Treatment paths for localised prostate cancer in Italy: The results of a multidisciplinary, observational, prospective study (Pros-IT CNR)


Autoři: Michela Buglione aff001;  Marianna Noale aff002;  Alessio Bruni aff003;  Alessandro Antonelli aff004;  Filippo Bertoni aff003;  Renzo Corvo’ aff005;  Umberto Ricardi aff006;  Paolo Borghetti aff001;  Marta Maddalo aff001;  Claudio Simeone aff007;  Ercole Mazzeo aff003;  Angelo Porreca aff008;  Sergio Serni aff009;  Pierfrancesco Bassi aff010;  Mauro Gacci aff009;  Vincenzo Mirone aff011;  Rodolfo Montironi aff012;  Andrea Tubaro aff013;  Alfredo Berruti aff014;  Giario Natale Conti aff015;  Stefania Maggi aff002;  Stefano Maria Magrini aff001;  Luca Triggiani aff001
Působiště autorů: Radiation Oncology Department, University and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy aff001;  National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Aging Branch, Padua, Italy aff002;  Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy aff003;  Department of Urology, University and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy aff004;  Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital “Policlinico San Martino”, Genoa, Italy aff005;  Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine—University of Turin, Turin, Italy aff006;  Department of Urology, University and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy aff007;  Department of Urology, University and Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia, Italy aff007;  Department of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano Terme, Padua, Italy aff008;  Department of Urologic Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy aff009;  Department of Urology, Catholic University of Rome, Policlinico Gemelli, Rome, Italy aff010;  Urology Unit, University Federico II, Naples, Italy aff011;  Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine–Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy aff012;  Urology Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, "La Sapienza" University, Rome, Italy aff013;  Medical Oncology Unit, ASST-Spedali Civili, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy aff014;  Urology Unit, ASST Lariana, Sant'Anna Hospital, Como, Italy aff015
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224151

Souhrn

Background

There are several treatments available to newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCA) patients. Although surgery and radiotherapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are widely adopted treatment options for localized PCA together with active surveillance (AS), there is no consensus nor randomised trials on treatment selection, prospective quality of life (QOL), along with toxicity outcomes and according to treatment modality in the Italian population. The current study aimed to describe clinical-therapeutic features and QOL at PCA diagnosis, according to different treatment patterns in a large prospective, Italian population, enrolled in the Pros-IT CNR study.

Methods

The Pros-IT CNR is an on-going national, multicenter, observational, prospective study on patients affected by PCA who have been referred by 97 Italian Urology, Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology facilities participating in the project. The possible relationships between the treatment patterns reported in the 6 month follow-up case report form and patients’ features at diagnosis were evaluated using exploratory multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and other data analysis method.

Results

At diagnosis, surgery and AS patients were significantly younger, had fewer comorbidities, lower PSA levels and Gleason Score (GS) values; they were also diagnosed at an earlier stage of disease with respect to the RT or ADT patients who showed significantly worse QoL scores at the time of diagnosis.

Conclusions

An analysis of the data collected at baseline and 6 months later uncovered substantial differences in ages, comorbidities, clinical and QOL features in the various treatment groups. These findings do not fully reflect the current PCA treatment guidelines and suggest the need for a multidisciplinary consensus guideline to ameliorate both the counselling and treatments of PCA patients.

Klíčová slova:

Cancer detection and diagnosis – Cancer treatment – Italian people – Oncology – Prostate cancer – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Surgical oncology – Urology


Zdroje

1. NCCN. 2018 NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology, Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2018. nccn.org2017, August 15, 2018.

2. EAU. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. EAU Guidelines Office: Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2018.

3. Parker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A, Horwich A, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Committee ESMO. Cancer of the prostate: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology 2015; 26 (Supplement 5): v69–v77.

4. AIRO. Linee guida carcinoma della prostata-AIRO 2016, Tumori 2016; Special Issue 1: S1–S79.

5. AIOM. 2018, Linee guida carcinoma della prostata. Available at: https://www.aiom.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018_LG_AIOM_Prostata.pdf.

6. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al, ProtecT Study Group. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220 27626136

7. Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, Cornford P, Montorsi F, Mottet N et al. Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 357–368. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008 29937198

8. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MRet al. Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2182–2190. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759 26884580

9. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D'Amico A, Eastham JA et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8:162–200. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0012 20141676

10. Denis LJ, Roobol M, Dourcy-Belle Rose B. Prostate cancer for the horizon of the patient. Acta Oncol 2011; 50 (Suppl. 1): 148–154.

11. Valdagni R, Albers P, Bangma C, Drudge-Coates L, Magnani T, Moynihan C et al. The requirements of a specialist Prostate Cancer Unit: a discussion paper from the European School of Oncology. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.029 21126868

12. Noale M, Maggi S, Artibani W, Bassi PF, Bertoni F, Bracarda S et al. Pros-IT CNR: an Italian prostate cancer monitoring project. Aging Clin Exp Res 2017; 29: 165–172. doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0735-6 28236267

13. Porreca A, Noale M, Artibani W, Bassi PF, Bertoni F, Bracarda S et al. Disease specific and general health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: the Pros-IT CNR study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018; 16:122. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0952-5 29898750

14. Gacci M, Noale M, Artibani W, Bassi PF, Bertoni F, Bracarda Set al. Quality of Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Data from the Pros-IT CNR.Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3:321–324. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.009 29146557

15. Conwell Y, Forbes NT, Cox C, Caine ED. Validation of a measure of physical illness burden at autopsy: the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41: 38–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb05945.x 8418120

16. Gacci M, Noale M, Artibani W, Bassi PF, Bertoni F, Bracarda S et al. Quality of life after radical treatment of prostate cancer: validation of the Italian version of the University of California Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index. Urology 2005; 66: 338–343. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.02.027 16098363

17. Apolone G, Mosconi P, Quattrociocchi L, Gianicolo EAL, Groth N, Ware J JE. Questionario sullo stato di salute SF-12. Versione Italiana. Milano, Guerini e Associati Editore, 2001.

18. Greenacre MJ. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. UK Academic Press, London, 1984.

19. Sourial N1, Wolfson C, Zhu B, Quail J, Fletcher J, Karunananthan S et al. Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 638–646. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.008 19896800

20. Trama A, Botta L, Nicolai N, Rossi PG, Contiero P, Fusco M et al. Prostate Cancer High Resolution Study Working Group. Prostate cancer changes in clinical presentation and treatments in two decades: an Italian population-based study. Eur J Cancer 2016; 67: 91–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.021 27620947

21. Burt LM, Shrieve DC, Tward JD. Factors influencing prostate cancer patterns of care: An analysis of treatment variation using the SEER database. Adv Radiat Oncol 2018; 3: 170–180. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2017.12.008 29904742

22. Aning JJ, MacKenzie KR, Fabricius M, McColl E, Johnson MI, Tandogdu Z et al. Detailed analysis of patient-reported lower urinary tract symptoms and effect on quality of life after robotic radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2018; 36: 364.e15-364.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.017 29891407

23. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello Aet al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62:405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045 22749852

24. Jaulim A, Srinivasan A, Hori S, Kumar N, Warren AY, Shah NCet al. A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018; 100: 226–229. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0001 29484935

25. Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 1051–1060. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30357-7 30017351

26. Antonelli A, Palumbo C, Noale M, Porreca A, Maggi S, Simeone C et al. Impact of Surgical Approach on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis from a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (The Pros-IT CNR Study). Urol Int 2019; 7: 1–11.

27. Parikh R, Sher DJ. Primary radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. Cancer 2012; 118: 258–267. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26272 21720990

28. Cooperberg MR, Ramakrishna NR, Duff SB, Hughes KE, Sadownik S, Smith JAet al. Primary treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis. BJU Int 2013; 111: 437–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11597.x 23279038

29. Dorth JA, Lee WR, Chino J, Abouassaly R, Ellis RJ, Myers ER. Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- to High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 100: 383–390. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.10.024 29353655

30. Borghetti P, Spiazzi L, Cozzaglio C, Pedretti S, Caraffini B, Triggiani L et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the sooner the better and potential to reduce toxicity even further. Radiol Med 2018; 123: 63–70. doi: 10.1007/s11547-017-0807-x 28924967

31. Mahal BA, Butler S, Franco I, Spratt DE, Rebbeck TR, D'Amico AVet al. Use of Active Surveillance or Watchful Waiting for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer and Management Trends Across Risk Groups in the United States, 2010–2015. JAMA, Published online February 11, 2019.

32. Magrini SM, Bertoni F, Vavassori V, Villa S, Cagna E, Maranzano E et al. Practice patterns for prostate cancer in nine central and northern Italy radiation oncology centers: a survey including 1759 patients treated during two decades (1980–1998). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 1310–1319. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)02783-3 11955744

33. Pegurri L, Buglione M, Girelli G, Guarnieri A, Meattini I, Ricardi U et al. Changes in patterns of practice for prostate cancer radiotherapy in Italy 1995–2003. A survey of the Prostate Cancer Study Group of the Italian Radiation Oncology Society. Tumori 2014; 100: 31–37. doi: 10.1700/1430.15812 24675488

34. Lu W, Olivera GH, Chen Q, Ruchala KJ, Haimerl J, Meeks SLet al. Deformable registration of the planning image (kVCT) and the daily images (MVCT) for adaptive radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51: 4357–4374. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/17/015 16912386

35. Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, Jackson A et al. Incidence of late rectal andurinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy andintensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 1124–1129.

36. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, Cowan RA et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 475–487. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70143-2 17482880

37. Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, Starkschall G, Huang EH, Cheung MR et al. Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 70: 67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.054 17765406

38. Aluwini S, Pos F, Schimmel E, Krol S, van der Toorn PP, de Jager Het al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): latetoxicity results from a randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 464–474. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00567-7 26968359

39. Dearnaley D, Syndikus I, Mossop H, Khoo V, Birtle A, Bloomfield D et al. Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1047–1060. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30102-4 27339115

40. Arcangeli G, Saracino B, Arcangeli S, Gomellini S, Petrongari MG, Sanguineti G et al. Moderate Hypofractionation in High-Risk, Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Final Results of a Phase III Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:1891–1897. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.4189 28355113

41. De Bari B, Arcangeli S, Ciardo D, Mazzola R, Alongi F, Russi EG et al. Extreme hypofractionation for early prostate cancer: Biology meets technology. Cancer Treat Rev 2016; 50: 48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.08.005 27631875

42. Fellin G, Mirri MA, Santoro L, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Divan C, Mussari S et al. Low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) as monotherapy for early stage prostate cancer in Italy: practice and outcome analysis in a series of 2237 patients from 11 institutions. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20150981 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150981 27384381

43. Tagliaferri L, Kovács G, Aristei C, De Sanctis V, Barbera F, Morganti AGet al. Current state of interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) education in Italy: results of the INTERACTS survey. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2019; 11: 48–53. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2019.83137 30911310


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11