Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation.

BACKGROUND: The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

Comparison of Treatment-Related Toxicity With Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study.

AIMS: Randomised controlled trials have shown comparable early oncological outcomes after hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). The effect of hypofractionation on treatment-related gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity remains uncertain, especially in older men and those with locally advanced PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based study of all patients treated with radical conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (n = 9106) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 3027) in all radiotherapy centres in the English National Health Service between 2014 and 2016 was carried out. We identified severe gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity using a validated coding framework and compared conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated radiotherapy using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: The median age in our cohort was 72 years old and most patients had locally advanced disease (65%). There was no difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 5.0 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 5.2 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.13; P = 0.95) or genitourinary toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.10; P = 0.35) between patients who received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and those who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This national cohort study has shown that the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of PCa does not increase rates of severe gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Our findings also support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in older men and those with locally advanced PCa.

Multiple Injuries to the Lower Urinary Tract: Two Cases and Comparison with the EAU Guidelines.

Blunt trauma to the lower urinary tract is usually associated with pelvic fractures. The European Association of Urology (EAU) provides guidelines to diagnose and treat these injuries. The guidelines summarise the available evidence and provide recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of these patients. Therefore, these guidelines are important adjuncts to the urologist and emergency physician in the clinical decision-making. However, strict adherence to the guidelines is not always easy or possible because of concomitant injuries obscuring the clinical picture. This is illustrated by two case reports of concomitant injuries of the lower urinary tract (bladder with urethral injury). The clinical decisions will be discussed point by point and should serve as a practical teaching moment for the reader.