Karen A Wright

Population based time trends and socioeconomic variation in use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for prostate cancer in a UK region: continuous survey

Objective To examine variation in the management of prostate cancer in patients with different socioeconomic status. Design Survey using UK regional cancer registry data. Setting Regional population based cancer registry. Participants 35 171 patients aged ≥51 with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, 1995-2006. Main outcome measures Use of radiotherapy and radical surgery. Socioeconomic status according to fifths of small area deprivation index. Results Over the nine years of the study, information on stage at diagnosis was available for 15 916 of 27 970 patients (57%). During the study period, the proportion of patients treated with radiotherapy remained at about 25%, while use of radical surgery increased significantly (from 2.9% (212/7201) during 1995-7 to 8.4% (854/10 211) during 2004-6, P<0.001). Both treatments were more commonly used in least deprived compared with most deprived patients (28.5% v 21.0% for radiotherapy and 8.4% v 4.0% for surgery). In multivariable analysis, increasing deprivation remained strongly associated with lower odds of radiotherapy or surgery (odds ratio 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.94), P<0.001, and 0.91 (0.87 to 0.94), P<0.001, respectively, per incremental deprivation group). There were consistently concordant findings with multilevel models for clustering of observations by hospital of diagnosis, with restriction of the analysis to patients with information on stage, and with sequential restriction of the analysis to different age, stage, diagnosis period, and morphology groups. Conclusions After a diagnosis of prostate cancer, men from lower socioeconomic groups were substantially less likely to be treated with radical surgery or radiotherapy. The causes and impact on survival of such differences remain uncertain.

Risk profiles of prostate cancers identified from UK primary care using national referral guidelines

Objective:Prostate cancer in the United Kingdom is mainly diagnosed from primary care referrals based on national guidelines published by the Department of Health. Here we investigated the characteristics of cancers detected through the use of these guidelines.Methods:A prospective two-centre study was established to assess men referred from the primary care based on the UK national guidelines.Results:The overall cancer detection rate was 43% (169 out of 397) with 15% (26 out of 169) of all cancers metastatic at presentation. Amongst 50–69-year-old men these rates were 34% (68 out of 200) and 15% (10 out of 68). Only 21% (25 out of 123) of men with local cancers had low-risk disease. In comparison to a historical cohort from 2001 (n=137) we found no overall differences in rates of metastatic disease, locally advanced tumours, or risk categories. Amongst 50–69-year-old men with local disease, however, we observed an increase in detection of low-risk cancers in a contemporary cohort (P=0.04). This was primarily because of the increased detection of low-stage organ-confined tumours in this group (P=0.02).Conclusion:Use of the UK prostate cancer guidelines detects a high proportion of clinically significant cancers. Use of the guidelines does not seem to have led to an overall change in the clinical characteristics of presenting cancers. There may, however, be a specific benefit in detecting more low-risk disease in younger men.

Changing presentation of prostate cancer in a UK population – 10 year trends in prostate cancer risk profiles in the East of England

Background:Prostate cancer incidence is rising in the United Kingdom but there is little data on whether the disease profile is changing. To address this, we interrogated a regional cancer registry for temporal changes in presenting disease characteristics.Methods:Prostate cancers diagnosed from 2000 to 2010 in the Anglian Cancer Network (n=21 044) were analysed. Risk groups (localised disease) were assigned based on NICE criteria. Age standardised incidence rates (IRs) were compared between 2000–2005 and 2006–2010 and plotted for yearly trends.Results:Over the decade, overall IR increased significantly (P<0.00001), whereas metastasis rates fell (P<0.0007). For localised disease, IR across all risk groups also increased but at different rates (P<0.00001). The most striking change was a three-fold increase in intermediate-risk cancers. Increased IR was evident across all PSA and stage ranges but with no upward PSA or stage shift. In contrast, IR of histological diagnosis of low-grade cancers fell over the decade, whereas intermediate and high-grade diagnosis increased significantly (P<0.00001).Conclusion:This study suggests evidence of a significant upward migration in intermediate and high-grade histological diagnosis over the decade. This is most likely to be due to a change in histological reporting of diagnostic prostate biopsies. On the basis of this data, increasing proportions of newly diagnosed cancers will be considered eligible for radical treatment, which will have an impact on health resource planning and provision.

Population-based trends in use of surgery for non-small cell lung cancer in a UK region, 1995–2006

Objective To assess time trends in use of surgery in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a UK region. Methods Cancer registration data for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 1995 and 2006 in the East of England were analysed. Rates of surgery use for different age, gender, diagnosis period, tumour subtype and deprivation quintile groups were examined. Results The analysis included 18 767 patients with NSCLC. During the study period, 13% of patients were treated by surgery. Use of surgery decreased over time from 15% in 1995–1997 to 11% in 2004–2006 (p=0.022). Initial socioeconomic differences in surgery use narrowed significantly over time (p=0.028) and became non-apparent at the end of the study period. Conclusions Use of surgery in patients with NSCLC decreased during the study period, possibly reflecting increasing quality of preoperative staging processes. Initial socioeconomic inequalities in surgery use became undetectable at the end of the study period. The findings provide baseline information to support comparisons with patterns of clinical management in more recent years.

Trends and Outcome from Radical Therapy for Primary Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer in a UK Population

Background Increasing proportions of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK are presenting with non-metastatic disease. We investigated how treatment trends in this demographic have changed. Patient and Methods Non-metastatic cancers diagnosed from 2000–2010 in the UK Anglian Cancer network stratified by age and risk group were analysed [n = 10,365]. Radiotherapy [RT] and prostatectomy [RP] cancer specific survival [CSS] were further compared [n = 4755]. Results Over the decade we observed a fall in uptake of primary androgen deprivation therapy but a rise in conservative management [CM] and radical therapy [p<0.0001]. CM in particular has become the primary management for low-risk disease by the decade end [p<0.0001]. In high-risk disease however both RP and RT uptake increased significantly but in an age dependent manner [p<0.0001]. Principally, increased RP in younger men and increased RT in men ≥ 70y. In multivariate analysis of radically treated men both high-risk disease [HR 8.0 [2.9–22.2], p<0.0001] and use of RT [HR 1.9 [1.0–3.3], p = 0.024] were significant predictors of a poorer CSM. In age-stratified analysis however, the trend to benefit of RP over RT was seen only in younger men [≤ 60 years] with high-risk disease [p = 0.07]. The numbers needed to treat by RP instead of RT to save one cancer death was 19 for this group but 67 for the overall cohort. Conclusion This study has identified significant shifts in non-metastatic prostate cancer management over the last decade. Low-risk disease is now primarily managed by CM while high-risk disease is increasingly treated radically. Treatment of high-risk younger men by RP is supported by evidence of better CSM but this benefit is not evident in older men.

Improving clinical risk stratification at diagnosis in primary prostate cancer: a prognostic modelling study

Introduction Over 80% of the nearly 1 million men diagnosed with prostate cancer annually worldwide present with localised or locally advanced non-metastatic disease. Risk stratification is the cornerstone for clinical decision making and treatment selection for these men. The most widely applied stratification systems use presenting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, biopsy Gleason grade, and clinical stage to classify patients as low, intermediate, or high risk. There is, however, significant heterogeneity in outcomes within these standard groupings. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) has recently adopted a prognosis-based pathological classification that has yet to be included within a risk stratification system. Here we developed and tested a new stratification system based on the number of individual risk factors and incorporating the new ISUP prognostic score. Methods and Findings Diagnostic clinicopathological data from 10,139 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer were available for this study from the Public Health England National Cancer Registration Service Eastern Office. This cohort was divided into a training set (n = 6,026; 1,557 total deaths, with 462 from prostate cancer) and a testing set (n = 4,113; 1,053 total deaths, with 327 from prostate cancer). The median follow-up was 6.9 y, and the primary outcome measure was prostate-cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). An external validation cohort (n = 1,706) was also used. Patients were first categorised as low, intermediate, or high risk using the current three-stratum stratification system endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. The variables used to define the groups (PSA concentration, Gleason grading, and clinical stage) were then used to sub-stratify within each risk category by testing the individual and then combined number of risk factors. In addition, we incorporated the new ISUP prognostic score as a discriminator. Using this approach, a new five-stratum risk stratification system was produced, and its prognostic power was compared against the current system, with PCSM as the outcome. The results were analysed using a Cox hazards model, the log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier curves, competing-risks regression, and concordance indices. In the training set, the new risk stratification system identified distinct subgroups with different risks of PCSM in pair-wise comparison (p < 0.0001). Specifically, the new classification identified a very low-risk group (Group 1), a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with a low PCSM risk (Group 2, hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [95% CI 0.96–2.75]), and a subgroup of intermediate-risk cancers with an increased PCSM risk (Group 3, HR 3.35 [95% CI 2.04–5.49]) (p < 0.0001). High-risk cancers were also sub-classified by the new system into subgroups with lower and higher PCSM risk: Group 4 (HR 5.03 [95% CI 3.25–7.80]) and Group 5 (HR 17.28 [95% CI 11.2–26.67]) (p < 0.0001), respectively. These results were recapitulated in the testing set and remained robust after inclusion of competing risks. In comparison to the current risk stratification system, the new system demonstrated improved prognostic performance, with a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI 0.72–0.77) versus 0.69 (95% CI 0.66–0.71) (p < 0.0001). In an external cohort, the new system achieved a concordance index of 0.79 (95% CI 0.75–0.84) for predicting PCSM versus 0.66 (95% CI 0.63–0.69) (p < 0.0001) for the current NICE risk stratification system. The main limitations of the study were that it was registry based and that follow-up was relatively short. Conclusions A novel and simple five-stratum risk stratification system outperforms the standard three-stratum risk stratification system in predicting the risk of PCSM at diagnosis in men with primary non-metastatic prostate cancer, even when accounting for competing risks. This model also allows delineation of new clinically relevant subgroups of men who might potentially receive more appropriate therapy for their disease. Future research will seek to validate our results in external datasets and will explore the value of including additional variables in the system in order in improve prognostic performance.

Trends and variation in the management of oesophagogastric cancer patients: a population-based survey

BackgroundPrevious evidence indicates potential variation in the quality of care of cancer patients. We aimed to examine whether recent changes in the treatment of oesophagogastric cancers have been distributed equally among different patient subgroups.MethodsWe analysed population-based cancer registry data about the treatment patterning of oesophagogastric cancer (other than oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma) during 1995-2006.ResultsThere were 14,077 patients aged ≥40 years (69% men). There was only limited information on stage, and no information on co-morbidity status. During successive triennia, curative surgery use decreased from 28% to 20% (p < 0.001) whilst chemotherapy use increased from 9% to 30% (p < 0.001). Use of palliative surgery and of radiotherapy increased significantly but modestly (7% to 10%, and 9% to 11%, respectively). In multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age group, gender, diagnosis period and tumour type, curative surgery and chemotherapy were used less frequently in more deprived patients [per increasing deprivation group Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.93-0.99, and OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.87-0.93, respectively, p < 0.001 for both)]. Chemotherapy was also used less frequently in women (OR = 0.76, p < 0.001).ConclusionsDuring the study period, curative surgery decreased by a third and chemotherapy use increased by more than three-fold, reflecting improvements in the appropriateness and quality of management, but chemotherapy use, in particular, was unequal, both by socioeconomic status and gender.

Trends in the use of radiotherapy and radical surgery for patients with bladder urothelial cell carcinoma in East Anglia, 1995-2006.

Study Type – Prevalence (retrospective cohort)

Are Transrectal Prostate Biopsies Routinely Indicated in Patients with Incidentally Diagnosed Prostate Cancer following Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Disease

Objective: To determine the indication of routine transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy (TRUSBx) of the prostate gland following incidental cancer diagnosis after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: A multi-institutional search identified 63 patients with incidental TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer from 2001 to 2010, who underwent subsequent TRUSBx or radical prostatectomy (RP). The Gleason scores from TURP were compared to those from TRUSBx or RP. Whole mount maps from RP were analysed to provide an anatomical basis for the correlation observed. To determine the clinical impact of this problem, the incidence of TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer in the population was also determined. Results: Of 22 patients who underwent TRUSBx, the rates of Gleason score concordance, upgrading and downgrading were 32, 14 and 54% respectively (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.20). Most cases of pathological downgrading consisted of benign cores at biopsy. Therefore, TRUSBx did not give additional Gleason score (GS) information in 86% of patients. Of 41 RP patients, the respective rates were 61, 22 and 17% (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.15). The majority of them retained a similar or lower GS between TURP and RP. Of 13 whole mount maps analysed, 6 (46%) were found with anterior/transitional zone (AZ/TZ) tumours, 6 (46%) with multifocal tumours and 1 (8%) with a large peripheral zone (PZ) tumour extending into the TZ. Regional population data show that despite a gradual reduction in the proportion of TURP-diagnosed cases over the past decade, they still account for 8.5-13% of all new cases. Conclusion: TURP-diagnosed prostate cancers represent predominantly AZ tumours. A TRUSBx does not give additional GS information in a majority of cases, and therefore is not routinely indicated. It may be selectively useful prior to active surveillance, but not in all pursuing radical treatment. These findings may help reduce unnecessary TRUSBx in the population.