Prostate Cancer

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent data suggest that the incidence of early-onset cancer, defined as cancer diagnosed in people younger than 50 years, is on the rise in several countries. Two recent studies confirm this trend, including one published in early September in BMJ Oncology that presents worldwide data on the matter.

Early-onset cancer

The article published in BMJ Oncology shows that over the past 30 years (1990 to 2019), new cancer cases in patients younger than 50 years have increased by 79% worldwide, reaching 3.26 million cases. Among them, early-onset breast cancer had the highest incidence (13.7) and mortality (3.5 per 100k) rates in the global population.

Tracheal (nasopharyngeal) and prostate cancer have increased the most rapidly since 1990, with annual percentage changes estimated at 2.28% and 2.23%, respectively. At the other end of the scale, cases of early-onset liver cancer dropped by around 2.88% year on year.
 

Increase in deaths

There were more than a million (1.06) cancer deaths among patients younger than 50 years in 2019, which is an increase of slightly less than 28% compared with the figures from 1990.

The top four early-onset cancers with the highest mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates among young adults in 2019 were early-onset breast; tracheal, bronchus and lung; stomach; and colorectal cancers. The mortality rates of early-onset kidney cancer and ovarian cancer showed the fastest increasing trends.

“These results contrast with a more traditionally held view of ‘typical’ cancers in adults aged under 50 years,” Ashleigh C. Hamilton, MD, an academic clinical lecturer, and Helen G. Coleman, PhD, a professor, both at Queen’s University Belfast’s Centre for Public Health in the United Kingdom, explained in an accompanying editorial. An important aspect of this study is that it tackled the issue of increasing cancer rates among young people on a global scale, they added. Here, the researchers made use of 2019 data from the Global Burden of Disease database for 29 types of cancer in 204 countries and regions.
 

Industrialized countries

The highest rates of early-onset cancer in 2019 were reported in North America, Australasia, and Western Europe. However, the burden of early-onset cancers in low- to middle-income countries is also of major public health concern. The highest death rates among patients younger than 50 years were in Oceania, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.

In low- or middle-income regions, early-onset cancer had a significantly higher impact on women than on men in terms of mortality and disease burden, the researchers reported.

On the basis of trends observed over the past 30 years, they estimate that the global incidence and deaths of early-onset cancer would increase by 31% and 21% in 2030, respectively, with 40-year-olds being the most affected.
 

Hypotheses and limitations

How can this increase in the incidence of cancer among patients younger than 50 years be explained? For the authors, genetic factors likely play a role. But dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium, and low in milk, etc.), alcohol consumption, and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers in patients under age 50 years. Physical inactivity, excess weight, and hyperglycemia were shown to be contributing factors.

The researchers recognized several limitations to their conclusions. First, the accuracy of Global Burden of Disease data was compromised by the quality of cancer registry data in different countries, which may have led to underreporting and underdiagnosis. Also, questions remain about how screening and early exposure to environmental factors can affect the observed trends.

For the authors of the editorial, “Full understanding of the reasons driving the observed trends remains elusive, although lifestyle factors are likely contributing, and novel areas of research such as antibiotic usage, the gut microbiome, outdoor air pollution, and early life exposures are being explored.”

They concluded, “Prevention and early detection measures are urgently required, along with identifying optimal treatment strategies for early-onset cancers, which should include a holistic approach addressing the unique supportive care needs of younger patients.”

The authors added, “It is worth exploring whether early screening and prevention programs for early-onset cancer should be expanded to include individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49, but further systematic studies and randomized trials are necessary to make a definitive determination.”
 

Trend in the United States

Between 2010 and 2019, although the incidence of cancer dropped in people over age 50 years in the United States, a study published in JAMA Network Open in August showed that the standardized incidence rate of early-onset cancer increased overall. More specifically, the rate increased in women but decreased in men.

In 2019, most early-onset cancer cases involved breast cancer. Between 2010 and 2019, gastrointestinal cancers saw the fastest rise. And among gastrointestinal cancers, those whose incidence rate increased the most rapidly were those affecting the appendix, the intrahepatic bile ducts, and the pancreas.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

Fear and a lack of health-related knowledge pose significant barriers to preventative cancer care access and effectiveness, recent survey data from The Harris Poll suggests.

The survey, commissioned by Bayer U.S. to identify patient behaviors and care barriers, indicates that more than one in four adults in the United States (27%) would rather not know if they have cancer, and nearly a third (31%) – particularly younger patients aged 18-44 years – avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of what they might learn.

Similarly, 26% of 2,079 respondents said that fear and anxiety are the main reasons why they don’t make or keep doctor appointments. Those with lower household income and education levels, those with children under age 18 years, and Hispanic adults were most likely to cite this reason.

Almost half (up to 49%) lacked knowledge about certain cancers and risk factors.

For example, 48% of respondents were unaware that breast density affects breast cancer risk and diagnosis, and 38% said they were not very knowledgeable about breast cancer.

Regarding prostate cancer, 49% were unaware that race impacts risk and 49% said they were not knowledgeable about the disease.

The survey highlighted a lack of trust in treatments and health care processes among most adults, especially those with lower income and education levels. Overall, 53% said they have little or no trust in treatments developed by pharmaceutical companies, and 31% said they have little or no trust in medical tests, test results, and other medical processes.

The findings of the survey, which was conducted online June 6-8, 2023, among U.S. adults aged 18 years and older, underscore the need to better educate individuals about cancer risk factors and the benefits of preventative care.

“The increase of fear and anxiety, heightened by a lack of education and in some cases trust barriers, creates an environment where people may not access basic preventative care to ensure early diagnosis,” Sebastian Guth, president of Bayer U.S. and Pharmaceuticals North America, stated in a press release. “This is compounded by the fact that around 27.4 million people of all ages (8.3%) don’t have access to health insurance.

“Companies like Bayer have a responsibility to provide resources that increase health education on the importance of understanding disease risks, early disease screenings, and preventative health care,” Mr. Guth added, noting that the company is partnering with multiple patient advocacy groups to increase trust, awareness, and knowledge “to help individuals understand the resources available to them and their risks for a specific disease.”

Public health initiatives have had mixed results with respect to changing patient behaviors over time, but Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) in October of each year is a stand-out initiative that could serve as a model for other patient education initiatives, according to a 2022 study.

The Google trends analysis showed that from 2012 to 2021, BCAM was associated with improved public awareness of breast cancer, whereas Lung Cancer Awareness Month and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month had no impact on lung and prostate cancer awareness, respectively, over time, reported Yoshita Nishimura, MD, of Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Japan, and Jared D. Acoba, MD, of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Dr. Nishimura and Dr. Acoba concluded that the success of BCAM, which was launched in 1985 and is now led by the National Breast Cancer Foundation, is likely a result of “the effective involvement of non-medical industries, influencers affected by breast cancer, and an awareness symbol.”

As for the role of physicians in raising awareness and increasing knowledge at the patient level, various guidelines focus on assessing patient needs and readiness to learn, communicating clearly, and identifying barriers, such as a lack of support and low health literacy.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline for physician-patient communication, for example, provides guidance on core communication skills that apply across the continuum of care, as well as specific topics to address, such as patient goals, treatment options, and support systems – all with an eye toward using “effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being and family well-being.”

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

In the United States this year, approximately 288,300 men will be newly diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 34,700 men will die from this disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer in men, and one out of every eight men will be diagnosed with this cancer at some point in their lives.

As primary care physicians, a large part of our role is to prevent or detect cancers early. Patients look to us for this guidance. However, prostate cancer screening has long been a controversial issue. Earlier this year, the American Urological Association along with the Society of Urologic Oncology published updated guidelines.

Clear recommendations that come from this set of guidelines that are relevant to primary care physicians include:

• using PSA as the screening test of choice.
• repeating PSA in patients with newly elevated results before moving on to other test.
• offering PSA screening every 2-4 years in patients aged 50-69 years.
• offering baseline screening in those between 45-50 years of age.

In high-risk patients, screening can be initiated at 40-45 years of age. All of these recommendations come with the caveat that we give the patient all the pros and cons and leave it up to their “values and preferences.”

The guidelines make recommendations regarding PSA screening and biopsy standards. These guidelines are very specific in their recommendations; however, the question about whether to do PSA screening in the first place is left open to debate. While shared decision-making is important with any testing, it is more difficult with prostate cancer screening. Patients need to understand that there are possible adverse events that can result because of an elevated PSA, such as unneeded biopsies that may come with complications.

The authors of this set of guidelines suggest that physicians talk to patients more often about the benefits of the screening than they do about the negative consequences. This assumes that a negative biopsy result is an unnecessary test, which is not a fair assessment. Negative test results can provide useful clinical information. While a PSA result may lead to a biopsy that could have possibly been avoided, we don’t have any better screening tests available. Missing a prostate cancer that could have been detected by PSA screening is also very harmful. Deciding whether to do PSA screening for any given patient then becomes a difficult question.

More research into biomarkers to detect prostate cancer is needed, as suggested by the guideline authors. As primary care doctors, we’re the first ones to order these tests and make decisions regarding the results. While we may not be the ones to do the biopsies, we do need to know when to refer the patients to specialists or when we can just repeat the test.

Population health is often the benchmark used when looking at screening guidelines. But in the primary care setting, we are responsible for individual patients. Applying guidelines that take whole populations into consideration often doesn’t translate well to single patients. We do need to make them responsible for their own health care decisions but, at the same time, we need to offer them some guidance. If the guidelines are clear, this is easy. When they suggest giving patients all the pros and cons and letting them make their own decision, this is hard. Some of them want us to tell them what to do.

Additionally, patients in the primary care setting develop close relationships with their physicians. They are not an elevated PSA test or a negative biopsy result. They have concerns and fears. When they are high risk, the advice is easy. Keeping in mind that prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in men in the United States, we should have clear screening guidelines, such as we do with mammograms in women. Yes, shared decision-making is important, but we also need to know the answer when our patients ask us whether or not they should have a PSA test done.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

OBJECTIVE

UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy offers a more accurate test result regarding prostate cancer. The goal of the UroNav is to find more transitional zone prostate cancers that a standard mapping biopsy is unable to see. This paper aims to evaluate the utility of UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy to detect clinically significant transition zone cancers in patients on active surveillance with low volume, low grade cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 268 prostate cancer patients from Minnesota Urology over a threeyear period who underwent a UroNav (MRI/TRUS) biopsy as part of standardized follow up in an active surveillance protocol. All patients underwent both biopsy of MRI PiRAD lesions and a standard mapping biopsy at the time of procedure. Patients with positive PiRAD transition zone and negative mapping biopsies were identified. Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 268 patients, 68 (25%) of the patients had a normal standard mapping prostate biopsies. Using UroNav technology cancer was found showing a statistically significant amount of prostate cancer in the transitional zone missed by standard mapping biopsy (P value <0.05) Out of these 68 patients 35 (51.5%) were reported to have a Gleason score ≥7 indicating clinically significant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of UroNav MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy allowed detection of clinically significant transition zone cancer missed by concurrent standard mapping biopsies in an active surveillance population. This should be continually explored to get a larger sample size to see if the UroNav can also detect missed clinically significant prostate cancer at a high rate.

OBJECTIVE

UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy offers a more accurate test result regarding prostate cancer. The goal of the UroNav is to find more transitional zone prostate cancers that a standard mapping biopsy is unable to see. This paper aims to evaluate the utility of UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy to detect clinically significant transition zone cancers in patients on active surveillance with low volume, low grade cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 268 prostate cancer patients from Minnesota Urology over a threeyear period who underwent a UroNav (MRI/TRUS) biopsy as part of standardized follow up in an active surveillance protocol. All patients underwent both biopsy of MRI PiRAD lesions and a standard mapping biopsy at the time of procedure. Patients with positive PiRAD transition zone and negative mapping biopsies were identified. Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 268 patients, 68 (25%) of the patients had a normal standard mapping prostate biopsies. Using UroNav technology cancer was found showing a statistically significant amount of prostate cancer in the transitional zone missed by standard mapping biopsy (P value <0.05) Out of these 68 patients 35 (51.5%) were reported to have a Gleason score ≥7 indicating clinically significant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of UroNav MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy allowed detection of clinically significant transition zone cancer missed by concurrent standard mapping biopsies in an active surveillance population. This should be continually explored to get a larger sample size to see if the UroNav can also detect missed clinically significant prostate cancer at a high rate.

OBJECTIVE

UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy offers a more accurate test result regarding prostate cancer. The goal of the UroNav is to find more transitional zone prostate cancers that a standard mapping biopsy is unable to see. This paper aims to evaluate the utility of UroNav MRI/TRUS biopsy to detect clinically significant transition zone cancers in patients on active surveillance with low volume, low grade cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 268 prostate cancer patients from Minnesota Urology over a threeyear period who underwent a UroNav (MRI/TRUS) biopsy as part of standardized follow up in an active surveillance protocol. All patients underwent both biopsy of MRI PiRAD lesions and a standard mapping biopsy at the time of procedure. Patients with positive PiRAD transition zone and negative mapping biopsies were identified. Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 268 patients, 68 (25%) of the patients had a normal standard mapping prostate biopsies. Using UroNav technology cancer was found showing a statistically significant amount of prostate cancer in the transitional zone missed by standard mapping biopsy (P value <0.05) Out of these 68 patients 35 (51.5%) were reported to have a Gleason score ≥7 indicating clinically significant prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of UroNav MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy allowed detection of clinically significant transition zone cancer missed by concurrent standard mapping biopsies in an active surveillance population. This should be continually explored to get a larger sample size to see if the UroNav can also detect missed clinically significant prostate cancer at a high rate.

OBJECTIVE

Transitional zone cancers are not accounted for when using standard prostate biopsy techniques. Using MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (UroNav) can more accurately diagnose transitional zone prostate cancer. The goal of this study is to evaluate 375 patients with transitional zone only cancer found on a UroNav biopsy MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy over a three-year period to evaluate the clinical significance of their cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed 1500 patients that underwent a UroNav biopsy over a 3 year period. 375 of these patients had transitional zone only cancers. The patients with transitional and peripheral zone cancer were analyzed. The PIRAD scores were evaluated and the percent cancer determined for each zone. Clinically significant cancer for each zone was also determined.

RESULTS

Of the 1500 patients with a PIRAD lesion, 25% were located in the transitional zone, 36% in the peripheral zone and 39% in both transitional and peripheral zone. Cancer was detected in 40% of transitional zone only lesions, 44% of peripheral zone only lesions and 38% combined zone lesion. Clinically significant cancer was noted in 26%, 27% and 20%, respectively, for the TZ, PZ and combined zones. Kaplan- Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi- Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05. PIRAD breakdown for transitional zone only cancers are as follows, PIRAD 3 (52% of patients): 24% cancer, 10% clinically significant PIRAD 4 (34% of patients): 43% cancer, 30% clinically significant PIRAD 5 (14% of patients): 75% cancer, 60% clinically significant

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a UroNav biopsy has been instrumental in detecting clinically significant cancers in the transitional zone that otherwise would have been missed on a standard mapping biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

Transitional zone cancers are not accounted for when using standard prostate biopsy techniques. Using MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (UroNav) can more accurately diagnose transitional zone prostate cancer. The goal of this study is to evaluate 375 patients with transitional zone only cancer found on a UroNav biopsy MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy over a three-year period to evaluate the clinical significance of their cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed 1500 patients that underwent a UroNav biopsy over a 3 year period. 375 of these patients had transitional zone only cancers. The patients with transitional and peripheral zone cancer were analyzed. The PIRAD scores were evaluated and the percent cancer determined for each zone. Clinically significant cancer for each zone was also determined.

RESULTS

Of the 1500 patients with a PIRAD lesion, 25% were located in the transitional zone, 36% in the peripheral zone and 39% in both transitional and peripheral zone. Cancer was detected in 40% of transitional zone only lesions, 44% of peripheral zone only lesions and 38% combined zone lesion. Clinically significant cancer was noted in 26%, 27% and 20%, respectively, for the TZ, PZ and combined zones. Kaplan- Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi- Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05. PIRAD breakdown for transitional zone only cancers are as follows, PIRAD 3 (52% of patients): 24% cancer, 10% clinically significant PIRAD 4 (34% of patients): 43% cancer, 30% clinically significant PIRAD 5 (14% of patients): 75% cancer, 60% clinically significant

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a UroNav biopsy has been instrumental in detecting clinically significant cancers in the transitional zone that otherwise would have been missed on a standard mapping biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

Transitional zone cancers are not accounted for when using standard prostate biopsy techniques. Using MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (UroNav) can more accurately diagnose transitional zone prostate cancer. The goal of this study is to evaluate 375 patients with transitional zone only cancer found on a UroNav biopsy MRI/Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy over a three-year period to evaluate the clinical significance of their cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed 1500 patients that underwent a UroNav biopsy over a 3 year period. 375 of these patients had transitional zone only cancers. The patients with transitional and peripheral zone cancer were analyzed. The PIRAD scores were evaluated and the percent cancer determined for each zone. Clinically significant cancer for each zone was also determined.

RESULTS

Of the 1500 patients with a PIRAD lesion, 25% were located in the transitional zone, 36% in the peripheral zone and 39% in both transitional and peripheral zone. Cancer was detected in 40% of transitional zone only lesions, 44% of peripheral zone only lesions and 38% combined zone lesion. Clinically significant cancer was noted in 26%, 27% and 20%, respectively, for the TZ, PZ and combined zones. Kaplan- Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards test, ANOVA and Chi- Square tests were performed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS version 27 and statistical significance was set at α=0.05. PIRAD breakdown for transitional zone only cancers are as follows, PIRAD 3 (52% of patients): 24% cancer, 10% clinically significant PIRAD 4 (34% of patients): 43% cancer, 30% clinically significant PIRAD 5 (14% of patients): 75% cancer, 60% clinically significant

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a UroNav biopsy has been instrumental in detecting clinically significant cancers in the transitional zone that otherwise would have been missed on a standard mapping biopsy.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is one of the most common oncologic diagnoses in VA. Follow-up after radiation treatment involves PSA lab work and a provider visit every 6 months to evaluate for recurrence and longterm side effects. This requires a large amount of VA resources in terms of staff time and can lead to reduced provider access and increased outsourcing costs. If the veteran has in person appointments, this also increases time and travel costs for the veteran.

METHODS

The Cleveland VA Radiation Oncology department has designed a novel Prostate Cancer Tracker to monitor veterans for prostate cancer follow-up. The novel workflow uses a combination of data analysis and sorting techniques along with a dedicated clinical team to triage patients to (1) direct counseling for biochemical recurrence or (2) continued follow-up through the tracker. This process improves resource utilization, efficiently tracks patients, and reduces the risk of a patient lost to follow-up. The program started in August 2022 and has been running in a pilot phase until January 2023. Patient statistics using VA analytics were collected for January 2023 to March 2023.

RESULTS

At the end of March 2023, the tracker contained 250 patients. 56 veterans had their lab work coordinated with PCP labs to avoid unnecessary needle sticks. 50 letters for overdue labs were sent out of which 31 resulted in returning to standard of care follow up. 6 patients were converted from the tracker to in person for counseling regarding biochemical recurrence. The number of in person appointments saved was 80 per month, resulting in better access for providers and savings for veterans for miles driven and veteran’s time. In addition, we have reduced outsourcing costs by re-capturing outsourced veterans back to VA for prostate cancer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The prostate cancer tracker workflow is a novel workflow that has had a successful pilot as a VA iNET seed investee. We plan to expand its use within our department and further quantify improvements for the VA. We are actively looking to expand to other VA sites.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is one of the most common oncologic diagnoses in VA. Follow-up after radiation treatment involves PSA lab work and a provider visit every 6 months to evaluate for recurrence and longterm side effects. This requires a large amount of VA resources in terms of staff time and can lead to reduced provider access and increased outsourcing costs. If the veteran has in person appointments, this also increases time and travel costs for the veteran.

METHODS

The Cleveland VA Radiation Oncology department has designed a novel Prostate Cancer Tracker to monitor veterans for prostate cancer follow-up. The novel workflow uses a combination of data analysis and sorting techniques along with a dedicated clinical team to triage patients to (1) direct counseling for biochemical recurrence or (2) continued follow-up through the tracker. This process improves resource utilization, efficiently tracks patients, and reduces the risk of a patient lost to follow-up. The program started in August 2022 and has been running in a pilot phase until January 2023. Patient statistics using VA analytics were collected for January 2023 to March 2023.

RESULTS

At the end of March 2023, the tracker contained 250 patients. 56 veterans had their lab work coordinated with PCP labs to avoid unnecessary needle sticks. 50 letters for overdue labs were sent out of which 31 resulted in returning to standard of care follow up. 6 patients were converted from the tracker to in person for counseling regarding biochemical recurrence. The number of in person appointments saved was 80 per month, resulting in better access for providers and savings for veterans for miles driven and veteran’s time. In addition, we have reduced outsourcing costs by re-capturing outsourced veterans back to VA for prostate cancer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The prostate cancer tracker workflow is a novel workflow that has had a successful pilot as a VA iNET seed investee. We plan to expand its use within our department and further quantify improvements for the VA. We are actively looking to expand to other VA sites.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is one of the most common oncologic diagnoses in VA. Follow-up after radiation treatment involves PSA lab work and a provider visit every 6 months to evaluate for recurrence and longterm side effects. This requires a large amount of VA resources in terms of staff time and can lead to reduced provider access and increased outsourcing costs. If the veteran has in person appointments, this also increases time and travel costs for the veteran.

METHODS

The Cleveland VA Radiation Oncology department has designed a novel Prostate Cancer Tracker to monitor veterans for prostate cancer follow-up. The novel workflow uses a combination of data analysis and sorting techniques along with a dedicated clinical team to triage patients to (1) direct counseling for biochemical recurrence or (2) continued follow-up through the tracker. This process improves resource utilization, efficiently tracks patients, and reduces the risk of a patient lost to follow-up. The program started in August 2022 and has been running in a pilot phase until January 2023. Patient statistics using VA analytics were collected for January 2023 to March 2023.

RESULTS

At the end of March 2023, the tracker contained 250 patients. 56 veterans had their lab work coordinated with PCP labs to avoid unnecessary needle sticks. 50 letters for overdue labs were sent out of which 31 resulted in returning to standard of care follow up. 6 patients were converted from the tracker to in person for counseling regarding biochemical recurrence. The number of in person appointments saved was 80 per month, resulting in better access for providers and savings for veterans for miles driven and veteran’s time. In addition, we have reduced outsourcing costs by re-capturing outsourced veterans back to VA for prostate cancer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The prostate cancer tracker workflow is a novel workflow that has had a successful pilot as a VA iNET seed investee. We plan to expand its use within our department and further quantify improvements for the VA. We are actively looking to expand to other VA sites.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer rarely metastasizes to the pituitary gland and the close relationship of these sellar masses to cavernous sinuses and major vessels makes management challenging. We describe a unique case of complete reversal of ptosis in metastatic prostate cancer presenting as cavernous sinus syndrome

CASE REPORT

A 76-year-old male presented with left diplopia, ptosis, and facial numbness. Examination showed left oculomotor palsy and numbness in the V1 and V2 distribution of trigeminal nerve. MRI revealed an 11 × 26 × 17 mm posterior sellar mass extending into the left cavernous sinus. Prolactin was slightly elevated, but rest of the pituitary hormones were normal. Resection of the sellar mass showed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma positive for NKX-3.1 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score 4. PSA was elevated at 32 ng/ mL. Positron emission tomography (PET) showed lesions in the left prostatic lobe, pelvic lymph nodes, L5 spine, and right femoral head. FoundationOne testing found no actionable mutations. He was started on leuprorelin-docetaxel and received radiation for the brain and bony lesions. He is currently being maintained on leuprorelin-abiraterone and prednisone, which he is tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

Pituitary metastases (PMs) from prostate cancer are rare and are usually confined to the posterior pituitary. The close relationship of pituitary masses to the cavernous sinuses and internal carotid artery can lead to catastrophic neurovascular consequences. Imaging has limited sensitivity for differentiating non-invasive metastases from adenomas. Older age, new-onset diabetes insipidus, invasive masses, and rapidly growing lesions should raise suspicion for PMs. Intracranial prostatic metastases indicate poor prognosis with a reported median survival of 6-10 months. Timely diagnosis and management can prevent permanent neurologic damage as illustrated by our case in which ptosis and extraocular symptoms were completely resolved by surgery and radiation. Such unique cases underline the significance of suspecting metastatic disease in appropriate demographic groups and the crucial role of multidisciplinary care for oncologic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A high index of suspicion for PMs in elderly people with new-onset sellar symptoms and early involvement of multidisciplinary teams can lead to prevention and even reversal of serious neurologic symptoms.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer rarely metastasizes to the pituitary gland and the close relationship of these sellar masses to cavernous sinuses and major vessels makes management challenging. We describe a unique case of complete reversal of ptosis in metastatic prostate cancer presenting as cavernous sinus syndrome

CASE REPORT

A 76-year-old male presented with left diplopia, ptosis, and facial numbness. Examination showed left oculomotor palsy and numbness in the V1 and V2 distribution of trigeminal nerve. MRI revealed an 11 × 26 × 17 mm posterior sellar mass extending into the left cavernous sinus. Prolactin was slightly elevated, but rest of the pituitary hormones were normal. Resection of the sellar mass showed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma positive for NKX-3.1 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score 4. PSA was elevated at 32 ng/ mL. Positron emission tomography (PET) showed lesions in the left prostatic lobe, pelvic lymph nodes, L5 spine, and right femoral head. FoundationOne testing found no actionable mutations. He was started on leuprorelin-docetaxel and received radiation for the brain and bony lesions. He is currently being maintained on leuprorelin-abiraterone and prednisone, which he is tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

Pituitary metastases (PMs) from prostate cancer are rare and are usually confined to the posterior pituitary. The close relationship of pituitary masses to the cavernous sinuses and internal carotid artery can lead to catastrophic neurovascular consequences. Imaging has limited sensitivity for differentiating non-invasive metastases from adenomas. Older age, new-onset diabetes insipidus, invasive masses, and rapidly growing lesions should raise suspicion for PMs. Intracranial prostatic metastases indicate poor prognosis with a reported median survival of 6-10 months. Timely diagnosis and management can prevent permanent neurologic damage as illustrated by our case in which ptosis and extraocular symptoms were completely resolved by surgery and radiation. Such unique cases underline the significance of suspecting metastatic disease in appropriate demographic groups and the crucial role of multidisciplinary care for oncologic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A high index of suspicion for PMs in elderly people with new-onset sellar symptoms and early involvement of multidisciplinary teams can lead to prevention and even reversal of serious neurologic symptoms.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer rarely metastasizes to the pituitary gland and the close relationship of these sellar masses to cavernous sinuses and major vessels makes management challenging. We describe a unique case of complete reversal of ptosis in metastatic prostate cancer presenting as cavernous sinus syndrome

CASE REPORT

A 76-year-old male presented with left diplopia, ptosis, and facial numbness. Examination showed left oculomotor palsy and numbness in the V1 and V2 distribution of trigeminal nerve. MRI revealed an 11 × 26 × 17 mm posterior sellar mass extending into the left cavernous sinus. Prolactin was slightly elevated, but rest of the pituitary hormones were normal. Resection of the sellar mass showed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma positive for NKX-3.1 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score 4. PSA was elevated at 32 ng/ mL. Positron emission tomography (PET) showed lesions in the left prostatic lobe, pelvic lymph nodes, L5 spine, and right femoral head. FoundationOne testing found no actionable mutations. He was started on leuprorelin-docetaxel and received radiation for the brain and bony lesions. He is currently being maintained on leuprorelin-abiraterone and prednisone, which he is tolerating well.

DISCUSSION

Pituitary metastases (PMs) from prostate cancer are rare and are usually confined to the posterior pituitary. The close relationship of pituitary masses to the cavernous sinuses and internal carotid artery can lead to catastrophic neurovascular consequences. Imaging has limited sensitivity for differentiating non-invasive metastases from adenomas. Older age, new-onset diabetes insipidus, invasive masses, and rapidly growing lesions should raise suspicion for PMs. Intracranial prostatic metastases indicate poor prognosis with a reported median survival of 6-10 months. Timely diagnosis and management can prevent permanent neurologic damage as illustrated by our case in which ptosis and extraocular symptoms were completely resolved by surgery and radiation. Such unique cases underline the significance of suspecting metastatic disease in appropriate demographic groups and the crucial role of multidisciplinary care for oncologic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A high index of suspicion for PMs in elderly people with new-onset sellar symptoms and early involvement of multidisciplinary teams can lead to prevention and even reversal of serious neurologic symptoms.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.