SFT of the prostate. The patient underwent tumour resection, and at the 6-month postoperative follow-up, neither local recurrence nor distant metastasis occurred.
CONCLUSION: For an accurate diagnosis of an SFT of the prostate, STAT6 immunohistochemistry should be conducted for all mesenchymal tumours of the prostate. When STAT6 immunohistochemical analysis is unfeasible, pathologists should be aware that the morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of SFT variable from case to case and diagnose with combined analysis of several immunohistochemical markers.