Howard Wolinsky

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding enzalutamide (Xtandi) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can extend metastasis-free survival (MFS) while maintaining quality of life in men with prostate cancer who have a high risk for biochemical recurrence, according to new research presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology meeting in Madrid.

At 5 years, nearly 90% of patients receiving enzalutamide plus the ADT leuprolide (multiple brands) were metastasis-free, while 80% of those receiving only enzalutamide and about 71% of those receiving only leuprolide were metastasis-free.

In a related analysis of patient-reported outcomes, investigators found that patients who received enzalutamide did not appear to have worse quality of life, compared with those treated with leuprolide alone.

“This could be a game-changer for one of the most common disease states in prostate cancer,” lead author Stephen Freedland, MD, director of the Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle at Cedars-Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, said. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “confirm that in this population, as in men with more advanced stages, adding an androgen-receptor inhibitor [enzalutamide] increases the efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy,” Ana Aparicio, MD, from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Standard care in this patient population relies on ADT to suppress testosterone, which would otherwise stimulate cancer cell growth. However, Dr. Freedland explained that “when you go on androgen deprivation therapy, the testosterone level in the blood is reduced but not completely eliminated. The concern is that the testosterone that remains may still be enough to stimulate tumor growth.”

Enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has already shown benefits in patients with metastases, and the current EMBARK trial explored whether the inhibitor can help men with earlier-stage disease who are at risk for metastases.

The findings from the phase 3 EMBARK trial, also published in NEJM Evidence, included 1,068 patients with prostate cancer at high-risk for biochemical recurrence. Patients, who had a median age of 69 years, spanned 244 sites across 17 countries.

Patients had a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 4.9 months, with a median PSA of 5.2 ng/mL. Those with PSA doubling times of 9 months or less are considered at high-risk for biochemical recurrence and increased risk for death from prostate cancer.

Dr. Freedland and colleagues randomly assigned patients to three groups – enzalutamide 160 mg plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (n = 355), enzalutamide monotherapy (n = 355), and placebo plus leuprolide (n = 358). Patients received treatment for 38.7 months on average. 

At 5-years, 87.3% of men in the combination group were metastasis-free, compared with 80% in the monotherapy group and 71.4% in the leuprolide-only group. Compared with leuprolide alone, combining enzalutamide and leuprolide reduced the risk for metastasis or death by 58% (hazard ratio, 0.42; P < .001). And compared with enzalutamide monotherapy, the combination also significantly reduced the risk for metastasis or death, compared with leuprolide alone (HR, 0.63; P = .005).

The estimated proportion of patients free from PSA progression at 5 years was 97.4% in the combination group, 88.9% in the monotherapy group, and 70% in the leuprolide-only group.

At the time of data cutoff, 33 (9%) patients in the combination group, 42 (12%) in the monotherapy group, and 55 (15%) in the leuprolide-only group had died.

Nearly all (97%) patients experienced adverse events, most of which (86.4%) were treatment-related. Overall, 46.5% of patients in the combination group experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event, compared with 50% in the enzalutamide monotherapy group and 42.7% in the leuprolide-only group. Clustered adverse effects occurred in 80% or more patients in all three groups, with the most common cluster combining fatigue, falls, fractures, hypertension, and musculoskeletal events.

The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide monotherapy group, occurring in at least 30% of patients, included gynecomastia, joint pain, hot flashes, and fatigue. Nipple pain and breast tenderness were also common side effects in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm – occurring in 15.3% and 14.4% of patients, respectively – compared with the combination (3.1% and 1.1%) or leuprolide-only (1.1% and 1.1%) groups.

However, Dr. Freedland explained, “our quality-of-life data show that you don’t need to sacrifice global quality of life to get these cancer benefits.”

Patient-reported outcomes from EMBARK revealed that both enzalutamide combination and monotherapy versus leuprolide alone preserved high health-related quality of life in patients with a high-risk for biochemical recurrence.

More specifically, Dr. Freedland and colleagues found no differences in the time to first clinically meaningful deterioration based on questionnaires that rated pain and functional status. Functional status measures included physical, social, and emotional well-being as well as symptom severity.

However, some differences emerged. For instance, time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in physical well-being score was significantly shorter among patients receiving enzalutamide, compared with leuprolide monotherapy – 24.8 months in the combination group and 27.6 months in the enzalutamide-only group versus 49.8 months in the leuprolide-only group (HR, 1.41 and 1.35, respectively).

However, sexual activity appeared to be better preserved among patients receiving enzalutamide monotherapy, compared with leuprolide alone. The median time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in sexual activity score was 5.6 months with enzalutamide monotherapy versus 3 months for leuprolide alone (HR, 0.76).

Given the slightly different side-effect profiles in the enzalutamide combination and monotherapy groups, Dr. Freedland noted that “it will be up to patients and care providers to decide which is the right choice for them. I think the important message is that both are a major step forward from the current standard of care, which is androgen deprivation therapy alone.”

Pedro Barata, MD, who was not involved in the research, also noted that “this is the first time we have seen this kind of results with a novel hormonal therapy without castration.”

Overall, “the findings of this trial confirm the benefit of adding a novel hormonal therapy such as enzalutamide earlier in the course of this disease,” said Dr. Barata, a medical oncologist and director of the Clinical Genitourinary Medical Oncology Research Program at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland.

However, he explained that many patients with “rising PSA and short doubling time are known to have metastatic disease as detected by PSMA PET and are already being offered a novel hormonal therapy combined with castration. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for men who don’t want to be castrated to be offered an anti–androgen-like enzalutamide by itself without castration in this patient population.”

Research was funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, manufacturers of enzalutamide.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding enzalutamide (Xtandi) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can extend metastasis-free survival (MFS) while maintaining quality of life in men with prostate cancer who have a high risk for biochemical recurrence, according to new research presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology meeting in Madrid.

At 5 years, nearly 90% of patients receiving enzalutamide plus the ADT leuprolide (multiple brands) were metastasis-free, while 80% of those receiving only enzalutamide and about 71% of those receiving only leuprolide were metastasis-free.

In a related analysis of patient-reported outcomes, investigators found that patients who received enzalutamide did not appear to have worse quality of life, compared with those treated with leuprolide alone.

“This could be a game-changer for one of the most common disease states in prostate cancer,” lead author Stephen Freedland, MD, director of the Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle at Cedars-Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, said. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “confirm that in this population, as in men with more advanced stages, adding an androgen-receptor inhibitor [enzalutamide] increases the efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy,” Ana Aparicio, MD, from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Standard care in this patient population relies on ADT to suppress testosterone, which would otherwise stimulate cancer cell growth. However, Dr. Freedland explained that “when you go on androgen deprivation therapy, the testosterone level in the blood is reduced but not completely eliminated. The concern is that the testosterone that remains may still be enough to stimulate tumor growth.”

Enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has already shown benefits in patients with metastases, and the current EMBARK trial explored whether the inhibitor can help men with earlier-stage disease who are at risk for metastases.

The findings from the phase 3 EMBARK trial, also published in NEJM Evidence, included 1,068 patients with prostate cancer at high-risk for biochemical recurrence. Patients, who had a median age of 69 years, spanned 244 sites across 17 countries.

Patients had a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 4.9 months, with a median PSA of 5.2 ng/mL. Those with PSA doubling times of 9 months or less are considered at high-risk for biochemical recurrence and increased risk for death from prostate cancer.

Dr. Freedland and colleagues randomly assigned patients to three groups – enzalutamide 160 mg plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (n = 355), enzalutamide monotherapy (n = 355), and placebo plus leuprolide (n = 358). Patients received treatment for 38.7 months on average. 

At 5-years, 87.3% of men in the combination group were metastasis-free, compared with 80% in the monotherapy group and 71.4% in the leuprolide-only group. Compared with leuprolide alone, combining enzalutamide and leuprolide reduced the risk for metastasis or death by 58% (hazard ratio, 0.42; P < .001). And compared with enzalutamide monotherapy, the combination also significantly reduced the risk for metastasis or death, compared with leuprolide alone (HR, 0.63; P = .005).

The estimated proportion of patients free from PSA progression at 5 years was 97.4% in the combination group, 88.9% in the monotherapy group, and 70% in the leuprolide-only group.

At the time of data cutoff, 33 (9%) patients in the combination group, 42 (12%) in the monotherapy group, and 55 (15%) in the leuprolide-only group had died.

Nearly all (97%) patients experienced adverse events, most of which (86.4%) were treatment-related. Overall, 46.5% of patients in the combination group experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event, compared with 50% in the enzalutamide monotherapy group and 42.7% in the leuprolide-only group. Clustered adverse effects occurred in 80% or more patients in all three groups, with the most common cluster combining fatigue, falls, fractures, hypertension, and musculoskeletal events.

The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide monotherapy group, occurring in at least 30% of patients, included gynecomastia, joint pain, hot flashes, and fatigue. Nipple pain and breast tenderness were also common side effects in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm – occurring in 15.3% and 14.4% of patients, respectively – compared with the combination (3.1% and 1.1%) or leuprolide-only (1.1% and 1.1%) groups.

However, Dr. Freedland explained, “our quality-of-life data show that you don’t need to sacrifice global quality of life to get these cancer benefits.”

Patient-reported outcomes from EMBARK revealed that both enzalutamide combination and monotherapy versus leuprolide alone preserved high health-related quality of life in patients with a high-risk for biochemical recurrence.

More specifically, Dr. Freedland and colleagues found no differences in the time to first clinically meaningful deterioration based on questionnaires that rated pain and functional status. Functional status measures included physical, social, and emotional well-being as well as symptom severity.

However, some differences emerged. For instance, time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in physical well-being score was significantly shorter among patients receiving enzalutamide, compared with leuprolide monotherapy – 24.8 months in the combination group and 27.6 months in the enzalutamide-only group versus 49.8 months in the leuprolide-only group (HR, 1.41 and 1.35, respectively).

However, sexual activity appeared to be better preserved among patients receiving enzalutamide monotherapy, compared with leuprolide alone. The median time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in sexual activity score was 5.6 months with enzalutamide monotherapy versus 3 months for leuprolide alone (HR, 0.76).

Given the slightly different side-effect profiles in the enzalutamide combination and monotherapy groups, Dr. Freedland noted that “it will be up to patients and care providers to decide which is the right choice for them. I think the important message is that both are a major step forward from the current standard of care, which is androgen deprivation therapy alone.”

Pedro Barata, MD, who was not involved in the research, also noted that “this is the first time we have seen this kind of results with a novel hormonal therapy without castration.”

Overall, “the findings of this trial confirm the benefit of adding a novel hormonal therapy such as enzalutamide earlier in the course of this disease,” said Dr. Barata, a medical oncologist and director of the Clinical Genitourinary Medical Oncology Research Program at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland.

However, he explained that many patients with “rising PSA and short doubling time are known to have metastatic disease as detected by PSMA PET and are already being offered a novel hormonal therapy combined with castration. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for men who don’t want to be castrated to be offered an anti–androgen-like enzalutamide by itself without castration in this patient population.”

Research was funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, manufacturers of enzalutamide.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding enzalutamide (Xtandi) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can extend metastasis-free survival (MFS) while maintaining quality of life in men with prostate cancer who have a high risk for biochemical recurrence, according to new research presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology meeting in Madrid.

At 5 years, nearly 90% of patients receiving enzalutamide plus the ADT leuprolide (multiple brands) were metastasis-free, while 80% of those receiving only enzalutamide and about 71% of those receiving only leuprolide were metastasis-free.

In a related analysis of patient-reported outcomes, investigators found that patients who received enzalutamide did not appear to have worse quality of life, compared with those treated with leuprolide alone.

“This could be a game-changer for one of the most common disease states in prostate cancer,” lead author Stephen Freedland, MD, director of the Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle at Cedars-Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, said. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “confirm that in this population, as in men with more advanced stages, adding an androgen-receptor inhibitor [enzalutamide] increases the efficacy of androgen deprivation therapy,” Ana Aparicio, MD, from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Standard care in this patient population relies on ADT to suppress testosterone, which would otherwise stimulate cancer cell growth. However, Dr. Freedland explained that “when you go on androgen deprivation therapy, the testosterone level in the blood is reduced but not completely eliminated. The concern is that the testosterone that remains may still be enough to stimulate tumor growth.”

Enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has already shown benefits in patients with metastases, and the current EMBARK trial explored whether the inhibitor can help men with earlier-stage disease who are at risk for metastases.

The findings from the phase 3 EMBARK trial, also published in NEJM Evidence, included 1,068 patients with prostate cancer at high-risk for biochemical recurrence. Patients, who had a median age of 69 years, spanned 244 sites across 17 countries.

Patients had a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 4.9 months, with a median PSA of 5.2 ng/mL. Those with PSA doubling times of 9 months or less are considered at high-risk for biochemical recurrence and increased risk for death from prostate cancer.

Dr. Freedland and colleagues randomly assigned patients to three groups – enzalutamide 160 mg plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (n = 355), enzalutamide monotherapy (n = 355), and placebo plus leuprolide (n = 358). Patients received treatment for 38.7 months on average. 

At 5-years, 87.3% of men in the combination group were metastasis-free, compared with 80% in the monotherapy group and 71.4% in the leuprolide-only group. Compared with leuprolide alone, combining enzalutamide and leuprolide reduced the risk for metastasis or death by 58% (hazard ratio, 0.42; P < .001). And compared with enzalutamide monotherapy, the combination also significantly reduced the risk for metastasis or death, compared with leuprolide alone (HR, 0.63; P = .005).

The estimated proportion of patients free from PSA progression at 5 years was 97.4% in the combination group, 88.9% in the monotherapy group, and 70% in the leuprolide-only group.

At the time of data cutoff, 33 (9%) patients in the combination group, 42 (12%) in the monotherapy group, and 55 (15%) in the leuprolide-only group had died.

Nearly all (97%) patients experienced adverse events, most of which (86.4%) were treatment-related. Overall, 46.5% of patients in the combination group experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event, compared with 50% in the enzalutamide monotherapy group and 42.7% in the leuprolide-only group. Clustered adverse effects occurred in 80% or more patients in all three groups, with the most common cluster combining fatigue, falls, fractures, hypertension, and musculoskeletal events.

The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide monotherapy group, occurring in at least 30% of patients, included gynecomastia, joint pain, hot flashes, and fatigue. Nipple pain and breast tenderness were also common side effects in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm – occurring in 15.3% and 14.4% of patients, respectively – compared with the combination (3.1% and 1.1%) or leuprolide-only (1.1% and 1.1%) groups.

However, Dr. Freedland explained, “our quality-of-life data show that you don’t need to sacrifice global quality of life to get these cancer benefits.”

Patient-reported outcomes from EMBARK revealed that both enzalutamide combination and monotherapy versus leuprolide alone preserved high health-related quality of life in patients with a high-risk for biochemical recurrence.

More specifically, Dr. Freedland and colleagues found no differences in the time to first clinically meaningful deterioration based on questionnaires that rated pain and functional status. Functional status measures included physical, social, and emotional well-being as well as symptom severity.

However, some differences emerged. For instance, time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in physical well-being score was significantly shorter among patients receiving enzalutamide, compared with leuprolide monotherapy – 24.8 months in the combination group and 27.6 months in the enzalutamide-only group versus 49.8 months in the leuprolide-only group (HR, 1.41 and 1.35, respectively).

However, sexual activity appeared to be better preserved among patients receiving enzalutamide monotherapy, compared with leuprolide alone. The median time to confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in sexual activity score was 5.6 months with enzalutamide monotherapy versus 3 months for leuprolide alone (HR, 0.76).

Given the slightly different side-effect profiles in the enzalutamide combination and monotherapy groups, Dr. Freedland noted that “it will be up to patients and care providers to decide which is the right choice for them. I think the important message is that both are a major step forward from the current standard of care, which is androgen deprivation therapy alone.”

Pedro Barata, MD, who was not involved in the research, also noted that “this is the first time we have seen this kind of results with a novel hormonal therapy without castration.”

Overall, “the findings of this trial confirm the benefit of adding a novel hormonal therapy such as enzalutamide earlier in the course of this disease,” said Dr. Barata, a medical oncologist and director of the Clinical Genitourinary Medical Oncology Research Program at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland.

However, he explained that many patients with “rising PSA and short doubling time are known to have metastatic disease as detected by PSMA PET and are already being offered a novel hormonal therapy combined with castration. Perhaps it will be an opportunity for men who don’t want to be castrated to be offered an anti–androgen-like enzalutamide by itself without castration in this patient population.”

Research was funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, manufacturers of enzalutamide.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from two recent studies could signal a paradigm shift in the way men are screened for prostate cancer.

In the ReIMAGINE study, a group of researchers from the United Kingdom found that half of men with apparently “safe” levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) below 3 ng/mL had clinically significant prostate cancers when multiparametric MRI was added to screening. The researchers, whose paper appeared in BMJ Oncology, also found that one in six screened men had a prostate lesion on MRI. 

Meanwhile, a large Swedish population-based study, published in JAMA Network Open, showed that pre-biopsy MRIs combined with PSA testing after adoption of guidelines recommending MRIs led to a decrease in the proportion of men with negative biopsies (28% to 7%) and the number of Gleason score 6 cancers (24% to 6%), while the proportion of Gleason score 7-10 cancers rose from 49% to 86%.

Researchers compared prostate MRI uptake rates in the Jönköping Region in southern Sweden over 9 years – 2011 through 2018 before prostate MRIs were recommended nationally, and 2018-2020 when MRIs became commonly used.

David Robinson, MD, PhD, associate professor at Linköping University and leader of the Swedish study, told this news organization: “MRI is now standard for men before biopsy” in that country. In Sweden, which has a high rate of mortality from prostate cancer – about 50 deaths per 100,000 men vs. 12 and 8 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom and United States, respectively – PSA testing is not routine. “Most men that are diagnosed with prostate cancer have no symptoms. They have asked for a PSA when they have visited their general practitioner,” Dr. Robinson said. “To take a PSA test is not encouraged but it is not discouraged either. It is up to each man to decide.”

PSA screening is not common in the United Kingdom. Caroline Moore, MD, chair of urology at University College London and principal investigator on ReIMAGINE, said only 20% of UK men older than age 50 undergo PSA tests because doctors in the United Kingdom are concerned about the sort of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer that has occurred in the United States since the mid-1990s, when PSA screening was adopted here.

The rate of PSA screening in the United States has declined with controversies over recommendations for screening, though they remain above European rates: 37% in 2019, down from 47% in 2005, according to a 2022 Veterans Administration study published in JAMA Oncology.

In the UK study, Dr. Moore’s hospital-based group asked general practitioners to send letters to 2,096 men aged 50-75 years who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, inviting them to undergo prostate health checks combining screening with PSA and 10-minute prostate MRIs.

Of the 457 men who responded to the letters, 303 completed both screening tests. Older White men were more likely to respond, and Black men responded 20% less often.

Of the men who completed screening, 29 (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 were diagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer, the researchers reported.

Dr. Moore said the PSA and MRI-first approach spared men from biopsies as well as the downsides of active surveillance, which include close monitoring with urology visits and occasional MRIs or biopsies over many years. Biopsies are considered undesirable because of pain and the risk for sepsis and other infections associated with transrectal biopsies.

But urologists in America were less convinced by the international data. William J. Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who developed the PSA screening test in the 1990s, said he wasn’t surprised so many men in ReIMAGINE with low PSAs had advanced cancers. “Some of the most aggressive prostate cancers occur in men with a low PSA level – not new news,” he said.

Dr. Catalona also disagreed with the UK researchers’ emphasis on MRIs because the readings often are incorrect. A 2021 study in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases reported that multiparametric MRI had a false-negative rate of between 10% and 20%.

“MRI alone should not be considered more reliable than PSA. Rather, it should be considered complementary,” he said.

Michael S. Leapman, MD, MHS, associate professor of urology at the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said the UK findings point to a role for MRI as a “triage tool” to help identify men with elevated PSAs who should have a prostate biopsy.

But he said the research to date doesn’t support the use of MRI as a stand-alone test for prostate cancer. “In my opinion, it would have to demonstrate some tangible benefit to patients other than finding a greater number of cancers, such as improvement in cancer control, lower burden from the disease overall, or cancer-specific survival,” he said.

Major U.S. guidelines recommend including MRIs before biopsies. Dr. Leapman also pointed out that 2023 recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network state that MRI is “strongly recommended if available.” Yet fewer than half of U.S. urologists use MRIs as a screening tool, he said.

“My sense is that MRI is not available everywhere. We have also seen that wait times are too long in some centers, leading physicians and patients to opt for biopsy – particularly in cases with higher suspicion,” he said.

The studies from Sweden and the United Kingdom “demonstrate the strides being made in reducing overdetection of low-grade prostate cancer will increase detection of clinically significant Gleason 3+4 or higher” tumors, Dr. Leapman said. “It is unclear whether such patients in whom their otherwise low-risk disease is recast as ‘intermediate risk’ meaningfully stand to benefit in the long term from this detection.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, Region Jönköping, Futurum, and Clinical Cancer Research Foundation in Jönköping supported the Swedish study. Members of the ReIMAGINE study team disclosed research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and various industry/other sources. The Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK funded the ReIMAGINE study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DNA testing for prostate cancer – of the patients’ inherited DNA and their tumors’ somatic DNA – is increasingly used in the U.S. to determine whether and how to treat low-grade, localized prostate cancers.

Another genetic approach, known as the polygenic risk score (PRS), is emerging as a third genetic approach for sorting out prostate cancer risks.

PRS aims to stratify a person’s disease risk by going beyond rare variants in genes, such as BRCA2, and compiling a weighted score that integrates thousands of common variants whose role in cancer may be unknown but are found more frequently in men with prostate cancer. Traditional germline testing, by contrast, looks for about 30 specific genes directly linked to prostate cancer.

Essentially, “a polygenic risk score estimates your risk by adding together the number of bad cards you were dealt by the impact of each card, such as an ace versus a deuce,” said William Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, known as the father of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

In combination, these variants can have powerful predictive value.

Having a tool that can mine the depths of a person’s genetic makeup and help doctors devise a nuanced risk assessment for prostate cancer seems like a winning proposition.

Despite its promise, PRS testing is not yet used routinely in practice. The central uncertainty regarding its use lies in whether the risk score can accurately predict who will develop aggressive prostate cancer that needs to be treated and who won’t. The research to date has been mixed, and experts remain polarized.

“PRS absolutely, irrefutably can distinguish between the probability of somebody developing prostate cancer or not. Nobody could look at the data and argue with that,” said Todd Morgan, MD, a genomics researcher from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What [the data] so far haven’t really been able to do is distinguish whether somebody is likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer versus lower-risk prostate cancer.”
 

The promise of PRS in prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer – the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cancer killer – is a major target for PRS because it is considered one of the most heritable cancers, according to Burcu Darst, PhD, a genetic epidemiologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

Research in the area has intensified in recent years as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have become more affordable and the genetic information from these studies has been increasingly aggregated in biobanks.

“Because the sample sizes now are so much bigger than they used to be for GWAS studies, we’re able to develop much better polygenic risk scores than we were before,” said Dr. Darst.

Dr. Darst is lead author on the largest, most diverse prostate GWAS analysis, which led to the development of a PRS that is highly predictive of prostate cancer risk across diverse populations.

In the 2021 meta-analysis, which included 107,247 case patients and 127,006 control patients, Dr. Darst and colleagues identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants.

Compared with men at average genetic risk for prostate cancer – those in the 40%-60% genetic risk score category – men in the top 10% of the risk score (90%-100%) had between a 3.74-fold to fivefold higher risk for prostate cancer. However, the team did not find evidence that the genetic risk score could differentiate a person’s risk for aggressive versus nonaggressive disease.

As Dr. Darst’s team continues to improve the PRS, Dr. Darst says it will get better at predicting aggressive disease. One recent analysis from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that “although the PRS generally did not differentiate aggressive versus nonaggressive prostate cancer,” about 40% of men who will develop aggressive disease have a PRS in the top 20%, whereas only about 7% of men who will develop aggressive tumors have a PRS in the bottom 20%. Another recent study from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that PRS can distinguish between aggressive and nonaggressive disease in men of African ancestry.

These findings highlight “the potential clinical utility of the polygenic risk score,” Dr. Darst said.

Although the growing body of research makes Dr. Catalona, Dr. Darst, and others optimistic about PRS, the landscape is also littered with critics and studies showcasing its limitations.

An analysis, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that, compared with a contemporary clinical risk predictor, PRS did not improve prediction of aggressive prostate cancers. Another recent study, which used a 6.6 million–variant PRS to predict the risk of incident prostate cancer among 5,701 healthy men of European descent older than age 69, found that men in the top 20% of the PRS distribution “had an almost three times higher risk of prostate cancer,” compared with men in the lowest quintile; however, a higher PRS was not associated with a higher Gleason grade group, indicative of more aggressive disease.

“While a PRS for prostate cancer is strongly associated with incident risk” in the cohort, “the clinical utility of the PRS as a biomarker is currently limited by its inability to select for clinically significant disease,” the authors concluded.
 

Utility in practice?

Although PRS has been billed as a predictive test, Dr. Catalona believes PRS could have a range of uses both before and after diagnosis.

PRS may, for instance, guide treatment choices for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, Dr. Catalona noted. For men with a PRS that signals a higher risk for aggressive disease, a positive prostate biopsy result could help them decide whether to seek active treatment with surgery or radiation or go on active surveillance.

PRS could also help inform cancer screening. If a PRS test found a patient’s risk for prostate cancer was high, that person could decide to seek PSA screening before age 50 – the recommended age for average-risk men.

However, Aroon Hingorani, MD, a professor of genetic epidemiology at the University College London, expressed concern over using PRS to inform cancer screenings.

Part of the issue, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues explained in a recent article in the BMJ, is that “risk is notoriously difficult to communicate.”

PRS estimates a person’s relative risk for a disease but does not factor in the underlying population risk. Risk prediction should include both, Dr. Hingorani said.

People with high-risk scores may, for instance, discuss earlier screening with their clinician, even if their absolute risk for the disease – which accounts for both relative risk and underlying population disease risk – is still small, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues said. “Conversely, people who do not have ‘high risk’ polygenic scores might be less likely to seek medical attention for concerning symptoms, or their clinicians might be less inclined to investigate.”

Given this, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues believe polygenic scores “will always be limited in their ability to predict disease” and “will always remain one of many risk factors,” such as environmental influences.

Another caveat is that PRS generally is based on data collected from European populations, said Eric Klein, MD, chairman emeritus of urology at the Cleveland Clinic and now a scientist at the biotechnology company Grail, which developed the Galleri blood test that screens for 50 types of cancer. While a valid concern, “that’s easy to fix ultimately,” he said, as the diversity of inputs from various ethnicities increases over time.

Although several companies offer PRS products, moving PRS into the clinic would require an infrastructure for testing which does not yet exist in the U.S., said Dr. Catalona.

Giordano Botta, PhD, CEO of New York–based PRS software start-up Alleica, which bills itself as the Polygenic Risk Score Company, said “test demand is growing rapidly.” His company offers PRS scores that integrate up to 700,000 markers for prostate cancer depending on ancestry and charges patients $250 out of pocket for testing.

Dr. Botta noted that thousands of American patients have undergone PRS testing through his company. Several health systems, including Penn Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, have been using the test to help “see beyond what traditional risk factors allow,” he said.

However, this and other PRS tests are not yet widely used in the primary care setting.

A major barrier to wider adoption is that experts remain divided on its clinical utility. “People either say it’s ready, and it should be implemented, or they say it’s never going to work,” said Sowmiya Moorthie, PhD, a senior policy analyst with the PHG Foundation, a Cambridge University–associated think tank.

Dr. Klein sits in the optimistic camp. He envisions a day soon when patients will undergo whole-genome testing to collect data on risk scores and incorporate the full genome into the electronic record. At a certain age, primary care physicians would then query the data to determine the patient’s germline risk for a variety of diseases.

“At age 45, if I were a primary care physician seeing a male, I would query the PRS for prostate cancer, and if the risks were low, I would say, ‘You don’t need your first PSA probably until you’re 50,’ ” Dr. Klein said. “If your risk is high, I’d say, ‘Let’s do a baseline PSA now.’ ”

We would then have the data to watch these patients a little more closely, he said.

Dr. Moorthie, however, remains more reserved about the future of PRS. “I take the middle ground and say, I think there is some value because it’s an additional data point,” Dr. Moorthie said. “And I can see it having value in certain scenarios, but we still don’t have a clear picture of what these are and how best to use and communicate this information.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DNA testing for prostate cancer – of the patients’ inherited DNA and their tumors’ somatic DNA – is increasingly used in the U.S. to determine whether and how to treat low-grade, localized prostate cancers.

Another genetic approach, known as the polygenic risk score (PRS), is emerging as a third genetic approach for sorting out prostate cancer risks.

PRS aims to stratify a person’s disease risk by going beyond rare variants in genes, such as BRCA2, and compiling a weighted score that integrates thousands of common variants whose role in cancer may be unknown but are found more frequently in men with prostate cancer. Traditional germline testing, by contrast, looks for about 30 specific genes directly linked to prostate cancer.

Essentially, “a polygenic risk score estimates your risk by adding together the number of bad cards you were dealt by the impact of each card, such as an ace versus a deuce,” said William Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, known as the father of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

In combination, these variants can have powerful predictive value.

Having a tool that can mine the depths of a person’s genetic makeup and help doctors devise a nuanced risk assessment for prostate cancer seems like a winning proposition.

Despite its promise, PRS testing is not yet used routinely in practice. The central uncertainty regarding its use lies in whether the risk score can accurately predict who will develop aggressive prostate cancer that needs to be treated and who won’t. The research to date has been mixed, and experts remain polarized.

“PRS absolutely, irrefutably can distinguish between the probability of somebody developing prostate cancer or not. Nobody could look at the data and argue with that,” said Todd Morgan, MD, a genomics researcher from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What [the data] so far haven’t really been able to do is distinguish whether somebody is likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer versus lower-risk prostate cancer.”
 

The promise of PRS in prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer – the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cancer killer – is a major target for PRS because it is considered one of the most heritable cancers, according to Burcu Darst, PhD, a genetic epidemiologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

Research in the area has intensified in recent years as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have become more affordable and the genetic information from these studies has been increasingly aggregated in biobanks.

“Because the sample sizes now are so much bigger than they used to be for GWAS studies, we’re able to develop much better polygenic risk scores than we were before,” said Dr. Darst.

Dr. Darst is lead author on the largest, most diverse prostate GWAS analysis, which led to the development of a PRS that is highly predictive of prostate cancer risk across diverse populations.

In the 2021 meta-analysis, which included 107,247 case patients and 127,006 control patients, Dr. Darst and colleagues identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants.

Compared with men at average genetic risk for prostate cancer – those in the 40%-60% genetic risk score category – men in the top 10% of the risk score (90%-100%) had between a 3.74-fold to fivefold higher risk for prostate cancer. However, the team did not find evidence that the genetic risk score could differentiate a person’s risk for aggressive versus nonaggressive disease.

As Dr. Darst’s team continues to improve the PRS, Dr. Darst says it will get better at predicting aggressive disease. One recent analysis from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that “although the PRS generally did not differentiate aggressive versus nonaggressive prostate cancer,” about 40% of men who will develop aggressive disease have a PRS in the top 20%, whereas only about 7% of men who will develop aggressive tumors have a PRS in the bottom 20%. Another recent study from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that PRS can distinguish between aggressive and nonaggressive disease in men of African ancestry.

These findings highlight “the potential clinical utility of the polygenic risk score,” Dr. Darst said.

Although the growing body of research makes Dr. Catalona, Dr. Darst, and others optimistic about PRS, the landscape is also littered with critics and studies showcasing its limitations.

An analysis, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that, compared with a contemporary clinical risk predictor, PRS did not improve prediction of aggressive prostate cancers. Another recent study, which used a 6.6 million–variant PRS to predict the risk of incident prostate cancer among 5,701 healthy men of European descent older than age 69, found that men in the top 20% of the PRS distribution “had an almost three times higher risk of prostate cancer,” compared with men in the lowest quintile; however, a higher PRS was not associated with a higher Gleason grade group, indicative of more aggressive disease.

“While a PRS for prostate cancer is strongly associated with incident risk” in the cohort, “the clinical utility of the PRS as a biomarker is currently limited by its inability to select for clinically significant disease,” the authors concluded.
 

Utility in practice?

Although PRS has been billed as a predictive test, Dr. Catalona believes PRS could have a range of uses both before and after diagnosis.

PRS may, for instance, guide treatment choices for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, Dr. Catalona noted. For men with a PRS that signals a higher risk for aggressive disease, a positive prostate biopsy result could help them decide whether to seek active treatment with surgery or radiation or go on active surveillance.

PRS could also help inform cancer screening. If a PRS test found a patient’s risk for prostate cancer was high, that person could decide to seek PSA screening before age 50 – the recommended age for average-risk men.

However, Aroon Hingorani, MD, a professor of genetic epidemiology at the University College London, expressed concern over using PRS to inform cancer screenings.

Part of the issue, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues explained in a recent article in the BMJ, is that “risk is notoriously difficult to communicate.”

PRS estimates a person’s relative risk for a disease but does not factor in the underlying population risk. Risk prediction should include both, Dr. Hingorani said.

People with high-risk scores may, for instance, discuss earlier screening with their clinician, even if their absolute risk for the disease – which accounts for both relative risk and underlying population disease risk – is still small, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues said. “Conversely, people who do not have ‘high risk’ polygenic scores might be less likely to seek medical attention for concerning symptoms, or their clinicians might be less inclined to investigate.”

Given this, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues believe polygenic scores “will always be limited in their ability to predict disease” and “will always remain one of many risk factors,” such as environmental influences.

Another caveat is that PRS generally is based on data collected from European populations, said Eric Klein, MD, chairman emeritus of urology at the Cleveland Clinic and now a scientist at the biotechnology company Grail, which developed the Galleri blood test that screens for 50 types of cancer. While a valid concern, “that’s easy to fix ultimately,” he said, as the diversity of inputs from various ethnicities increases over time.

Although several companies offer PRS products, moving PRS into the clinic would require an infrastructure for testing which does not yet exist in the U.S., said Dr. Catalona.

Giordano Botta, PhD, CEO of New York–based PRS software start-up Alleica, which bills itself as the Polygenic Risk Score Company, said “test demand is growing rapidly.” His company offers PRS scores that integrate up to 700,000 markers for prostate cancer depending on ancestry and charges patients $250 out of pocket for testing.

Dr. Botta noted that thousands of American patients have undergone PRS testing through his company. Several health systems, including Penn Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, have been using the test to help “see beyond what traditional risk factors allow,” he said.

However, this and other PRS tests are not yet widely used in the primary care setting.

A major barrier to wider adoption is that experts remain divided on its clinical utility. “People either say it’s ready, and it should be implemented, or they say it’s never going to work,” said Sowmiya Moorthie, PhD, a senior policy analyst with the PHG Foundation, a Cambridge University–associated think tank.

Dr. Klein sits in the optimistic camp. He envisions a day soon when patients will undergo whole-genome testing to collect data on risk scores and incorporate the full genome into the electronic record. At a certain age, primary care physicians would then query the data to determine the patient’s germline risk for a variety of diseases.

“At age 45, if I were a primary care physician seeing a male, I would query the PRS for prostate cancer, and if the risks were low, I would say, ‘You don’t need your first PSA probably until you’re 50,’ ” Dr. Klein said. “If your risk is high, I’d say, ‘Let’s do a baseline PSA now.’ ”

We would then have the data to watch these patients a little more closely, he said.

Dr. Moorthie, however, remains more reserved about the future of PRS. “I take the middle ground and say, I think there is some value because it’s an additional data point,” Dr. Moorthie said. “And I can see it having value in certain scenarios, but we still don’t have a clear picture of what these are and how best to use and communicate this information.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

DNA testing for prostate cancer – of the patients’ inherited DNA and their tumors’ somatic DNA – is increasingly used in the U.S. to determine whether and how to treat low-grade, localized prostate cancers.

Another genetic approach, known as the polygenic risk score (PRS), is emerging as a third genetic approach for sorting out prostate cancer risks.

PRS aims to stratify a person’s disease risk by going beyond rare variants in genes, such as BRCA2, and compiling a weighted score that integrates thousands of common variants whose role in cancer may be unknown but are found more frequently in men with prostate cancer. Traditional germline testing, by contrast, looks for about 30 specific genes directly linked to prostate cancer.

Essentially, “a polygenic risk score estimates your risk by adding together the number of bad cards you were dealt by the impact of each card, such as an ace versus a deuce,” said William Catalona, MD, a urologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, known as the father of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

In combination, these variants can have powerful predictive value.

Having a tool that can mine the depths of a person’s genetic makeup and help doctors devise a nuanced risk assessment for prostate cancer seems like a winning proposition.

Despite its promise, PRS testing is not yet used routinely in practice. The central uncertainty regarding its use lies in whether the risk score can accurately predict who will develop aggressive prostate cancer that needs to be treated and who won’t. The research to date has been mixed, and experts remain polarized.

“PRS absolutely, irrefutably can distinguish between the probability of somebody developing prostate cancer or not. Nobody could look at the data and argue with that,” said Todd Morgan, MD, a genomics researcher from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What [the data] so far haven’t really been able to do is distinguish whether somebody is likely to have clinically significant prostate cancer versus lower-risk prostate cancer.”
 

The promise of PRS in prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer – the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cancer killer – is a major target for PRS because it is considered one of the most heritable cancers, according to Burcu Darst, PhD, a genetic epidemiologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

Research in the area has intensified in recent years as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have become more affordable and the genetic information from these studies has been increasingly aggregated in biobanks.

“Because the sample sizes now are so much bigger than they used to be for GWAS studies, we’re able to develop much better polygenic risk scores than we were before,” said Dr. Darst.

Dr. Darst is lead author on the largest, most diverse prostate GWAS analysis, which led to the development of a PRS that is highly predictive of prostate cancer risk across diverse populations.

In the 2021 meta-analysis, which included 107,247 case patients and 127,006 control patients, Dr. Darst and colleagues identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants.

Compared with men at average genetic risk for prostate cancer – those in the 40%-60% genetic risk score category – men in the top 10% of the risk score (90%-100%) had between a 3.74-fold to fivefold higher risk for prostate cancer. However, the team did not find evidence that the genetic risk score could differentiate a person’s risk for aggressive versus nonaggressive disease.

As Dr. Darst’s team continues to improve the PRS, Dr. Darst says it will get better at predicting aggressive disease. One recent analysis from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that “although the PRS generally did not differentiate aggressive versus nonaggressive prostate cancer,” about 40% of men who will develop aggressive disease have a PRS in the top 20%, whereas only about 7% of men who will develop aggressive tumors have a PRS in the bottom 20%. Another recent study from Dr. Darst and colleagues found that PRS can distinguish between aggressive and nonaggressive disease in men of African ancestry.

These findings highlight “the potential clinical utility of the polygenic risk score,” Dr. Darst said.

Although the growing body of research makes Dr. Catalona, Dr. Darst, and others optimistic about PRS, the landscape is also littered with critics and studies showcasing its limitations.

An analysis, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that, compared with a contemporary clinical risk predictor, PRS did not improve prediction of aggressive prostate cancers. Another recent study, which used a 6.6 million–variant PRS to predict the risk of incident prostate cancer among 5,701 healthy men of European descent older than age 69, found that men in the top 20% of the PRS distribution “had an almost three times higher risk of prostate cancer,” compared with men in the lowest quintile; however, a higher PRS was not associated with a higher Gleason grade group, indicative of more aggressive disease.

“While a PRS for prostate cancer is strongly associated with incident risk” in the cohort, “the clinical utility of the PRS as a biomarker is currently limited by its inability to select for clinically significant disease,” the authors concluded.
 

Utility in practice?

Although PRS has been billed as a predictive test, Dr. Catalona believes PRS could have a range of uses both before and after diagnosis.

PRS may, for instance, guide treatment choices for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, Dr. Catalona noted. For men with a PRS that signals a higher risk for aggressive disease, a positive prostate biopsy result could help them decide whether to seek active treatment with surgery or radiation or go on active surveillance.

PRS could also help inform cancer screening. If a PRS test found a patient’s risk for prostate cancer was high, that person could decide to seek PSA screening before age 50 – the recommended age for average-risk men.

However, Aroon Hingorani, MD, a professor of genetic epidemiology at the University College London, expressed concern over using PRS to inform cancer screenings.

Part of the issue, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues explained in a recent article in the BMJ, is that “risk is notoriously difficult to communicate.”

PRS estimates a person’s relative risk for a disease but does not factor in the underlying population risk. Risk prediction should include both, Dr. Hingorani said.

People with high-risk scores may, for instance, discuss earlier screening with their clinician, even if their absolute risk for the disease – which accounts for both relative risk and underlying population disease risk – is still small, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues said. “Conversely, people who do not have ‘high risk’ polygenic scores might be less likely to seek medical attention for concerning symptoms, or their clinicians might be less inclined to investigate.”

Given this, Dr. Hingorani and colleagues believe polygenic scores “will always be limited in their ability to predict disease” and “will always remain one of many risk factors,” such as environmental influences.

Another caveat is that PRS generally is based on data collected from European populations, said Eric Klein, MD, chairman emeritus of urology at the Cleveland Clinic and now a scientist at the biotechnology company Grail, which developed the Galleri blood test that screens for 50 types of cancer. While a valid concern, “that’s easy to fix ultimately,” he said, as the diversity of inputs from various ethnicities increases over time.

Although several companies offer PRS products, moving PRS into the clinic would require an infrastructure for testing which does not yet exist in the U.S., said Dr. Catalona.

Giordano Botta, PhD, CEO of New York–based PRS software start-up Alleica, which bills itself as the Polygenic Risk Score Company, said “test demand is growing rapidly.” His company offers PRS scores that integrate up to 700,000 markers for prostate cancer depending on ancestry and charges patients $250 out of pocket for testing.

Dr. Botta noted that thousands of American patients have undergone PRS testing through his company. Several health systems, including Penn Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, have been using the test to help “see beyond what traditional risk factors allow,” he said.

However, this and other PRS tests are not yet widely used in the primary care setting.

A major barrier to wider adoption is that experts remain divided on its clinical utility. “People either say it’s ready, and it should be implemented, or they say it’s never going to work,” said Sowmiya Moorthie, PhD, a senior policy analyst with the PHG Foundation, a Cambridge University–associated think tank.

Dr. Klein sits in the optimistic camp. He envisions a day soon when patients will undergo whole-genome testing to collect data on risk scores and incorporate the full genome into the electronic record. At a certain age, primary care physicians would then query the data to determine the patient’s germline risk for a variety of diseases.

“At age 45, if I were a primary care physician seeing a male, I would query the PRS for prostate cancer, and if the risks were low, I would say, ‘You don’t need your first PSA probably until you’re 50,’ ” Dr. Klein said. “If your risk is high, I’d say, ‘Let’s do a baseline PSA now.’ ”

We would then have the data to watch these patients a little more closely, he said.

Dr. Moorthie, however, remains more reserved about the future of PRS. “I take the middle ground and say, I think there is some value because it’s an additional data point,” Dr. Moorthie said. “And I can see it having value in certain scenarios, but we still don’t have a clear picture of what these are and how best to use and communicate this information.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO - The American Urological Association and the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) for the first time have taken a position on the type of biopsy men with prostate lesions should undergo, endorsing both transperineal and transrectal biopsy instead of choosing one over the other.

The new guidelines, issued at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association, contrast with 2021 recommendations from the European Association of Urologists (EAU), which regard the transperineal approach as superior to and safer than the transrectal approach.

The new guidelines state: “Clinicians may use either a transrectal or transperineal biopsy route when performing a biopsy. (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Level: Grade C).” Grade C is the lowest grade of acceptance the guideline committee could issue, according to Daniel Lin, MD, vice-chair of the AUA guideline panel.

“The AUA looked at all the higher-level data comparing the two procedures. There was a lack of that data,” Dr. Lin, chief of urologic oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He said the literature consists mainly of systematic single-center reviews, rather than multicenter randomized trials.

But Hendrik Van Poppel, MD, policy chief for the EAU, said that in Europe, transrectal biopsies are now considered “medical malpractice.”

Philip Cornford, MD, associate professor of urology at the University of Liverpool, England, and chair of the prostate biopsy guidelines panel for the EAU, said the society in 2021 concluded that the transperineal approach is the preferred one.

The EAU stated that transperineal prostate biopsies should be performed “due to the lower risk of infectious complications.” The EAU described the evidence as strong: A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 1,330 patients showed that for patients undergoing transperineal biopsy, infectious complications were significantly reduced.

Dr. Cornford said in essence, the EAU made its decision out of concern about infections, whereas the AUA and SUO based their decision on the ability of the methods to detect cancer.

Advocates for transperineal procedures cite several studies that show that the rate of infection, including sepsis, with such biopsies is virtually zero.

However, Dr. Lin noted that the committee said existing data on infection did not support this position. He also cited a “a fairly compelling” single-center randomized study with 750 patients that showed no difference in infection rates. The study was presented at the AUA meeting.
 

Agents of death and destruction?

Badar Mian, MD, professor of surgery at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, who led the study, told an AUA session that urology has been trapped in an “echo chamber” regarding the relative safety of biopsies.

Clinicians hear “loud proclamations, which get repeated and magnified, that there is a real zero risk of complications after transperineal biopsies as compared to the horrendous 5% to 10% or higher rate of transrectal biopsy complications and that you, with your transrectal biopsies, are the cause of death and destruction all around,” Dr. Mian said. “Well, if you step out of the echo chamber, what you’ll find is that the accurate complications amongst the two procedures are not that dramatically different, much less dramatic than what you’ve been told to believe.”

The campaign to end transrectal biopsies in Europe started in 2018 with the death of a Norwegian man who experienced an infection after the procedure. Truls Bjerklund Johansen, MD, who’d performed the biopsy on the patient and who worked with the man’s daughter to change national practice, persuaded the EAU to look at the issue.

Advocates also say transperineal biopsies are better at detecting anterior and apical cancers.

“I would agree the data on cancer detection is less convincing, but that is not the basis of the EAU recommendation,” Dr. Cornford said.

Arvin George, MD, leads the transperineal biopsy program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and directs the transperineal training program at the AUA’s annual meeting. He said his course was sold out early and included about 60 trainees.

Dr. George said the new guideline statement “is not an unequivocal endorsement for transperineal biopsy as the preferred approach for diagnostic sampling but rather an acknowledgment of this approach as an alternative option.”

He said that although the new position statement should increase awareness of the transperineal approach in the United States, “without a strong recommendation, the guideline statement is unlikely to spark a large switch to the transperineal biopsy but rather supports the continued slow and steady adoption.”

Matthew Allaway, DO, founder of Perineologic, developer of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System, said industry figures show that about 10% of the 1.5 million prostate biopsies performed in the United States annually are performed transperineally, a doubling in 2 years.

Jeremy Grummet, MD, clinical professor of urology at Monash University, Melbourne, and leader of the TREXIT (Transperineal Exit) movement to abandon transrectal procedures, said the AUA guidelines are biased toward “physician convenience.”
 

Lack of training

The AUA said another reason it did not endorse the transperineal approach was that currently, American urologists lack training and experience with transperineal procedures.

Dr. Grummet blamed major medical centers for any gap in the familiarity of clinicians with transperineal biopsies, which have been available for more than a decade.

“It is incumbent on the leaders of urology departments globally to ensure that their colleagues are trained in transperineal biopsy and have access to the appropriate equipment,” he said in an interview. “Lack of training didn’t seem to prevent the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy – a far more complex procedure.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with asymptomatic renal stones can qualify for an active surveillance program, Swiss researchers report at the American Urological Association 2023 Annual Meeting.

Kevin Stritt, MD, chief resident in the urology department at Lausanne University Hospital, said kidney stones often pass without symptoms. But until now, data on the frequency of asymptomatic, spontaneous passage of stones have been lacking.

The new data come from the NOSTONE trial, a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to assess the efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide in the prevention of recurrence in patients with recurrent calcium-containing kidney stones.

Dr. Stritt and colleagues evaluated the natural history of asymptomatic renal stones during a median follow-up of 35 months. “We found for the first time that a relevant number of kidney stone passages [39%] were asymptomatic, spontaneous stone passages,” Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

All asymptomatic spontaneous stone passages were analyzed in a comparison of the total number of kidney stones on low-dose, nonintravenous contrast CT imaging at the beginning and end of the 3-year follow-up.

Of the 403 stones passed spontaneously, 61% (245) were symptomatic stone passages and 39% (158) were asymptomatic stone passages, Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

Asymptomatic stones were a median size of 2.4 mm, and symptomatic stones were 2.15 mm, which was not significantly different (P = .366), according to the researchers. Dr. Stritt said the spontaneous passage of asymptomatic stones was largely influenced by a higher number of stones on CT imaging at randomization (P = .001) and a lower total stone volume (P = .001).

Ephrem Olweny, MD, an assistant professor of urology and section chief of endourology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said previous studies have found that the rate of spontaneous passage of kidney stones ranges from 3% to 29%.

“But this secondary analysis of data from a prior multicenter prospective randomized trial offers higher-quality data that will be of value in guiding patient counseling,” Dr. Olweny said.

“Observation should be initially offered to these patients. However, patients should be informed that 52% are likely to develop symptoms, and some may indeed opt for preemptive surgical removal,” he added.

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the department of urology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital, said the incidence of kidney stones has been increasing worldwide, affecting approximately 12% of men and 6% of women. Dehydration and diets high in sodium and calcium are major factors, he said.

Patients with a history of stones have a 50% risk of recurrence in the next 5 years, and an 80% risk in their lifetime, he added.

Dr. Schulsinger said the message from the Swiss study is that urologists can be “comfortable” watching small stones, those averaging 2.4 mm or less in size. “But if a patient has a 7- or  8-mm stone, you might be more inclined to manage that patient a little bit more aggressively.”

Roughly half of patients with stones less than 2 mm will pass it in about 8 days, he said. 

Dr. Olweny noted that the study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of thiazides in preventing the recurrence of calcium stones. “The original study was not specifically designed to look at asymptomatic stone passage rates for small renal stones, and therefore, the observed rates may not reflect the most precise estimates,” he said.

Dr. Stritt said his group has not studied the size limit of stones that pass spontaneously without symptoms. “This study could serve to construct recurrence prediction models based on medical history and stone burden on CT imaging. More well-designed research on this topic is urgently needed,” he said. “These results should encourage urologists to counsel patients about the possibility of an active surveillance strategy when smaller kidney stones are present.”

The author and independent commentators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with asymptomatic renal stones can qualify for an active surveillance program, Swiss researchers report at the American Urological Association 2023 Annual Meeting.

Kevin Stritt, MD, chief resident in the urology department at Lausanne University Hospital, said kidney stones often pass without symptoms. But until now, data on the frequency of asymptomatic, spontaneous passage of stones have been lacking.

The new data come from the NOSTONE trial, a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to assess the efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide in the prevention of recurrence in patients with recurrent calcium-containing kidney stones.

Dr. Stritt and colleagues evaluated the natural history of asymptomatic renal stones during a median follow-up of 35 months. “We found for the first time that a relevant number of kidney stone passages [39%] were asymptomatic, spontaneous stone passages,” Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

All asymptomatic spontaneous stone passages were analyzed in a comparison of the total number of kidney stones on low-dose, nonintravenous contrast CT imaging at the beginning and end of the 3-year follow-up.

Of the 403 stones passed spontaneously, 61% (245) were symptomatic stone passages and 39% (158) were asymptomatic stone passages, Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

Asymptomatic stones were a median size of 2.4 mm, and symptomatic stones were 2.15 mm, which was not significantly different (P = .366), according to the researchers. Dr. Stritt said the spontaneous passage of asymptomatic stones was largely influenced by a higher number of stones on CT imaging at randomization (P = .001) and a lower total stone volume (P = .001).

Ephrem Olweny, MD, an assistant professor of urology and section chief of endourology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said previous studies have found that the rate of spontaneous passage of kidney stones ranges from 3% to 29%.

“But this secondary analysis of data from a prior multicenter prospective randomized trial offers higher-quality data that will be of value in guiding patient counseling,” Dr. Olweny said.

“Observation should be initially offered to these patients. However, patients should be informed that 52% are likely to develop symptoms, and some may indeed opt for preemptive surgical removal,” he added.

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the department of urology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital, said the incidence of kidney stones has been increasing worldwide, affecting approximately 12% of men and 6% of women. Dehydration and diets high in sodium and calcium are major factors, he said.

Patients with a history of stones have a 50% risk of recurrence in the next 5 years, and an 80% risk in their lifetime, he added.

Dr. Schulsinger said the message from the Swiss study is that urologists can be “comfortable” watching small stones, those averaging 2.4 mm or less in size. “But if a patient has a 7- or  8-mm stone, you might be more inclined to manage that patient a little bit more aggressively.”

Roughly half of patients with stones less than 2 mm will pass it in about 8 days, he said. 

Dr. Olweny noted that the study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of thiazides in preventing the recurrence of calcium stones. “The original study was not specifically designed to look at asymptomatic stone passage rates for small renal stones, and therefore, the observed rates may not reflect the most precise estimates,” he said.

Dr. Stritt said his group has not studied the size limit of stones that pass spontaneously without symptoms. “This study could serve to construct recurrence prediction models based on medical history and stone burden on CT imaging. More well-designed research on this topic is urgently needed,” he said. “These results should encourage urologists to counsel patients about the possibility of an active surveillance strategy when smaller kidney stones are present.”

The author and independent commentators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with asymptomatic renal stones can qualify for an active surveillance program, Swiss researchers report at the American Urological Association 2023 Annual Meeting.

Kevin Stritt, MD, chief resident in the urology department at Lausanne University Hospital, said kidney stones often pass without symptoms. But until now, data on the frequency of asymptomatic, spontaneous passage of stones have been lacking.

The new data come from the NOSTONE trial, a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial to assess the efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide in the prevention of recurrence in patients with recurrent calcium-containing kidney stones.

Dr. Stritt and colleagues evaluated the natural history of asymptomatic renal stones during a median follow-up of 35 months. “We found for the first time that a relevant number of kidney stone passages [39%] were asymptomatic, spontaneous stone passages,” Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

All asymptomatic spontaneous stone passages were analyzed in a comparison of the total number of kidney stones on low-dose, nonintravenous contrast CT imaging at the beginning and end of the 3-year follow-up.

Of the 403 stones passed spontaneously, 61% (245) were symptomatic stone passages and 39% (158) were asymptomatic stone passages, Dr. Stritt told this news organization.

Asymptomatic stones were a median size of 2.4 mm, and symptomatic stones were 2.15 mm, which was not significantly different (P = .366), according to the researchers. Dr. Stritt said the spontaneous passage of asymptomatic stones was largely influenced by a higher number of stones on CT imaging at randomization (P = .001) and a lower total stone volume (P = .001).

Ephrem Olweny, MD, an assistant professor of urology and section chief of endourology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said previous studies have found that the rate of spontaneous passage of kidney stones ranges from 3% to 29%.

“But this secondary analysis of data from a prior multicenter prospective randomized trial offers higher-quality data that will be of value in guiding patient counseling,” Dr. Olweny said.

“Observation should be initially offered to these patients. However, patients should be informed that 52% are likely to develop symptoms, and some may indeed opt for preemptive surgical removal,” he added.

David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the department of urology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University Hospital, said the incidence of kidney stones has been increasing worldwide, affecting approximately 12% of men and 6% of women. Dehydration and diets high in sodium and calcium are major factors, he said.

Patients with a history of stones have a 50% risk of recurrence in the next 5 years, and an 80% risk in their lifetime, he added.

Dr. Schulsinger said the message from the Swiss study is that urologists can be “comfortable” watching small stones, those averaging 2.4 mm or less in size. “But if a patient has a 7- or  8-mm stone, you might be more inclined to manage that patient a little bit more aggressively.”

Roughly half of patients with stones less than 2 mm will pass it in about 8 days, he said. 

Dr. Olweny noted that the study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy of thiazides in preventing the recurrence of calcium stones. “The original study was not specifically designed to look at asymptomatic stone passage rates for small renal stones, and therefore, the observed rates may not reflect the most precise estimates,” he said.

Dr. Stritt said his group has not studied the size limit of stones that pass spontaneously without symptoms. “This study could serve to construct recurrence prediction models based on medical history and stone burden on CT imaging. More well-designed research on this topic is urgently needed,” he said. “These results should encourage urologists to counsel patients about the possibility of an active surveillance strategy when smaller kidney stones are present.”

The author and independent commentators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An old dog – nitrous oxide – can learn new tricks, managing pain in men undergoing transrectal biopsies, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

“At concentrations of less than 50%, nitrous oxide is classified as a minimal sedative, making it a promising option for many urologic outpatient procedures such as prostate biopsies,” said Heidi Rayala, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who helped conduct the study.

Nitrous oxide is best known as a pain medication and anesthetic during dental procedures and childbirth, after trauma, and in end-of-life care.

In the new study, Dr. Rayala and her colleagues at Harvard and Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, randomly assigned 128 men to self-administered nitrous oxide (SANO) or oxygen as a placebo. Patients in the SANO group had a smaller change in post-biopsy pain score (Visual Analog Scale for pain, 0.43 vs. 1.03; P = .03) and lower odds of experiencing pain during the procedure (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04).

A comparison of anxiety scores in the two groups failed to find a statistically significant difference between SANO and placebo. However, more men who received nitrous oxide said they tolerated the procedure “better than expected” (61% vs. 41%; P = 0.02), according to the researchers.

Dr. Rayala said that the researchers used the Nitrouseal system (Sedation Systems), in which the patient holds a mask to their face and works with staff to adjust the gas levels to the desired amount. The system is governed to max out at 50% nitrous oxide, ensuring “minimal sedation concentrations, so anesthesia personnel are not required,” she said.

“At levels of less than 50%, patients respond normally to verbal commands and maintain normal airway reflexes,” Dr. Rayala added. “This provides an advantage in that patients do not require the presence of anesthesia personnel.” And because the body eliminates the gas within about 5 minutes, patients do not require an escort home, she said.

This system is also self-scavenging to protect the operating urologist and other personnel from environmental exposure to nitrous oxide.

Dr. Rayala said that three patients (2.3%) found the mask uncomfortable, but in follow-up studies the clinicians have done a better job of preparing patients for the feeling of the mask, making a marked difference. Headaches and nausea are the most commonly reported complaints at concentrations above 50%.

“We did not have patients report headaches or nausea in new study (by the BIDMC group),” she said. This study has been submitted for publication.

Clinicians outside the United States have been quicker to embrace nitrous oxide for prostate procedures.

In a randomized controlled trial, researchers in Australia found no significant improvement in pain scores at 15 minutes from the use of nitrous oxide during transrectal biopsies; however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Stephen McCombie, MD, a consultant at Perth Urology Clinic, Australia, who has been adapting the nitrous oxide protocol for transrectal biopsies to transperineal procedures, said that the Beth Israel study “adds to the evidence to support adjunct use of mild inhalational anesthetics and analgesics during prostate biopsies to improve the patient experience of the procedure.”

He said that the role for these agents may grow with the global trend away from transrectal prostate biopsies and toward transperineal biopsies, largely driven by increasing rates of sepsis after transrectal biopsies.

“While transperineal biopsies can be more painful then transrectal biopsies when performed under local anesthesia, perhaps due to biopsies being taken through the highly sensate perineum as opposed to above the dentate line, optimization of the technique can significantly reduce the discomfort associated with the procedure, which may be further reduced with these agents,” Dr. McCombie said.

“Studies indicate that transperineal biopsies can be more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsies,” Dr. Rayala said. “We do offer transperineal biopsies at BIDMC, and we are gearing up to repeat the SANO study” for those patients.

Dr. Rayala and Dr. McCombie have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Wireless tibial neurostimulation devices that are implanted to treat urinary incontinence appear to be effective at reducing the urge to void, according to new findings presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

As many as half of women in the United States aged 60 and older will experience urinary incontinence. Of those, roughly one in four experience urge urinary incontinence, marked by a sudden need to void that cannot be fully suppressed.

Researchers studied the benefits of the RENOVA iStim (BlueWind Medical) implantable tibial neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder in the OASIS trial.

Study investigator Roger R. Dmochowski, MD, MMHC, professor of urology and surgery and associate surgeon-in-chief at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the first-line treatment of urinary incontinence is lifestyle changes to retrain the bladder or physical therapy, including pelvic floor and Kegel exercises, per AUA guidelines. He said the success rate is about 30% and is not sustained. Second-line treatments include medications, which most (60%) patients stop taking by 6 months.

More than three-quarters of the 151 women who received the device responded to therapy at 1 year, and 84.6% of the patients showed improvement, according to Dr. Dmochowski.

The participants (mean age, 58.8) demonstrated a mean baseline of 4.8 urge incidents per day (standard deviation, 2.9) and 10 voids/day (SD, 3.3). No device or procedure-related serious adverse events were reported at 12 months. Half of the women no longer had symptoms on three consecutive days, Dr. Dmochowski said.

Because urge urinary incontinence is a chronic condition, “treatment with the BlueWind System will be ongoing, with frequency determined based on the patient’s response,” Dr. Dmochowski said. “The patient is then empowered to control when and where they perform therapy.”

“The device is activated by the external wearable. It’s like an on-off switch. It has a receiver within it that basically has the capacity to be turned on and off by the wearable, which is the control device. The device is in an off-position until the wearable is applied,” he said.

He said the device should be worn twice a day for about 20 minutes, with many patients using it less.

Only one implanted tibial neuromodulation device has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration – eCOIN (Valencia Technologies). The RENOVA iStim is an investigational device under review by the FDA, Dr. Dmochowski said.

In installing the device, Dr. Dmochowski said urologists use a subfascial technique to enable direct visualization of the tibial nerve and suture fixation that increases the possibility of a predictable placement. Patients use an external wearable, which activates the implant, without concern for battery longevity or replacement.

“This therapy is not associated with any adverse effects and may be beneficial for patients who do not respond to other treatments for OAB such as medications or Botox,” said Carol E. Bretschneider, MD, a urogynecologic and pelvic surgeon at Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, outside Chicago. “Neurostimulators can be a great advanced therapy option for patients who do not respond to more conservative treatments or cannot take or tolerate a medication.”

The devices do not stimulate or strengthen muscles but act by modulating the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor, added Dr. Bretschneider, who was not involved in the study.

Other treatments for urge incontinence can include acupuncture, or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, to target the posterior tibial nerve in the ankle, which shares the same nerve root that controls the bladder, according to Aron Liaw, MD, a reconstructive urologist and assistant professor of urology at Wayne State University in Detroit. This treatment has been shown to be at least as effective as available medications, but with fewer side effects, he said.

But regular stimulation is necessary to achieve and preserve efficacy, he said.

Dr. Liaw, who was not involved in the neuromodulation study, said the benefits of a device like Renova iStim are that implantation is relatively easy and can be performed in office settings, and patients can then treat themselves at home. However, because the new study did not compare the device to other treatments or a placebo device, its relative benefits are unclear, he said,

Other treatments for urge urinary incontinence, such as bladder Botox and sacral neuromodulation, also are minimally invasive and have proven benefit, “so a device like this could well be less effective with little other advantage,” he said.

“Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, but making big lifestyle changes is not always easy,” added Dr. Liaw. “I have found neuromodulation [to be] very effective, especially in conjunction with lifestyle changes.”

BlueWind Medical funds the OASIS trial. Dr. Dmochowski reported he received no grants nor has any relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bretschneider and Dr. Liaw report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.