Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Background and objective

Prognostication is a cornerstone of the clinical management of prostate cancer. This study aims to update the pre- and postoperative Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomograms for the prediction of 10-yr prostate cancer–specific mortality in the competing risk setting in Sweden, and to evaluate the added value of comorbidities.

Methods

A cohort study was conducted including all men in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden diagnosed with localised prostate cancer in 2007–2020, who underwent radical prostatectomy. Follow-up was until December 31, 2022. We used cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models to obtain the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer–specific and other-cause mortality. The models were validated in terms of discrimination (concordance [C] index) and calibration by internal-external validation in six Swedish health care regions and by bootstrapping (N = 500).

Key findings and limitations

The cohort included 31 106 men, of whom 629 died from prostate cancer and 2415 died from other causes during a median follow-up of 8.3 yr (interquartile range: 5.2, 11.8). Comorbidities added more value to the other-cause mortality model than to the prostate cancer–specific mortality model, and were included in all models. Both the preoperative and the postoperative model showed high discrimination for prostate cancer–specific death (optimism-corrected C-index: 0.81 and 0.87, respectively), but not for other-cause mortality (0.67, both models). All models were well calibrated, with minimal overestimation at the higher range of predicted cumulative incidences for the preoperative, but not for the postoperative, model.

Conclusions and clinical implications

The updated MSKCC nomograms performed well in terms of discrimination and calibration, and can be used in clinical practice in Sweden. In this study, comorbidity added minimal prognostic value for predicting prostate cancer–specific mortality. External validation is advised for application in other populations.

Patient summary

Prognostication is a cornerstone in the clinical management of prostate cancer. In this study, we adapted the best preforming risk classification system, the pre- and postoperative Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomograms, for the prediction of prostate cancer–specific death in Swedish setting. The adapted models perform well and can be applied directly to Swedish men with prostate cancer.

Background and Aims

In colorectal cancer screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), the optimal follow-up after first-round colonoscopy for a positive FIT, particularly after negative colonoscopy, is unknown. Therefore, using Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study data, we aimed to elucidate the risk factors for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in second-round colonoscopy, which can affect recommendations for the optimal follow-up.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from SCREESCO participants undergoing colonoscopy after a positive 2-stool FIT, with a positivity cutoff value of ≥10 μg/g feces, in both the first and second rounds separated by a 2-year interval. We assessed the associations between colorectal neoplasia detection in second-round colonoscopy and participant characteristics, FIT concentrations, first-round colonoscopy results, and endoscopists’ adenoma detection rates (ADRs), which were categorized as very low, low, intermediate, and high.

Results

This study included 343 individuals. Despite negative first-round colonoscopies (n = 230), colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) were detected in 0.9% and 8.3% of participants in the second-round colonoscopy, respectively. An association was demonstrated between the first-round endoscopists’ ADRs and the risk of second-round ACN detection. The multivariable odds ratios of the first-round intermediate and high ADRs, compared with the very low ADR, for second-round ACN detection were 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.79) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.04-0.86), respectively.

Conclusions

The impact of endoscopists’ ADRs on ACN detection in subsequent-round colonoscopies underscores the importance of considering ADR for optimal follow-up after first-round colonoscopy in an FIT-based screening program.

Background It is unknown if a period of active surveillance before prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa) worsens functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes after primary vs delayed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Methods We included men registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden with low and favorable intermediate-risk PCa who underwent robot-assisted prostatectomy in 2018-2020 and had filled a questionnaire on patient-reported outcome measures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare the functional outcomes of primary and delayed prostatectomy.Results 2571 men underwent primary, and 921 men underwent delayed prostatectomy. Delayed prostatectomy was not associated with reduced overall quality of life (adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.55) or erectile dysfunction (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69-1.22). Urinary incontinence was slightly more common after delayed prostatectomy (15% vs 11%; adjusted OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91-2.01). There were weak associations between time to prostatectomy and urinary symptoms and bother, with a 3% annual increase in the risk for urinary incontinence (adjusted OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.94-1.13).Conclusion These results suggest that a period on active surveillance before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has little detrimental effect on functional outcomes. Since only around half of men on active surveillance will transit to prostatectomy, these outcomes represent a worst-case scenario for men who start active surveillance. These results support the use of active surveillance for men with low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk PCa.

Background: Swedish national guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for standard of care; however, little is known about adherence to them. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to management guidelines for prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods: Data in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR), that includes 98% of all incident PCa cases in Sweden, were used to analyse adherence to national PCa guidelines for men diagnosed between 2010 and 2023. A selection of quality indicators displayed on the public web page of NPCR were assessed.

Results: Active surveillance in men with low-risk PCa and an estimated life expectancy >10 years increased from 44% in 2010 to 88% in 2023. Radical treatment for men with localised high-risk PCa and life expectancy >10 years increased from 60% in 2010 to 86% in 2023 and for men with locally advanced PCa and life expectancy >5 years from 37% in 2010 to 64% in 2023. The proportion of radical prostatectomies for low- or intermediate-risk PCa performed with nerve-sparing technique increased from 61% in 2015 to 87% in 2023. Use of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy after radiotherapy for men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa increased five-fold from 14% in 2010 to 73% in 2022.

Conclusion: Adherence to recommendations in national guidelines improved in Sweden between 2010 and 2023. Public, open reporting of NPCR data on adherence to guidelines down to department level is likely to have contributed to these improvements.

Background: There has been a wide range in incidence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence and relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to describe incidence and prognostic implications of PSA persistence and relapse.

Methods: Register-based cohort study in Sweden of men diagnosed with PCa between 2007 and 2020 who underwent RP. Risks were estimated using competing risk cumulative incidence curves. Treatment after persistence or relapse and risk of PCa death and other causes were stratified according to persistence, European Association of Urology relapse risk groups, time to relapse, and life expectancy based on age and comorbidities.

Results: Among 10 700 men, the 10-year risk of PSA persistence or relapse after RP was 34% (95% confidence interval = 32% to 35%). Within 12 months of persistence/relapse, 75% of men with persistence, high-risk relapse, or early relapse (<2 years) received treatment. The 10-year risk of PCa death ranged from 12% for men with persistence to 2% in men with low-risk relapse, whereas death from other causes ranged from 11% to 16%. Risk of PCa death was 8.5% after early relapse (<2 years) and 1.4% after late relapse (>5 years).

Conclusions: This population-based study estimated that one-third of men would have PSA persistence or relapse within 10 years from RP. There was a wide range in risk of death from PCa according to cancer characteristics and time to relapse. Risk of death from other causes was substantial. These factors, along with life expectancy, should inform treatment decisions for men with persistence or relapse.

Background: Data on long-term outcomes for men with prostate cancer treated according to current guidelines are limited. We aimed to estimate the long-term risk of death from prostate cancer and other causes in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who received primary treatment according to current guidelines.

Methods: Men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden from 2000 to 2020, who received primary treatment according to NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, were included and followed until December 31, 2022. The risk of death from prostate cancer and other causes up to 30 years was estimated according to risk category and life expectancy using a state transition simulation model.

Results: A total of 62,839 men received primary treatment according to the NCCN Guidelines. The simulated 15-year prostate cancer mortality per risk category ranged from 5.5% (95% CI, 4.8%-6.2%) in men with low-risk cancer to 22% (95% CI, 21%-24%) in men with very high-risk cancer. Simulated 30-year prostate cancer mortality ranged from 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%) in men with low-risk cancer to 30% (95% CI, 29%-32%) in men with very high-risk cancer, whereas death from other causes ranged from 77% (95% CI, 74%-80%) to 63% (95% CI, 59%-67%), respectively.

Conclusions: Men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who received primary treatment according to current guidelines were up to 6 times more likely to die of other causes than from their cancer. These estimates provide realistic but high expectations of the outcomes of modern treatment and can serve as benchmarks for clinical outcome reporting.

 Objective

To identify predictors of metastases, estimate the proportion of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) cases according to these predictors, and subsequently create a risk table showing the absolute difference in metastasis proportion for each 10 mm increase in tumour size.

Patients and Methods

Patients diagnosed with histopathological confirmed ccRCC in 2010–2018 in Denmark identified in the nationwide Danish Multidisciplinary Renal Cancer Group (DaRenCa) Study-3. Association between diagnostic variables and metastases were assessed with logistic regression analyses. Proportion of cases with metastases were assess based on tumour sizes using a logistic regression model.

Results

The study included 2109 cases with non-metastatic ccRCC at diagnosis and 450 cases with metastatic ccRCC. Multivariable logistic regression analyses found sex, tumour size and grade were associated with metastatic ccRCC, whereas age was not. The proportion of cases with metastasis increased with larger tumours sizes and higher grade. As an example, the proportion of metastases in female cases with tumour size of 40 mm was 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7–4.8%) in Grade 1 and 16% (95% CI 12–22%) in cases with Grade 4. Comparable numbers in cases with a tumour size of 70 mm were 6.6% (95% CI 4.0–11%) and 31% (95% CI 25–38). The absolute increase in the proportion of cases with metastases with a 10 mm increase in size was <2% for tumours <40 mm and Grade 1–2. In contrast, cases with tumour sizes >50 mm and/or Grade 3–4 had a moderate (2–<4%) to high (≥4%) absolute increase in the proportion of cases with metastases with each 10 mm increase.

Conclusion

The risk table presented offers a valuable tool for discussing the risk of progression to metastases in patients under expected management for ccRCC, enabling clinicians to make more informed, evidence-based decisions.