Prevalence and management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of unknown metastatic status in the real-world setting: The AfroDiTA study

Miguel Rodrigo-Aliaga,José L Alvarez-Ossorio,Andrés Rodríguez-Alonso,Ángela García-Porrero,Alba Quesada-García,Jacobo Muñoz Del Toro,Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.09.003
2024-09-21
Abstract:Background: Early identification and management of metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients is crucial. This study aimed to describe the nonpharmacological management and characteristics of patients with castration-resistant PC with unknown metastatic status (CRPC-MX) and estimate their prevalence in Spain. Methods: Cross-sectional, multicenter, real-world study including adult (≥18 years) CRPC-MX patients from 46 Urology services. In a first phase, patients on continuous ADT for ≥6 months were screened and classified as hormone-sensitive PC (HSPC), castration-resistant PC (CRPC), and unknown hormonal status, with metastases (M1), without (M0) and unknown metastatic status (MX) using an ad hoc designed algorithm. In Phase 2, 15 months (m) after Phase 1, all patients on ADT were reviewed and reclassified again using the algorithm. Results: Among 6169 eligible PC patients, 294 (4.8%) were classified as CRPC-MX, which decreased to 179 of 4050 (4.4%) 15 m after study initiation. We included 103 CRPC-MX patients with a median age at diagnosis of 75.4 years (IQR: 67.8, 80.4); 26 (25.2%) lacked a histological diagnosis, and only 25 (24.5%) received treatment with curative intent, despite ECOG being ≤1 at inclusion in 83.5%. In the 15 m before inclusion, most CRPC-MX patients had <5 prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determinations (80.6%) and no imaging (63.1%). After CRPC-MX identification (15 m after inclusion), metastatic status was assessed in 55.4%, with an increased number of patients with ≥5 PSA determinations (P = 0.0357), visits per patient (P < 0.0001), patients with some imaging test (P < 0.0001), imaging tests/patient (P < 0.0001), and visits to onco-urology specialized consultation units (52.0% before and 79.2% after). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of PC patients on ADT in the real-world setting are not appropriately followed up. Identification of CRPC-MX patients raised awareness among physicians and improved their adherence to guidelines, resulting in improved care for these patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?