Management of Prostate Cancer in Older Adults.

The majority of men with prostate cancer are diagnosed when they are older than 65 years; however, clinical trial participants are disproportionately younger and more fit than the real-world population treated in typical clinical practices. It is, therefore, unknown whether the optimal approach to prostate cancer treatment is the same for older men as it is for younger and/or more fit men. Short screening tools can be used to efficiently assess frailty, functional status, life expectancy, and treatment toxicity risk. These risk assessment tools allow for targeted interventions to increase a patient's reserve and improve treatment tolerance, potentially allowing more men to experience the benefit of the significant recent treatment advances in prostate cancer. Treatment plans should also take into consideration each patient's individual goals and values considered within their overall health and social context to reduce barriers to care. In this review, we will discuss evidence-based risk assessment and decision tools for older men with prostate cancer, highlight intervention strategies to improve treatment tolerance, and contextualize these tools within the current treatment landscape for prostate cancer.

Identification and Validation of the Prognostic Impact of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Phenotypes.

INTRODUCTION: Castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer is heterogeneous. Our objective is to identify metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes and their prognostic impact on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used for validation. Patterns were split into: nonregional lymph node, bone only, and visceral (any brain/liver/lung). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, odds ratios were calculated, Kaplan-Meier curves were generated, and a nomogram of the multivariate regression model was created. RESULTS: The training set included 13,818 men; bone only was most common (n = 11,632, 84.2%), then nonregional lymph node (n = 1388, 10.0%), and any visceral (brain/liver/lung; n = 798, 5.8%). Risk of death was increased by metastases to a visceral organ versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 2.26; 95% CI [2.00, 2.56]), bone only metastases versus nonregional lymph node (HR = 1.57; 95% CI [1.43, 1.72]), T-stage 4 versus 1 (HR = 1.27; 95% CI [1.17, 1.36]), Grade Group 5 versus 1 (HR = 1.93; 95% CI [1.61, 2.31]), PSA > 20 ng/mL versus < 10 ng/mL (HR = 1.32; 95% CI [1.23, 1.42]), and age ≥ 80 versus < 50 (HR = 1.96; 95% CI [1.69, 2.29]). On internal validation, the model had C-indices 20.5%, 22.7%, and 14.6% higher than the current staging system for overall survival, 1-year, and 5-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated prognostic metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes that can assist risk stratification to potentially personalize therapy. Our nomogram (https://tinyurl.com/prostate-met) may be used to predict survival.

Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019.

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS: Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.