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).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted with the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) with 1871 cases and 1871 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of pre-diagnostic circulating MSP with risk of incident prostate cancer overall and by tumour subtype. EPIC-derived estimates were combined with published data to calculate an MR estimate using two-sample inverse-variance method.

RESULTS: Plasma MSP concentrations were inversely associated with prostate cancer risk after adjusting for total prostate-specific antigen concentration [odds ratio (OR) highest versus lowest fourth of MSP = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.84, Ptrend = 0.001]. No heterogeneity in this association was observed by tumour stage or histological grade. Plasma MSP concentrations were 66% lower in rs10993994 TT compared with CC homozygotes (per allele difference in MSP: 6.09 ng/ml, 95% CI 5.56-6.61, r2=0.42). MR analyses supported a potentially causal protective association of MSP with prostate cancer risk (OR per 1 ng/ml increase in MSP for MR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97 versus EPIC observational: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Limitations include lack of complete tumour subtype information and more complete information on the biological function of MSP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).